Lobbyists are Americans too

Sen. Hillary Clinton received a lot of grief for telling attendees of the Yearly Kos, a convention of left-leaning bloggers, that she would continue to take campaign cash from Washington lobbyists. “A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” she said. “They actually do.”

The audience hooted in derision, and Clinton’s two main rivals for the Democratic nomination quickly sensed an opening. “I profoundly disagree with her statements,” harrumphed Sen. Barack Obama in an Associated Press interview, saying her words suggest Clinton is incapable of setting a “fundamentally new course.” No candidate, from either party, should be “taking these people’s money,” added former Sen. John Edwards, in another AP interview, “because it’s the way to take their power away from them.”

If the issue is fact — not theology, ideology or political posturing — Clinton is right. She’s speaking vicious truths. Right now, everyone reading these words has lobbyists working for them in Washington.

If you’re a senior, the AARP deploys dozens of advocates on issues like health care and pensions. If you’re a churchgoer, your denomination’s emissaries try to influence debates on civil rights, hunger and a host of other matters. Every imaginable trade or profession — from nurses and truck drivers to lawyers and janitors — is heavily represented in the halls of power.

There is an entire building in Washington that just houses operatives for educational interest groups — school boards and principals, guidance counselors and kindergarten teachers. Even the anti-lobbyists have lobbyists. Common Cause, an outspoken supporter of ethics reform, has for years fielded some of this town’s most effective legislative strategists.

Full disclosure: Many of our relatives and friends are professional lobbyists. But that does not diminish our point. In fact, we would argue, lobbying is essentially a good thing, an integral part of the basic right of all Americans to petition their government. Honest congressional staffers or government officials will tell you that they rely heavily on lobbyists for prompt and accurate information about public issues.

But we also agree that for all its benefits, lobbying has a distinct downside. Not all lobbyists are equal — in terms of moral virtue or political clout. Big-money interests can and do wield too much power on too many issues, and Edwards is right when he says they can “rig the system” against the public interest.

We cannot agree with Clinton when she argues that campaign cash is never “going to influence you” as a politician. Just look at her husband, who pardoned the fugitive financier Marc Rich after Rich’s former wife gave and raised millions for Democratic causes.

That’s why we strongly favor the package of ethics reforms recently approved by Congress. Some of the most blatant ways of buying influence — cheap trips on corporate jets, for example, or lavish entertaining of legislators — would be banned.

The line between a legitimate campaign contribution and an illicit bribe can get pretty fuzzy at times, but the new bill at least illuminates the relationship between donor and lawmaker. Congressional and presidential candidates would have to identify supporters who collect or “bundle” campaign checks; and they would have to disclose their pet “earmarks,” federal funds for specific projects that often reward top givers.

But the fact that the system can be rigged doesn’t mean that all lobbyists are evil. Clinton’s critics are deliberately distorting reality and ignoring their own history.

Steve and Cokie Roberts can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected].