Лоббирование в Соединенных Штатах

K Street в Вашингтоне, округ Колумбия , стала метомом американской индустрии лоббирования.

Лоббирование в Соединенных Штатах -это оплачиваемая деятельность, в которой группы особых интересов нанимают хорошо связанных профессиональных адвокатов, зачастую адвокатов, чтобы выступать за конкретное законодательство в органах принятия решений, таких как Конгресс Соединенных Штатов . Это часто воспринимается негативно журналистами и американской общественностью; Критики считают это формой взяточничества , влияния и/или вымогательства . Лоббирование подлежит сложным правилам, которые, если не следовать, может привести к штрафам, включая тюрьму. Лоббирование было истолковано судебными решениями как свобода слова, защищенная Первой поправкой к Конституции США . С 1970 -х годов число лоббистов и размер лоббистских бюджетов выросли и стали в центре критики американского управления.

Лоббирование происходит на каждом уровне правительства: федеральный, штат, округ, муниципальный и местный орган власти. В Вашингтоне, округ Колумбия , лоббисты обычно предназначены для членов Конгресса , хотя предпринимались усилия по влиянию на чиновников исполнительного агентства, а также Верховного суда назначенцев . Лоббирование может оказать сильное влияние на политическую систему ; Например, исследование в 2014 году показало, что лоббирование с особыми интересами усилило власть элитных групп и было фактором, сдвигающим политическую структуру страны в сторону олигархии , в которой средние граждане имеют «мало или нет независимого влияния».

The number of lobbyists in Washington is estimated to be over 12,000, but most lobbying (in terms of expenditures), is handled by fewer than 300 firms. A report in The Nation in 2014 suggested that while the number of registered lobbyists in 2013 (12,281) decreased compared to 2002, lobbying activity was increasing and "going underground" as lobbyists use "increasingly sophisticated strategies" to obscure their activity. Analyst James A. Thurber estimated that the actual number of working lobbyists was close to 100,000 and that the industry brings in $9 billion annually, mostly from corporations. Wall Street spent a record $2 billion trying to influence the 2016 United States presidential election.

Overview

Political scientist Thomas R. Dye said that politics is about battling over scarce governmental resources: who gets them, where, when, why and how. Since government makes the rules in a complex economy such as the United States, various organizations, businesses, individuals, nonprofits, trade groups, religions, charities and others—which are affected by these rules—will exert as much influence as they can to have rulings favorable to their cause.

The lobby of the House of Commons. Painting 1886 by Liborio Prosperi.

The term lobby has etymological roots in the physical structure of the British Parliament, in which there was an intermediary covered room outside the main hall. People pushing an agenda would try to meet with members of Parliament in this room, and they came to be known, by metonymy, as lobbyists, although one account in 1890 suggested that the application of the word "lobby" is American and that the term is not used as much in Britain. The Willard Hotel, 2 blocks from the White House at 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue, claims the term originated there: "It was in the Willard lobby that Ulysses S. Grant popularized the term “lobbyist.” Often bothered by self-promoters as he sat in the lobby and enjoyed his cigar and brandy, he referred to these individuals as "lobbyists."

The term lobbying suggests advocacy, advertising, or promoting a cause. A person who writes a letter to a congressperson, or even questions a candidate at a political meeting, could be construed as being a lobbyist.

The term "lobbying" generally means a paid activity with the purpose of attempting to "influence or sway" a public official – including bureaucrats and elected officials – towards a desired specific action often relating to specific legislation. If advocacy is disseminating information, then lobbying is when this activity becomes focused on specific legislation, either in support or in opposition.

Lobbyists are intermediaries between client organizations and lawmakers: they explain to legislators what their organizations want, and they explain to their clients what obstacles elected officials face. Some lobbyists work for advocacy groups, trade associations, companies, and state and local governments. A lobbyist may put together a diverse coalition of organizations and people, sometimes including lawmakers and corporations, and the whole effort may be considered to be a lobby; for example, in the abortion issue, there is a "pro-choice lobby" and a “pro-life lobby".

