Lobbying is a dirty word. But a dirty practice?
It is widely accepted that lobbyists have a bad reputation. This perception appears so widespread that even those who practice lobbying as their profession tend to use anything but “lobbyist” to describe what they do. Furthermore, many organisations will not even accept that what they do is lobbying. From my own experience working within the ‘Communications and Advocacy Division’ of a highly influential international non-governmental organisation I witnessed this to be the case. In that organisation we did not lobby but advocated, promoted, campaigned, influenced, persuaded, convinced and any other word except lobbied.
As a practice, lobbying is accused of being anti-democratic as it frustrates the “will of the people”, favours the wealthy and consists largely of privileged access to important decision-makers, which has to be paid for. In truth, lobbying plays an essential and legitimate role in the democratic process and forms an integral role in the process of policy formulation. It facilitates two-way communication between decision-makers and all interest groups in civil society. This is not to discount that bias does exist in the interest group system and most academic scholars believe an inherent bias persists, which is likely common to all liberal democracies. In reality, interest groups do not represent all segments of society and resources – mainly money – do matter, while extensive resources mean certain interest groups can exert power out of all proportion to the number of their members. There have been attempts to create legal solutions to these issues through regulation of lobbyists in some settings and laws dealing with the lobbied in others. It is naïve to think that a level-playing field can be created for all interest groups. However, an imperative exists to ensure access is more equitable and that influence faces greater regulation, such that it is not perceived as corrupt.
To date, only a small minority of political systems have opted to enact legislation to regulate lobbying activity [United States of America (federal and state levels, except for Pennsylvania), Australia, Canada (federal level and in several provinces), Hungary, Georgia, Germany (federal and state levels), Lithuania, Poland, and the European Parliament]. Stronger lobbying regulations increase both transparency and accountability (which, most people will agree, are a good thing). Incentives to commit to self-regulatory systems tend not to be very strong and they are usually very weak on enforcement. The European Commission recently conceded that its rules on financial disclosure were not working and has ruled out making sign-up to its ‘lobby register’ mandatory. It is in the interest of both lobbyists and politicians to introduce lobbying regulations to further the goal of good governance. Public confidence can only increase if regulations are introduced (and seen to be effective). And with that increased confidence in our political system we might even witness a greater understanding of the democratic role that lobbying plays.
It’s time for lobbyists to come out of the closet.
And the best thing with lobbying is: Those who earn money with it and those who have the highest influence tend to have a higher opinion about lobbying than those who are negatively affected by the weight of certain organisations that have the money and/or personnel to lobby effectively.
One of the problems for the lobbying profession is the misperception about what lobbyists actually do. The impression that many people have is that lobbying is all about wining and dining (and the occasional brown paper bag with untraceable dollar bills!). This article in EUObserver describes that decision makers just don’t care about fancy lobby receptions. But lobbying is about persuasion, not corruption.
The best way for a lobbyist to persuade a decision maker is to provide accurate and relevant information in relation to particular policy. Therefore, the most important part of any lobbyists work is monitoring government and policy formulation so that they can provide input at the right time. Of course, the more resources you have the easier this becomes. But this does not mean that lobbyists with large bank accounts will necessarily be successful in their lobbying activities. And not all lobbyists lobby against the outcomes that are in the interest of the ‘public good’ (what about those lobbying on behalf of wind farms?).
According to the Public Relations Institute of Ireland – “Access to policy debate is a key component of the work of any lobbyist. The need for open and transparent access to elected representatives’ debate is clearly recognised in many jurisdictions, not least the US, UK and at EU level, whereby registered lobbyists are given the right to attend parliamentary debate on any given topic at any given time.” This is one of the key reasons why I believe that lobby registers are essential.
“It is in the interest of both lobbyists and politicians to introduce lobbying regulations to further the goal of good governance.”
These days I’m arguing for social media guidelines for people blogging about the EU (including lobbyists), for similar reasons to the ones you set out above, so I tend to agree with you that lobbying regulations would be in the wider interest.
When it comes to social media guidelines, everyone benefits if we all refrain from poisoning the well.
But if lobbying regulations were in the interests of lobbyists, as you claim, why has the lobbyists’ register been such a No Man’s Land? Can you logically claim that they are useful to lobbyists and argue that they should be imposed?
@Mathew I think you can because many lobbyists are not only good people but represent real people. It’s not just the corporations like the big tobacco firms that are lobbying. Lobbying regulations would help to level the playing for all lobbyists. By making lobbying more transparent, citizens will have greater knowledge of who decision makers are talking to and on what issues, which increases accountability. This transparency is to the benefit of the vast majority of lobbyists.
The blame for the lobby register existing as a ‘No Man’s Land’ lies with both those responsible for its administration and the lobbyists themselves (many of whom don’t want to think of themselves as lobbyists). A benefit must be shown to exist for those who have signed up to the register. That the register has not been used more extensively is proof that there are no real perceived benefits from registering. Access to decision makers needs to be directly tied to registration, as contact with decision makers can then be monitored to a much greater extent.
So you’re saying that noone should be able to lobby a decision-maker unless they’re registered? Sounds fine in theory, but how could that be enforced?
Also, how far does it go? It seems to me that as soon as you implement this policy, you’ll get into a mess defining what lobbying actually is.
After all, as you say, a lot of lobbyists don’t consider themselves lobbyists. Is someone commenting on a MEP’s blog lobbying them? S/he would be seeking to influence his opinion, after all … But then again, that is transparent already.
Even so, I can see endless debates ahead as to what registration, and what does not.
I agree that the definition of a lobbyist is essential if any lobby register is to make any sense. I’ve always liked the definition that Milbraith provided way back in 1963: “Lobbying is the stimulation and transmission of a communication by someone other than a citizen acting on their own behalf, directed to a governmental decision maker with the hopes of influencing his decision”. I think it’s important to ensure that any definition adopted for the purpose of registration is as wide as possible.
One way that the lobby register can be used effectively is with meetings with elected officials. Lanny Davis provides a solid suggestion of how transparency might be increased in terms of access to decision makers: “Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist’s name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the “ask” or “asks,” to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.”
Of course, there are significant issues about what constitutes a meeting. As you say online commenting on a blog is transparent but phone calls may not be. However, it is important for lobbying as a profession to become more transparent and a thorough lobby register is certainly a start. Confidence in the political system is low in most states. The EU institutions are accused of operating with a democratic deficit. Surely, it’s time to take measures that act to increase the public confidence in our democratic institutions.
Registration is one thing and should help resolve the access problem. Financial disclosure is a whole other ballgame.
(btw, tageuropa is my old wordpress.com username – if I follow the link here from the email notification of new comments, it always logs me in with that name. Annoying!
- Mathew)
I’m not disagreeing with you re: desirability. But as so many blogs show (e.g., brussels sunshine – http://blog.brusselssunshine.eu/), enforcability may be difficult.
However, lobbyists won’t have much choice, in the medium term. As others have said, in the age of social media, “transparency will be forced upon you whether you like it or not”. Crowdsourcing means that almost literally anything can be dug up.
Lobbyists – and their clients – who get with the social media program should be OK. Those that don’t will get nothing more than a door smacking their backsides as they leave.