Lobbyists and politicians in D.C.

While lobbying is a business for some, it is a rational issue for many voters, even bordering on being an emotional issue for many. The movie line about sticking our heads out the window and yelling “I’m not going to take it any more” comes to mind. Why, a calmer person might ask? After all, politicians and lobbyists buying influence with money in the Nation’s Capital city is as American as apple pie. Being upset at this is like trying to deny that boys and girls want to get together, or that water flows downhill.

But periodically things get out of hand. Politicians and their hired minions can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg”. When it crosses over to “in your face” hoodwinking of we voters that emotionalism can trump rationality. In times like this, it is for voters to jerk the processes back to serving them, as well as special interests who will survive as long as water flows downhill. Rationality says don’t get mad, get even. This will work as a strategy for voters.

What should we rail against. During the first six months of 2006, lobbyists spent $1.263 billion (as in dollars). That’s a lot and most would expect a return on their investment, especially given the vast public monies the politicians control. The budget proposal in 2006 was $2.6 trillion (as in dollars). When most do the math, that sounds like a rational investment plan, if money equals votes and contracts.

Most voters understand one of a Congressman’s jobs is constituent services. That is one reason our founding fathers created the Congress, and especially the House. We even expect our Congressman to make every effort to bring home his district’s share of the federal pie. Where things seem to get most abused is when a Congressman serves on a National committee or sub-committee. This is a bigger gateway to abuse due to the access to the public monies. Lobbying activities that include cash, checks, meals, limousine service, corporate jet travel, lodging, furnishing, boats and marine equipment, prostitution services, vacations, and entertainment start to pop up in indictments.

All of our elected representatives are not equal. Some are better than others. Some are even pretty good, as in relatively innocent of all this lobbying influence. I’ll bet even the best resent being included with the worst, or some even wonder how to get in on the loot since they are guilty by association anyway. This principle is as old as the hills. There was an LSU quarterback who read in Playboy (ages ago) that the average guy in college got laid twice a week. Well he wanted to meet the guy getting it four times a week because he, the LSU quarterback was not getting any. The same principle applies to today’s Congressmen.

And I have been unfair so far in focusing on Congressmen and their hired minions. Lobbyists also lobby the Executive branch, especially for contracts using the public monies.

Why get emotional on this issue. When we hear the Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi (before the 2006 election) talk about “draining the swamp” many had hope. Now I know that she just moved to a new swamp. How do I mean this? Even before the Democrats took control of the House in January and changed the lobbying rules, the “word” was out months before and things began changing. The workarounds began then in their very ingenious use of PACs to not only get around the new rules in the future, but they most likely would generate more privileges and money for the Congressmen. And how the Congress would handle the much-condemned earmarks (during the election) was just done a new way using the telephone (perfect for non-attribution). I would even have considered her as just overwhelmed with the system until Tunagate popped up, and then the light bulb went on…she is part of the problem. Nothing changed between the Republicans and now the Democrats in their abuse of their elected congressional positions. And their hired minions are as much of the problem as the Congressmen themselves. And they continue to police themselves through “ethics” committees. Talk about “the fox guarding the chicken coop”.

Most of us accept politicians working for contributions and taking money in the process if they are to run for office, or rerun for office. This is free speech at its best. The alternative of publicly funded elections is a failed idea, even though tried. Even John McCain appears to be abandoning his successful McCain-Feingold Law now that he is pursuing his own Presidential ambitions. So the world is not black and white, it is gray. So when we vote for a Congressman, we use our judgment to balance his representing our interests with those who gave him money. This is fair I think during the election and even reelection process.

The bottom line is what is in the National interest, an oft misused term by political types. In the end, if an elected representative in the House or Senate votes based on lobbyist contributions, and not we voter’s National interest, then it is time for we voters to “jerk him or her back” and find another who will do better for our interests. How about that for rationality meeting emotionalism.