MAKING THE EU LOBBYING PROCESS MORE TRANSPARENT

What is proposed hereunder is the creation of a web-based system called ‘CHARLEMAGNE ’ that would be a forum for lobbyists, constituents, and other interested parties to come together to publicly and transparently debate legislation, and in the process provide EU staff, journalists, and the public access to the best available arguments, information, and ideas about public policy – all in a way that is easily searchable and sortable. In order to make CHARLEMAGNE easily navigable, different types of participants should use the system in different ways.

1. Registered Lobbyists : Registered lobbyists will be required to first briefly state their client organization’s position on a proposal (or amendment or section of a  proposal ), and if they wish, to provide a simple yes or no recommendation. The up or down votes will make it easy for anybody, including EU staff, to see who is for and who is opposed to particular policies. Lobbyists will be required to advertise whether they are representing non-profits, for-profits, trade or business associations), or state, local, or foreign governments. Lobbyists will also have the opportunity to provide as many supporting documents and arguments as they like, and they can update their pages as much as they like as new information becomes available (or they wish to respond to ongoing events). They will also be able to post separate pages for each state if they wish, in order to provide more targeted information to help individual offices better understand how their constituencies might be affected.

2. Constituents: CHARLEMAGNE will provide a systematic and central forum for constituents to register their opinions and for parliamentary offices to tally and track constituent opinion. It will also allow citizens to see how their opinions compare to other constituent opinions. Constituent opinion would work similarly to lobbyist input, but would be organized by state and tallied accordingly.

3. Members of the European Parliament:  Members of the European Parliament would be entitled to post pages that make the case for a particular proposal , section, or amendment and provide useful information. Additionally, they would also be able to post to their individual district/state sub-pages if they wish to make public their position on a given issue, or explain why they plan to or did vote a particular way. This will make it easier for constituents to find out where their  Representatives stand on issues.

4. The European Commission: CHARLEMAGNE should reflect the importance of the European Commission by providing a separate section for it to weigh in on its proposals.

5. The Media: In the 24/7 news cycle, deadlines are relentless. Rather than just relying on the most visible or recent press releases, journalists would also have immediate access to a list of anybody who is interested in a particular issue, giving them more choices on who to interview and the ability to find a broader range of perspectives in a timely fashion. The public and other interested parties will now see who is advocating for what, what their arguments are, and what information they are basing those arguments on. Rather than endless reporting speculating about who is saying what behind closed doors and how special interests are twisting arms, this could shift public debate more to the actual arguments by making those actual arguments and facts more easily accessible and comparable.

Using CHARLEMAGNE

Those who wish to use CHARLEMAGNE to research lobbying efforts would be able to search by proposal and within proposals  by section. You would be able to see which organizations are opposed and which are in favor, and each of those organizations would have a page outlining their arguments, providing relevant information and would have contact information should you want to learn more. You would be able to see what constituent opinion was like by district, state, or for the entire EU. CHARLEMAGNE would be of immense help to European Parliament staff and Members of the European Parliament who need to learn something very quickly about an issue. The sheer volume of information parliamentary staff have to cover means that staff are often scrambling to research issues. This would help them to do this more systematically, potentially transforming the nature of some parliamentary jobs. Public interest groups will also have a more level playing field on which to compete. They also will be able to see what corporations are arguing, and will more easily be able to respond to these allegations. Likewise, corporations can respond to any unfounded allegations their critics might be spouting.

Why Lobbyists Will Want to Participate

In defending their profession, lobbyists frequently argue that much of what they  do is providing technical expertise and innovative ideas from the outside world in order for the EU to be in the position to make informed and adequate decisions to the ever changing world we live in. However, there are understandable reasons why lobbyists might be reluctant to participate. The most likely is that they prefer to tailor their arguments to specific offices and to present different arguments publicly and privately, obscuring their rationales. If this is true, it would seem to make transparency all the more important. If that is indeed the case, lobbyists should welcome the opportunity to participate. By making what they do transparent, this system could help to dispel popular myths that lobbying is more about undue influence than citizen participation, part of an unhealthy nexus of business and political interests. Instead, by adopting this system, lobbyists could potentially improve their standing with the public by directing attention to the education and argument parts of lobbying. In order for CHARLEMAGNE to be effective, it must become the standard conduit for lobbying. The most straightforward way would be to simply require that all registered lobbyists must participate. However, this seems politically difficult to enact into legislation, and challenging to enforce. A more likely way for it to take hold is for a few early adopter MEPs offices to signal that they will only seriously entertain lobbying and constituent opinion that comes through CHARLEMAGNE The rationale for this could be simple: “If you can’t make a public case for your position, we aren’t interested in talking to you.” Once certain MEPs offices announce their intentions to use CHARLEMAGNE as their primary resource for learning about issues, lobbyists will have a clearer incentive to participate. Once some lobbyists start using CHARLEMAGNE , those on the other side of the issue will want to be able to respond to accusations. As the benefits of the system become clear, all offices and lobbyists will adopt CHARLEMAGNE as the primary clearinghouse for public policy debate and discussion. Certainly, this will not and should not entirely replace in-person meetings and phone calls and e-mails, nor is it designed to. In many ways, it has the potential to make in-person meetings more productive, since staffers and MEPs would have more opportunities to brush up on current information and arguments in advance of those meetings. Nor will this put a final end to the disproportionate influence that certain lobbyists or special interests have. Money will presumably still matter, as will relationships, as will constituents, as will party, as will any number of factors. There are dozens of reasons why lawmakers and their staff make the decisions that they do. Special interests will continue to try to influence outcomes and hiring well-connected lobbyists, and nothing proposed here will make this entirely irrelevant. But CHARLEMAGNE will hopefully render their advantages less important.