Woodstock Report | Lobbying: The Real Problem

On May 4, Woodstock held an evening of conversation in New York titled, "The Ethics of Lobbying: Organized Interests, Political Power, and the Common God," which was also the title of a 2002 book produced by Woodstock. Held at the University Club in Manhattan, the conversation brought together approximately 40 lawyers, business executives, teachers, and others, who heard a presentation by Philip Lacovara, an attorney who was part of the research team that prepared the volume. He is also formerly Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and Counsel to the Watergate Special Prosecutor. In this article, he discusses the recent lobbying scandals in Washington and the Woodstock lobbying principles.

By Philip Allen Lacovara

Every generation needs a lobbying scandal. Not because scandals are good in themselves but because, like controlled burns in thick forests, they tend to clear out the decaying timbers and rotten underbrush and let in the sun light. With sun light comes a healthier environment, at least for a time.

All of the current calls for "reform," however, miss the point. While it is important to get a better grip on the massive amounts of money that interest groups and their lobbyists pour into congressional campaign chests - and occasionally into members' pockets - true, long-range reform requires more fundamental change: a change in the understanding of the lobbying profession itself. Lobbying is geared to influencing public policy. Our society, therefore, should expect lobbyists to take greater account of the public interest as they perform their important role in fashioning legislative policy.

I served as counsel to congressional committees investigating the last generation's most highly publicized lobbying scandals, Abscam and Koreagate. More recently, under the auspices of Woodstock, I took part in a study that led to the volume, The Ethics of Lobbying: Organized Interests, Political Power, and the Common Good.

Registering as a lobbyist does not excuse a person from the demands of good citizenship.

The study reflected dozens of candid and confidential interviews with lobbyists - for both business interests and public interest groups - and with the officials they attempt to influence. We developed a hypothetical case study and brought together various players in the legislative lobbying process to discuss the hard questions posed by this sometimes controversial but always-present feature of the American political process. We ultimately developed the "Woodstock Principles for the Ethical Conduct of Lobbying."

What we found may shed some light on the latest outcry resulting from the misguided exploits of Jack Abramoff and a few others who have crossed the line between merely currying favor and actually corrupting the process. Not surprisingly, the overarching problem that most identified is money. As one participant observed: "The need to raise money constantly is corrupting and demoralizing."

Anyone who ignores the inevitably corrosive effect of tens of millions of dollars sloshing around in campaign treasuries is either deluding himself or feigning ignorance. One is reminded of the mock outrage of Captain Renault in Casablanca who declares, when ordering "Rick's" café closed, "I am shocked, shocked to learn that gambling is going on here," just as his own winnings from the roulette table are being poured into his outstretched palm.

Now there are dueling bills in the legislative hopper aimed at greater regulation of the financial component of the lobbying process. Some of these measures could be useful; other portions are merely cosmetic. No doubt some carefully thought-out restrictions on the transfers of money from interest groups to candidates and office-holders will help avoid future Jack Abramoffs, at least until "smarter mice" find new ways around the better mouse traps.

But the larger problem here is not outright corruption: buying votes or sponsorship of legislation in return for cash contributions either to a congressman's campaign or to his personal bank account. By far the vast bulk of the thousands of persons who practice this craft are honest and wellintentioned. So too are almost all members of Congress and their staff aides. The criminal laws adequately prohibit bribery and its slightly more artful first-cousin, offering or receiving substantial "gratuities" "on account of" the performance of some official duty.

When Congress deals with the taint of excess cash and gifts, it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to address some of the more profound issues that lobbying poses. The underlying problem is that lobbyists generally regard themselves as the legislative equivalents of lawyers in a courtroom, zealously representing their client's interests with single-minded focus. That analogy, which pervades the lobbying profession's view of its role and mission, is misguided.

In a typical lawsuit of the sort in which the role of advocate emerged, purely private interests are at stake. In a real sense, the public is indifferent to the outcome; only the parties care. Therefore, it is tolerable to regard each side's advocate as a private champion using all the weapons at his disposal in the quest for victory. This allows the ethical lawyer-advocate to shape the presentation to tell only the version of the story that is most favorable to the advocate's client.

In the lobbying process, by contrast, the goal is to shape public policy. The public, therefore, has a vital interest in both the outcome and in the process that formulates this public policy. This difference in objective means that not only the elected legislators but the lobbyists who seek to influence them have some obligation to recognize that there is a "public interest" at stake.

The first Woodstock principle, therefore, declares: "The pursuit of lobbying must take into account the common good, not merely a particular client's interests narrowly considered." This principle requires fundamentally reorienting our concept of appropriate lobbying.

Accepting this view of the proper role of lobbying in a free, democratic society would have several important results. Most basically, in deciding whether to undertake an engagement or assignment and in determining what arguments to advance in supporting or opposing a position, the lobbyist would weigh the implications of his efforts for the well-being of the country as a whole. The lobbyist also would feel obliged to inform both the client and the policymaker of the probable economic, social, and political consequences of the policy objectives being pursued. In addition, the lobbyist would recognize a duty to provide information and arguments surrounded with a greater degree of candor and balance than the present concept requires or produces.

The goal here is not to stunt the process of legislative advocacy. It is not to transform every lobbyist for commercial interests into a self-appointed monitor of legitimate business objectives. It is not to dilute the debate over important and controversial issues of public policy. Rather, the objective is to remind lobbyists that they perform a vital role in the democratic process of self-government, and they cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of their advocacy. In the long term, the goal of any legislation must be to promote the overall welfare, strength and security of our society.

Registering as a lobbyist does not excuse a person from the demands of good citizenship. Indeed, those who elect to pursue this profession should relish the notion - as startling as it may seem - that they are on the front line in helping make our country stronger, fairer, and healthier. Only this kind of rethinking of the lobbyist's role can achieve real and lasting reform.

The New York event was generously hosted by longtime Woodstock friend and supporter Robert L. Cahill, Jr. Besides Lacovara, members of the lobbying research and drafting team included sociologist Edward B. Arroyo, S.J., political philosopher Michael H. McCarthy, journalist Robert W. Gardner, and theologian and former Woodstock director James L. Connor, S.J.