What is lobbying?
Most people think they know what lobbying means,
but this field is one where the definition is part of the controversy. One
clear definition is offered in the "Principles for the Ethical Conduct of
Lobbying" developed by Georgetown's Woodstock Center: Lobbying "means
the deliberate attempt to influence political decisions through various forms
of advocacy directed at policymakers on behalf of another person, organization
or group."
What does lobbying have to do with ethics?
Periodic scandals make many Americans skeptical
about the role of lobbying in a democracy, but the right to try to influence
legislation is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people "to petition
the government for a redress of grievances." This protection assumes that
people should be involved in the decisions that affect them and that advocacy
for a variety of causes is a crucial part of good decision making.
What ethical dilemmas does lobbying present?
Since the ethical foundation of lobbying is the
vigorous public debate necessary for informed decision making, ethical dilemmas
related to lobbying tend to arise when various behaviors by lobbyists and
lawmakers undermine the fairness and transparency of that process and do not
contribute to the common good.
Fairness
The most obviously unethical (and illegal)
practice associated with lobbying is paying a policy maker to vote in a
favorable way or rewarding him or her after a vote with valuable
considerations. If this practice were allowed, people and organizations with
money would always win the day. But even with outright gifts to lawmakers
outlawed, there are subtler ways to "buy" undue influence. As we
write, Congress is debating lobby reform that would disallow lobbyists paying
for congressional travel and lavish meals. Local officials are faced with
similar temptations-tickets to games or concerts, dinners in expensive
restaurants, etc.
Fairness questions also arise when some lobbyists
have easier access to lawmakers than others. Frequently discussed is the
problem of revolving door lobbyists-those people who once served as public
officials who then go into the private sector and work to influence their
former colleagues. In addition to relationships with lawmakers, they may, for
example, still have access codes to offices, use lawmakers' exercise
facilities, or otherwise have easier entrée to the corridors of power.
Other kinds of relationships besides collegiality
may undermine fairness. Especially on the local level, policy makers are often
lobbied by people they know socially. It is incumbent upon public officials to
avoid influence that might arise out of their friendships.
Transparency
One way to improve the fairness of the lobbying
process is to make sure that possible sources of influence are visible to the
public. This goal is behind various state and federal requirements that
lobbyists register and file reports on the issues they have discussed with
lawmakers. Various proposals have been offered to strengthen these transparency
provisions, increasing the frequency of reporting and the number and variety of
organizations that qualify as lobbyists. On the local level, some groups are
calling for access to lawmakers' appointment books so that the public can see
who they met with and what they discussed.
At the federal level, transparency has come up in
reference to "earmarks." These are provisions benefiting particular
industries or organizations that lawmakers insert into appropriations bills,
often at the behest of lobbyists who have made significant campaign contributions.
These earmarks are usually added at the last minute so that other members of
congress do not have sufficient time to study them. Some reformers have
advocated increasing transparency by requiring that earmarks-and the names of
their sponsors-be published online at least 24 hours before a bill comes to a
vote.
Common Good
Lobbyists are advocates. That means they
represent a particular side of an issue. According to the Thomson Gale Legal
Encyclopedia,
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, state, and federal
policymakers with points of view on public policy issues.
But what is the lobbyist's obligation to be fair
to the other side? In the advocacy model, lobbyists may do anything on behalf
of their clients as long as it is not outright immoral or illegal. Jesuit
political scientist Thomas Reese, S.J., himself a former lobbyist, argues that
this model does not always translate well in the public sphere. In a courtroom,
two equally powerful attorneys go before an impartial judge. In the halls of
Congress or the State Assembly or City Hall, the lobbyist often represents
powerful interests, while the people have no representative. An ethical
approach to lobbying must ensure that someone stands up for the common good.
Lawmakers have an obligation to solicit the views of those who are not represented
by powerful lobbying groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment