Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Brady vs. Quinn and a new Claypool theory
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* I’m old enough to remember when the state passed the Gift Ban Act. Lobbyists could no longer buy gifts for legislators, or take them out for expensive dinners.
The people who grumbled most about that law belonged to a handful of legislative mooches - members who existed mainly to mooch goodies off of lobbyists. Most lobbyists I knew (and since they’re almost all subscribers I know most of them) actually favored the law. Many even wanted to go further. A ban on all meals and drinks, for instance, would mean they could go home to their families a whole lot earlier and avoid being strong-armed by politicians who didn’t want to pay their own freight.
The above may sound counter-intuitive, even unbelievable, but most political reporting and punditry is cartoon-based. It’s cynical stuff and cynicism in most cases is just a cover for intellectual laziness (Rod Blagojevich excepted, of course).
People just aren’t nearly as bad as they are portrayed. Yes, they’re human, yes, there are some bad ones out there, but I don’t think I’ll ever get over my reaction when I first began covering the Statehouse. I was so surprised at how meticulously ethical the vast majority of the lobbyists were.
That’s a big reason why I was glad to see David Kelm’s op-ed piece the other day. Kelm was writing about the ridiculous new fee imposed on lobbyists that has been ruled unconstitutional by a judge…
We all hate lobbyists. We all have an image of a whiskey-swilling, cigar-munching, three-piece-suit-wearing lobbyist palling around with legislators in dimly lit bars in quiet corners of Springfield. Lobbyists, we cynically believe, exist to prevent government from being “for the people” and instead use their influence and money to make government serve the “special interests.”
However, the advocacy that lobbyists perform in Springfield on behalf of the elderly and poor, sportsmen and conservationists, small businesses and large corporations, and so many others, is the natural extension of our collective guaranteed First Amendment rights. When a lobbyist speaks before a committee or button-holes a legislative staffer in a Capitol elevator or speaks to the governor at the James R. Thompson Center, they are speaking on behalf of those they represent. […]
Lobbyists make for easy villains. The truth of the matter, though, is that we are all part of a special interest that represents our interests in Springfield. Parents with autistic children, CTA riders, teachers, farmers and birdwatchers are all guaranteed the right to freely speak without the burden of a lobbyist tax. You may not like the ACLU or lobbyists, but the courts have recognized that the basic right to speak freely extends to those who advocate in the Capitol on our behalf. Constitutional liberties should not be so easily eroded in the General Assembly’s pursuit of a shallow revenue stream for the state’s budgetary woes.
Again, I’m not so naive as to think that all lobbyists are the greatest people on Earth. If they were, we wouldn’t need reforms. But I’m also clear-headed enough to not always let cynicism rule.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:39 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Brady vs. Quinn and a new Claypool theory
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I agree, Rich.
Lobbyists are the good guys. The legislators are the bad guys.
Comment by George Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:42 pm
So where does ATT fit into that assessment?
Comment by Some Guy Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:53 pm
You’re right, Rich. When I took student groups to DC, I always had them meet with at least one lobbyist friend of mine. They always gave the clearest explanation of how the process works, and they always enlightened the students more than the Members or staffers did. The students came away marveling that the lobbyists did not have horns and a tail, but were advocating on behalf of their clients with legitimate policy interests. A few bad apples always hurt the image of the large majority.
Comment by Ray del Camino Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:56 pm
Is that why they are known as “lobsters,” when they used to be able to buy fine dinners, or is it just the logical phonetic association?
Comment by Vote Quimby! Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:57 pm
VQ, it’s the latter.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:59 pm
Well put, Rich (and David). When I was a “lobbyist,” I always hated the term. It should be “petitioner,” because that’s what a lobbyist does - petition the government on behalf of those affected by its decisions. And it should be noted that “petitioning” is protected by the same amendment in the Bill of Rights that covers “the press.”
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:02 pm
By the way, the worst legislative mooches are now all gone. Thank goodness.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:04 pm
Great point Rich. “The people” and “the children” and “the elderly” are all represented by lobbyists in Springfield, DC and all other places of government.
As an aside, what a great QOTD “What is the best lobbyist-legislator/staffer mooching story you have been a part of in IL?”
Comment by Red Ranger Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:04 pm
The existence of lobbyists isn’t the problem. It’s that some lobbyists can promise a $100,000 campaign contribution in exchange for killing a bill. Of course, those lobbyists also work for groups who can buy a lot of ad space in newspapers or TV, which is an issue we never hear about in the press.
Comment by Will Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:18 pm
Yeah, we need more guys like Al Ronan/en in government. He represents the best of America.
Comment by jim Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:32 pm
Dude, if you don’t even know how to spell his name, I’m not sure you’re all that qualified to rate him. Just sayin…
But, again, for the slow of mind, note that I said not everybody was wonderful all the time.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:34 pm
===It’s that some lobbyists can promise a $100,000 campaign contribution in exchange for killing a bill.===
And you’ve seen that actually happen when?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:35 pm
Thank you for this piece Rich, and congratulations to Dave Kelm of the SJR also. Lobbyists are too often vilified by politicans, op/ed writers and voters alike. Many lobbyists are there protecting programs and values that large segments of our citizenry care about, prorgrams that need advocates because frankly the legislators simply cannot pay attention to every single issue.
Perhaps Will, you meant to refer to special interest groups instead? For example, a large labor organization that makes huge contributions during elections can certainly kill bills simply by saying they oppose. But there are only a handful of those organizations. They are different from lobbyists.
There are hundreds of really good lobbyists who are honest and have integrity. I appreciate your item today, and the recognition that we’re valuable too.
Comment by siriusly Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:50 pm
Rich, have you been following SB3107?
Comment by Will Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:30 pm
Am I a sucker or what. Longwall coalmining regulations! Wow!
How, in any way shape or form, does that bill relate to this topic?
Why, would this blog’s readers care? Is there some political intrigue here you’re privy to? Then share plesae. If not. zzzzzz.
Comment by siriusly Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:44 pm
Lobbyists–like members of the GA–represent a constituency. Most do their jobs very well and very ethically. A few bad apples spoil it for everyone–sort of like politicians.
Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:26 pm
=== The existence of lobbyists isn’t the problem. It’s that some lobbyists can promise a $100,000 campaign contribution in exchange for killing a bill. ===
No, the problem is that elections are largely privately financed, not publicly financed.
As long as money is changing hands, someone somewhere is going to be willing to kill a bill for $100…you can keep the extra zeroes.
But even in Illinois, the Wild West of campaign finance laws, that kind of shakedown is the rumored exception and certainly NOT the rule.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 6:15 pm
“By the way, the worst legislative mooches are now all gone. Thank goodness. …”
Capt Fax did you bump your head? Shall I bring a cold cloth?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 6:42 pm
This article should be a lesson plan for every aspiring Civics teacher in the State! Oh, do we still teach civics/citizenship/the Constitution in Illinois schools?
No wonder that the public at large has forgotten some of the basic principles of governance and civility.
Comment by northernwatersports Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 6:45 pm