Take a Stand 349Restrictions on Interest
Group Lobbying
Under current rules, members of Congress and their staffs
are severely limited in the size of gifts they can receive from
lobbyists. These restrictions were tightened in the mid-2000s
after it was revealed that former-congressional-staffer-
turned-lobbyist Jack Abramoff had used “golf junkets, free
meals at the restaurant he owned, seats at sporting events,
and, in some cases, old-fashioned cash” to lobby members of
Congress.a The current restrictions limit members and their
staffs to accepting gifts only if they are valued at less than
$50—moreover, the total worth of the gifts that any lobbyist
can give to a particular member of Congress or staffer is
limited to $100 per year. In addition, “cooling off” rules, which
prevent staffers and former members of Congress from
lobbying for one year after leaving their government job, were
instituted in an attempt to limit the revolving door between
government and lobbying firms. President Trump vowed to
“drain the swamp” of lobbyist influence in Washington, but
little progress has been made on strengthening the rules.
Are current restrictions fair? Do they help or hurt the political
process? Are even stronger limitations needed?Keep the rules, and maybe tighten them. Supporting
this option seems like a no-brainer. These regulations
are based on a sensible intuition that laws are needed to
prevent well-funded, unscrupulous lobbyists from offering
inducements to members of Congress and their staffs
in return for policy change. Simply put, groups that can
send people to Washington to wine and dine members of
Congress, congressional staff, and bureaucrats might gain
a significant advantage over those who are unable to do so.
Even if a fancy lunch doesn’t buy a legislator’s vote, it might
help with access—that is, give the group a chance to make
their arguments and perhaps change some minds. In this
way, rules that allow even small gifts create an advantage
for interest groups that have a Washington office or hire
lobbyists and a disadvantage for those that do not. As a
result, many reform proposals should go further, preventing
lobbyists from giving anything to a member of Congress,
legislative staffer, or bureaucrat—even a cup of coffee.Relax the rules (a little). Some argue that worries
about interest group influence seem a little overstated.
Congressional staff and the legislators they work for are going
to support a group’s proposals only if they help the member’s
constituents or if they move policy in a way the member
favors, not just because of an interest group’s free lunch.TAKE
A S TA N DWhen scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff came to light in
2005, many Americans considered him a typical lobbyist.
Abramoff’s actions were illegal, but the question remains: Are
his tactics common in Washington, or was he a rare exception?There are also downsides to tight controls on these gifts
and perks. The current rules on lobbyists’ gifts create a lot
of paperwork for members and their staffs, who have to file
reports on just about anything they receive from a lobbyist,
even if that individual is a former colleague, neighbor, or friend.
The rules are also extremely complicated—for example,
legislators are allowed to eat the hors d’oeuvres provided at
a reception, but they cannot sit down to a full meal without
violating the gift restrictions. The disclosure requirements are
also a burden to smaller interest groups and firms, which have
to document everything they do on complex forms. As a result,
members of Congress, their staff, interest groups, and lobbying
firms spend considerable time and effort on documenting small
gifts that are unlikely to have any effect on policy outcomes.Do both. Another approach would be to relax some of the
rules and strengthen others. For example, one suggestion
is to get rid of the “cooling off” periods, but have better
disclosure of who is lobbying so constituents will be able
to hold their elected officials accountable. Many lobbyists
skirt current disclosure rules by generously interpreting the
20 percent rule mentioned earlier in the chapter to exclude
what most would consider lobbying activity. These “shadow
lobbyists” would be exposed by stricter disclosure rules.btake a stand
- To what extent do you think current congressional rules
limiting the size of gifts that members of Congress and
their staffers can receive from lobbyists have curbed
illegal behavior by interest groups? - Are these rules aimed at exceptional cases or average
interest groups?
Full_11_APT_64431_ch10_340-373.indd 349 16/11/18 10:25 AM