STOP LASHING OUT AGAINST LOBBYISTS !!!

It is something of a cliché in contemporary politics to criticize lobbyists. The reality of the matter is that the immediate, vitriolic repulsion with which the word “lobbyist” is often greeted is more a result of a misunderstanding of the profession than any inherent immorality within it.

To the average citizen, lobbyists are often considered to be malevolent forces working behind closed doors, greasing palms and twisting arms to get legislators to vote in a particular manner,  assumingly, contrary to otherwise good judgment of the lawmaker had he not been led astray. This applies to all political ideologies,  as there are invariably lobbyists on both sides of any proposal , allowing the losing side to place blame on lobbyists for their defeat . Interestingly, lobbyists are rarely credited for a legislative victory, a sign of how the commonplace perception of lobbying precludes the profession from possessing any positive aspects.

A closer examination at the legislative process reveals a much less sinister, even beneficial, interpretation of lobbying. First, lobbyists serve as a valuable source of information for lawmakers. Legislators cannot possibly be experts in every field that their legislative decisions affect, and so they must rely on lobbyists for such specialized knowledge. Lobbyists can give lawmakers insights into the consequences of pending legislation, especially consequences that the lawmakers may not have foreseen.

On the other side of the coin, lobbyists provide valuable information to their clients. Keeping track of all the pieces of legislation introduced at national and EU level, is an impossible task to manage unless done on a full-time (or nearly so) basis. Even the press can only fit so much into a single paper or news cycle, so it is perfectly sensible that various groups would hire an agent (or even several) to keep an eye on elected officials. This applies not only to businesses, but to any group of citizens united in a common interest willing to pay someone to represent their concerns to lawmakers directly.

Further, lobbyists are an additional link between lawmakers and their constituents. Certainly, they are not authoritative voices for an entire district or even industry, but they do provide lawmakers with a good yardstick measurement of public opinion for a particular segment of their constituency.

Naturally, those most capable of fulfilling a lobbyist’s job description are former lawmakers. They possess invaluable firsthand experience of the legislative process not possible to anyone else, and they have existing relationships with their former colleagues that do not require the slow process of building an amicable, working dialogue between lawmaker and lobbyist.

And yet, many people jump at the opportunity to place restrictions on when (or even if) a former lawmaker can become a lobbyist. Not only that, but there exists a whole subset of laws and regulations relating to the profession wholly unrelated (and often contrary) to the protection of individual rights.

Quite contrary to the belief that all lobbyists are wrench in the smooth functioning of the legislative process, a lobbyist’s moral status is dependent upon his own adherence to a rational code of ethics and upon the nature of the cause he represents. Groups devoted to advocating policies contrary to individual rights cannot produce moral lobbyists, as the lobbyist is simply immoral by association and by advocating anti-capitalist policies (regardless of if he agrees with them, and especially if he does not, as that makes him a traitor to himself as much as it makes him a traitor to reason).

Lobbyists representing rational groups, on the other hand, are not moral simply because they work on behalf a group advocating for rational policies. Rather, their moral status depends upon their fidelity to the principles and concerns of their clients.

All that aside, neither moral nor immoral lobbyists have a monopoly of influence over lawmakers. Ultimately, the lawmakers are the ones with the authority to pass legislation, and they often do so against the sound arguments of rational lobbyists.

If one wants to prevent breakdowns in the democratic process, then one should strive to limit the ones making the laws, not merely the ones speaking on behalf of a particular proposal or policy. The lobbyist is doing nothing but expressing their free speech rights, even if what they are saying is irrational. The legislator (or bureaucrat as lobbyists deal with many parts of any government) is the one implementing such an irrational vision.

In fact, the entire career of “lobbyist” would largely disappear if an individual or group of individuals had nothing to lose or gain through the passage of new legislation and it would be a waste of resources to hire a lobbyist to act as one’s agent in the legislature.

All individuals have been frustrated by some law or regulation enacted by the government at some point or another, but it is important to direct that frustration at its proper source. Rather than lashing out against the groups and individuals doing their best to live within our mixed economic culture of pull, radicals for capitalism should strike at the source of that culture itself,  at the shortcomings of  governance and at the ideas exploiting and exacerbating those shortcomings. Arguing for increased restrictions on the profession of lobbying would do little to remedy anti-capitalist policies, and would actually do much to injure the voices of groups lobbying on behalf of capitalism. Where lobbyists and their clients advocate irrational causes, those causes should be opposed clearly, but through intellectual means, not those that limit their free speech rights . If anyone truly wants to eliminate lobbying as a profession (and, again, in a rational political system, it likely would not be), then they should focus on taking away the regulatory powers of public officials that make lobbying necessary in the first place.

What is negative about lobbying is the absence of transparency. So what is the answer? Total transparency.

Here's a simple proposal:

1. Every lobbyist visiting a Member of the European Parliament or Commission official to influence official action  should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).
2. Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist's name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the "ask" or "asks," to be updated after meeting) 

This would apply every time at every meeting. Of course, this could be somewhat burdensome on lobbyists . Some lobbyists might claim this would require the revelation of confidential information of value to competitors. That's an understandable concern.

But the answer is this: If you are worried about competitors knowing about what you are asking a public official, then don't ask. Once you go to a public official to ask for something, you lose your right to confidentiality. Period.

The effect of this "total transparency" lobbying reform would be a level playing field for all: When a lobbyist asks a legislator or Commission official to do something, they both know that the public will know everything and, thus, any actions taken will be accountable to the public.

With total transparency, lobbyists and the officials they try to influence will have to ask themselves the question "would I mind if this lobbying meeting is fully reported in all respects in tomorrow's newspaper?" If the answer is yes and the meeting is canceled for that reason, that is a good thing for the public and certainly for the lobbyist and the legislator as well, who probably do not want to risk going to jail.