HOW MUCH LOBBYING IS THERE IN WASHINGTON D.C., USA

The research here below was produced by Tim LaPira, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at James Madison University, and a Sunlight Foundation Academic Fellow.

"With the help of the lobbying industry, Washington's regional economy seems to have weathered the economic storm of recent years. Curiously, though, the seemingly simple question "How much lobbying is there in Washington" is surprisingly hard to answer. After Congress passed the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), which ostensibly required all "lobbyists" to report their activities on behalf of paying clients, the answer should be a no brainer: just find the legally-mandated disclosure forms, and count them up. The Center for Responsive Politics, with the support from the Sunlight Foundation, has been doing this for years.

The problem is that just about everybody in the influence world knows that these numbers fall short of reality. You might say "under-the-radar", "stealth", or "shadow" lobbying is a bit of an open secret in Washington. What we don't know is just how many shadow lobbyists there are.

The reason for the lack of transparency is clear: The LDA definition of "lobbyist" is too narrow. As defined by the LDA of 1995, a lobbyist is a person who 1) receives financial or other compensation for lobbying in excess of $ 2.500 per three month period; 2) makes more than one lobbying contact with federal officials; and 3) spends twenty per cent or more of his or her time over a three month period on lobbying activities on behalf of an employer or individual client. An organization is required to register under the LDA if it plans to engage in lobbying activities during any three month period and during that period incurs at least $ 10.000 in lobbying expenses. If lobbyists want, they can fully comply with the law and do virtually the same influence-for-pay as strategic policy consultants or historical advisers, and choose not to disclose.

Even lobbyists themselves seem to find little meaning in the term "lobbyist". The American League of Lobbyists even dropped the word "lobbyist" from their name to officially become the Association of Government Relations Professionals.

According to our research, about half of those involved in policy advocacy i.e. people in the private sector getting paid to influence public policy, regardless if they meet the strict LDA definition of "lobbyist" did NOT report lobbying activities (52.3%). That is, for every one lobbyist who does disclose his or her activities, there is one shadow lobbyist who does not.

If we assume that the cost of reported and stealth lobbying is the same that every one person accounts for an unweighted average of about $ 270,000 in lobbying influence per year, then we estimate that in the calendar year 2012, organized interests spent about $ 6.7 billion "relating" with the government. Let's put that number in perspective: For every one member of Congress, the influence industry produces about $ 12.5 million in lobbying. By comparison, the average 2012 budget for member of the House of Representative's office was only $ 1.3 million. So, in 2012 which was a presidential election year, in a down economy "government relaters" accounted for more than nine times the typical House member's official operating expenses.  What's more, the one-year $ 6.7 billion tally is about $ 500 million more than all the campaign money spent on the record setting 2012 election cycle. So if we multiply the one-year lobbying industry estimate by two years, then the relatively non-transparent lobbying industry inside the Beltway generated about twice-plus $ 1 billion more in 2011 and 2012 than the relatively highly regulated campaign finance system that influences politics outside the Beltway.

Who Discloses and Who Does Not?

Revolvers (lobbyists who worked inside the federal government) are more likely to disclose their lobbying, though 41% still choose to hide it. On the other hand, conventional lobbyists (those who were never on the federal payroll) are much more likely to be opaque about their influence activities. Which begs the question: Why are revolvers more transparent? Again, we can't say for sure because we don't have good, publicly disclosed data on the kind of influence activities these people are engaged in now. So we look more closely at where they used to work in the federal government for some clues.

Among revolvers only, those who previously worked in Congress were very much likely to file lobbying disclosure reports. But those whjo worked in bureaucracies in the executive branch are much less likely to do so. Apparently, not only is the legal term for "lobbyist" insufficiently narrow, there is little consensus on what it means to be a lobbyist, especially between those who worked on Capitol Hill versus those who worked in a federal agency.

Bottom line: It's needlessly hard to figure how much lobbying there actually is in Washington DC."

AALEP Comment:

Lobbyists, interest groups, and advocates of all kinds are increasingly influential and controversial both in American elections and governing, impacting the quality of campaigns and elections and later governing and policy making. Lobbyists influence the way issues and problems are framed and ultimately the way policy is made in Washington. They promote candidates and policies, raise money, sway voters, and continue their influence through major lobbying campaigns after an election. They provide services, such as general strategic advice; issue advocacy advertising, polling, and advice about media strategy; and organize get-out-the-vote (GOTV) strategies, general tactical guidance for candidates, and many volunteers.

Changing the lobbying idustry in the U.S. is difficult because of its size, adaptability, and the integral part it plays in pluralist democracy. By official estimates, the lobbying industry is the third-largest enterprise in Washington DC after government and tourism .

The statutory definition of “lobbyist” under the LDA is narrow and does not recognize every person in Washington’s advocacy industry. A broader definition of advocacy includes all methods of influencing public policy decisions, including traditional lobbying, such as personal contacts with policymakers, but also grassroots lobbying, testimony at public hearings, submissions to administrative rulemakings, legal and strategic advice on political and policy matters, coalition building, public relations operations, and political strategy development, all with the ultimate goal of shaping policy.