Lobbying in America

The United States of America have one of the strongest and most regulated types of
government in the world. When the Constitution was drafted, people hoped for an equitable means of
organizing the state affairs so that all could benefit from a chance to pursuit their happiness. Yet, as
long as people have elected a few to represent and make decisions in their name, some have found
means to promote their personal interests. According to the Webster dictionary, lobbying means to
conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on
legislation. Former senator Russel Feingold talks about “the influence industry that has grown around
the federal government, creating an exclusive club whose members have a lot to say about how laws
are made”. In other words, he targets interest groups and the extent to which they are willing to go in
order “to persuade lawmakers to vote in the interests of their clients”.
In America, the right to petition the government is protected by the First Amendment, together
with the freedom of speech, religion and the press. That is the reason why drawing regulations that
could limit “the methods by which special interests establish close relationships” with legislative
representatives is a very difficult path. Lobbyists have argued that the freedom of speech and
association given by the Constitution of the United States is not respected. However, Russel Feingold
did not comment upon this constitutional right, but he rose against the common practice for these
interest agents “to pay for golfing vacations for lawmakers or take them out for fine meals at expensive
restaurants or come calling with tokens of friendship like bottles of wine or other gifts.” (Perspectives,
A Senator Looks at Special Interests and Lobbying, 192) This practice has created a general public
impression that the Congress is for sale.
The second half of the twentieth century, especially the 1970’s and 1980’s “witnessed a boom
in the sheer quantity of paid representation”, alongside protests about “corruption, influence peddling
and the underhanded subversion of democratic principles” (B.C. Waterhouse, Lobbying America: The
Politics of Business from Nixon to NAFTA, 2015, 9). In the view of most politicians, lobbyists were
protected by the constitutional right and were a valuable tool for the modern governance because they
provided them “the tremendous flow of information, analysis and interpretation relevant to their daily
decisions” (Waterhouse, 9). But there was always the question of objectivity. By serving special
interests, they could not have possibly been objective about the feed of information. That is why for as
long as there has been a government to lobby, there has always been a need to establish a regulation
concerning this activity. Particularly after Watergate, a series of congressional reforms to campaign

1
finance law “paved the way for a dramatic explosion in corporate-funded political action committees”.
(10).
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 aimed at bringing a level of accountability to federal
lobbying practices, broadening the definition of a lobbyist and increasing the registration and reporting
rules. This law defines a client as “any person or entity that employs or retains another person for
financial or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or entity. A
person or entity whose employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer of
such employees.” The term lobbyist is defined as “any individual who is employed or retained by a
client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contract,
other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in
the services provided by such individual to that client over a three month period.” Unfortunately this
law came with some shortcomings. The small lobbyists – who spend less than 20 percent of their time
lobbying or donate less than ten thousands on behalf of their clients – are not forced to register.
Senator Russel Feingold together with Senator John McCain struggled to pass the bill for the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which regulated the financing of political campaigns. Their first
attempt was not successful, but in 2001 Feingold and McCain pushed the bill in the Senate, while Chris
Shays and Marty Meehan led the effort to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. Throughout the
Congressional battle on the bill, President Bush declined to take a strong position, but he eventually
signed the law in March 2002.
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 is a law that amended parts of the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It aims at strengthening public disclosure requirements concerning
lobbying activity and funding and places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their
staff. Some of the most important amendments that this act brings refer to closing “the revolving door”
– prohibits Senators from gaining undue lobbying access by increasing the “cooling off” period from
one to two years before they can lobby Congress -, and restricting the flow of “soft money” – a
loophole of the previous laws that enabled large contributions to political parties.
Ann McBride, president of Common Cause (a citizens’ legislative interest group) argues the
case against political action committees (PACs) which represent the interests of businesses, unions,
corporations and whose electoral contributions increased exponentially from one campaign to the next.
Thus “they are exerting an increased grip on elected officials because their contributions to candidates
come with strings attached”. These strings most often consist in government favours, tax breaks and
other perks. She realizes that the current system must change, but the lawmakers are those who benefit
the most from this corrupted system and as long as there will be PACs to bring their contributions, there
will be members of Congress “fighting tooth and nails to prevent reform”. (197)
2
 On the other hand, Thomas Berglund, former chairman of AMPAC (the political action
committee of the American Medical Association), argues for “the need for people to band together so
that they can be heard in the complex political world of today” (194). He favours PACs for their active
involvement of citizens in the political process. By reminding James Madison’s theory about factions’
ability to balance the power in a representative democracy, he considers it necessary their
multiplication and growth so that “no single faction would gain too much power and remove the
incentive for compromise with other factions in society.” (Perspectives, Political Action Committees:
Two Views, 194). In his view, PACs allow people of relatively limited means to participate in the
political process. Even “the Supreme Court has called the formation of PACs an amplification of the
individual’s political voice”. He perceives funding political campaigns as “nothing inherently immoral
or corrupt”, although he admits that mixing money with politics will always rise suspicions.
However, if restrictions on the flow of soft money are being imposed and if PACs are allowed
to contribute a limited amount, Berglund stresses the idea that there are many PACs which contribute
during a campaign in hopes of receiving certain favours and this may lead to their cancelling one
another. Personally, this idea seems a bit farfetched because no political party or candidate will
compromise themselves by accepting funds from opposite interests.
Berglund argues that an effective political campaign requires high costs to reach voters by
means of media (television, newspapers, radio, magazines) or mail. The expenditures during
presidential campaigns are the largest, reaching hundreds of million dollars, and this may be
discomforting for the voting public. But as long as there is transparency in handling the contributions,
encouraging the individuals to become involved in the political process, encouraging radio and tv
stations to schedule debates on campaign issues (thus reducing the cost of media exposure), donating
the remain of the campaign funds to charity a month after the election, Berglund considers that “PACs
do not represent a danger to the American political system”, their number and diversity is proof of a
healthy democracy, because “PACs do not represent a monolith of business, health, trade, or any other
special interests, but rather the interests of a pluralistic society” (197). His conclusion is very optimistic
while stating that PACs “offer an opportunity available to every American citizen – the right to have a
voice in the government.” (197)