IN THE DEFENCE OF LOBBYING

Lobbying involves the advocacy of an interest that is affected, actually or potentially, by the decisions of government leaders. Individuals and interest groups alike can lobby governments, and governments can even lobby each other.

The practice of lobbying provides a forum for the resolution of conflicts among often diverse and competing points of view; provides information, analysis, and opinions to legislators and government leaders to allow for informed and balanced decision making; and creates a system of checks and balances that allows competition among interest groups, keeping any one group from attaining a permanent position of power. Lobbyists can help the legislative process work more effectively by providing lawmakers with reliable data and accurate assessment of a bill’s effect.

The role lobbyists play in the legislative arena can be compared to that of lawyers in the judicial arena. Just as lawyers provide the trier of fact (judge or jury) with points of view on the legal issues pertaining to a case, so do lobbyists provide local, national and EU policymakers with points of view on public policy issues.

Although lobbying as a whole serves as a checks-and balances safeguard on the legislative process, individual lobbyists are not necessarily equal. Unlike voters, who each get one vote, lobbyists vary in their degree of influence. The level of influence a lobbyist has over the legislative process is often proportional to the resources- time and money- the lobbyist can spend to achieve its legislative goal. Some people think lobbyists in general have too much power. 

Contemporary lobbying methods include high-tech communication techniques, coalitions among groups and industries sharing the same political goals, and campaigns to mobilize constituents at the grassroots level. Each type of lobbyists attempts to win support for a particular point of view. 

There is a continuing debate over the proper role of lobbyists in a democratic society. Lobbyists contend they offer a valuable service to legislators and government officials, providing information and raising questions about pending legislation or executive action. Critics argue that lobbyists are nothing more than influence peddlers who seek political and legislative favors for their clients.

The perception that lobbyists and the interest groups they represent have corrupted the political process has led to the introduction in some countries of legislation that regulates lobbyists. Nevertheless, a fundamental conflict remains over the extent to which government may regulate lobbyists and lobbying activities. Those opposed to restrictions on lobbying argue that citizens should have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Placing restrictions on lobbyists impairs this right. On the other side, critics of lobbyists assert that regulations are needed to preserve the democratic process and to ensure the legitimacy of government. Many people have become cynical about politicians and government, perceiving that only lobbyists have access to the  halls of power.

Lobbyists argue that they represent every conceivable interest and it is clear that there is a demand for lobbying. The size and complexity of the EU have, in large part, driven the need for lobbyists to help define positions on issues of public policy. Moreover, on all issues of widespread concern, lobbyists are found on both sides, producing one more set of checks and balances that undercuts the simplistic picture of corruption and favoritism.

Supporters of strict regulation of lobbyists contend that regulation is needed to prevent special interests from controlling the political process, to ensure ethical behavior on the part of the lawmakers and government officials, and to enhance the public’s confidence on the government. While lobbyists have a place in the legislative process, concede many critics, they must be prevented from using money and favors improperly to influence legislators and their staffs.

Critics of lobbying note that reasonable regulation of lobbying does not prevent lobbyists from openly and appropriately communicating with government in regard to legislation. Critics of lobbying also support regulation that forces the public disclosure of whom lobbyists represent. Registration of lobbyists is a minimally restrictive means of serving public interest, yet it gives public information on which interest groups are involved in pending legislative matters. Critics argue that lobbyists should not be permitted to work their influence in anonymity. The public has a right to know what interest groups have shaped legislation.

The public does not have to rely solely on the integrity of lawmakers and lobbyists to protect the public interest. Perhaps the most effective self-correcting mechanism in the policy process is the intense competition to be right. No single interest, no lobbyist, has a monopoly on access and information. Lawmakers and their staff, if they are any good, as most are, do not rely on a single source of information when making policy decisions. They indeed have multiple information resources, so while lobbyists have an opportunity to influence policy decisions by informing lawmakers of their client’s view, they are generally not the only source a lawmaker relies on, and there is additionally no guarantee the lawmaker will even listen. The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. Moreover, another built-in safeguard is that no policy decision is ever final. What can be done, can be undone or changed.

Public policy advocacy plays a vital role in promoting effective representative government. By providing focused expertise and analysis to help public officials make informed decisions, lobbyists sustain and advance the policy process.

The most basic function of the lobbyist is to educate by providing information, and it is axiomatic that legislators benefit when they can consider information from a broad range of interested parties. Government has become sufficiently complex that, without the information lobbyists bring to legislators, decision making would be—at best—poorly informed. Because lobbyists often have information not available to members and staff, they perform a critical function by confirming information and even informing lawmakers of unintended consequences of their proposals. Without such feedback, legislators and regulators might fail to achieve their objectives and could even do more harm than good. It is sometimes the case that without input from the erstwhile “beneficiary” of a new law or regulation, the provision would produce unwelcome results. Public policy advocacy is also essential to the ability of individuals, interest groups, and businesses to successfully petition and monitor their government. Lobbyists play a critical “intermediating role” by enabling people and businesses to understand how government works and what government is working on, and then helping these people and businesses identify and communicate their interests to the government in an effective manner. As the scope of government increases and a larger and larger number of individuals and businesses are touched by government regulations, sophisticated involvement in the policy process has become even more critical. One of the biggest challenges for people when they’re faced with a public policy issue is defining what the issue is from the perspective of people in government. The increasing complexity of government further supports the need for skilled policy advocates to enable the public to effectively monitor, comprehend, and petition the government.

A lobbyist’s job is complex. First, meeting with and communicating with government officials usually represent only a small portion of a lobbyist’s time. A far greater portion of time is generally devoted to other aspects of preparation: researching and analyzing legislation or regulatory proposals, monitoring and reporting on developments, attending parliamentary or regulatory hearings, working with coalitions interested in the same issues, developing strategy and evaluating tactics, and communicating with clients about the implications of various policies, proposals, and developments. Second, as a lobbyist, who you represent and what you have to say on their behalf are more important than who you are. The key to successful lobbying is providing a more persuasive analysis of the issue on the merits, explaining of the issue in terms of constituent interests, and educating on issue and the implications of alternative vote outcomes. Third, part and parcel of persuasion on the merits is the advocate’s reputation and credibility. Lobbying is by necessity honorable, because a lobbyist is only as good as his reputation. A reputation is built by being forthcoming and honest. If you don’t provide the full story or all the information, not only will you not be trusted, but your reputation will reflect this. And then doing your job will become impossible. To be a credible lobbyist , you have to consistently provide credible, valuable information.  The most effective lobbyists are those who provide credible information in a concise fashion and who also present and address the opposing view. Fourth, while a persuasive message and a credible messenger are necessary for successful advocacy, they are hardly sufficient. The modern advocacy environment is extremely competitive and strategies for successful influence are necessarily complex and multi-dimensional, requiring the messenger to also be a procedural expert grounded in the substance of the issue at hand. Indeed, to  be successful lobbyists need to be substantive policy experts and communications strategists able to run lobbying efforts like a sophisticated political campaign. Lobbying is an enterprise that demands a multitude of strategic and intellectual skills, and adeptness at tactics and communications, all conducted at warp speed.