Most federal lobbyists are based in Washington, DC; an estimate from 2018 suggested that the count of registered lobbyists who actually lobbied that year was 11,656. The Washington D.C. lobbying industry is an exclusive one, with serious barriers to entry, since it requires them to have been "roaming the halls of Congress for years and years."

It is possible for foreign nations to influence the foreign policy of the United States through lobbying or by supporting lobbying organizations directly or indirectly.

Different types of lobbying

The focus of lobbying efforts

Lobbying depends on cultivating personal relationships over many years. Photo: Lobbyist Tony Podesta (left) with former Senator Kay Hagan (center) and her husband.

Generally, lobbyists focus on trying to persuade decision-makers: Congress, executive branch agencies such as the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court, and state governments (including governors). Federal agencies are targeted by lobbyists because they write industry-specific rules; accordingly, interest groups spend "massive sums of money" trying to persuade them to make so-called "carve-outs" or try to block specific provisions from being enacted. A large fraction of overall lobbying is focused on only a few sets of issues, according to one report. It is possible for one level of government to lobby another level; for example, the District of Columbia has been lobbying Congress and the President for greater power, including possible statehood or voting representation in Congress; one assessment in 2011 suggested that the district needed to rethink its lobbying strategy, since its past efforts have only had "mixed results". Many executive branch agencies have the power to write specific rules and are a target of lobbying. Federal agencies such as the State Department make rules such as giving aid money to countries such as Egypt, and in one example, an Egyptian-American businessman named Kais Menoufy organized a lobby to try to halt U.S. aid to Egypt.

Lobbyists represent their clients' or organizations' interests in state capitols. An example is a former school superintendent who has been lobbying state legislatures in California, Michigan and Nevada to overhaul teacher evaluations, and trying to end the "Last In, First Out" teacher hiring process. State governments can be lobbied by groups which represent other governments within the state, such as a city authority; for example, the cities of Tallahassee and St. Petersburg lobbied the Florida legislature using paid lobbyists to represent the city's interests. There is lobbying activity at the county and municipal levels, especially in larger cities and populous counties. For example, some Chicago aldermen became lobbyists after serving in municipal government, following a one-year period required by city ethics rules to abstain from lobbying.

Paid versus free lobbying

While the bulk of lobbying happens by business and professional interests who hire paid professionals, some lobbyists represent non-profits pro-bono for issues in which they are personally interested. Pro bono publico clients offer activities to meet and socialize with local legislators at events like fundraisers and awards ceremonies.

Single issue versus multiple issue lobbying

Lobbies which push for a single issue have grown in importance during the past twenty years. Corporations generally would be considered as single issue lobbies. If a corporation wishes to change public policy, or to influence legislation which impacts its success as a business, it may use lobbying as a "primary avenue" for this purpose. Lobbies which represent groups such as labor unions, business organizations, and trade associations may be considered multiple issue lobbies, and be willing to accept compromise.

Inside versus outside lobbying

• Inside lobbying, or sometimes called direct lobbying, describes efforts by lobbyists to influence legislation or rule-making directly by contacting legislators and their assistants, sometimes called staffers or aides.
• Outside lobbying, sometimes called indirect lobbying or grassroots lobbying, includes attempts by interest group leaders to mobilize citizens outside the policymaking community, perhaps by public relations methods or advertising, to prompt them to pressure public officials within the policymaking community. One example of an outside lobbying effort is a film entitled InJustice, made by a group promoting lawsuit reform. Some lobbyists are now using social media to reduce the cost of traditional campaigns, and to more precisely target public officials with political messages.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying

Main article: Taxpayer-funded lobbying

Taxpayer-funded lobbying is when one taxpayer-funded entity lobbies another taxpayer-funded entity, usually for more taxpayer-funds. In the United States this typically takes place in the form of State-level agencies or municipalities devoting part of their budget to lobby the State government for a larger budget.

History of lobbying

Main article: History of lobbying in the United States

The Federalist Papers, in which Framers Madison, Hamilton and Jay strove to sway public opinion, could be considered according to current usage as an outside lobbying effort.

The Constitution was crafted in part to solve the problem of special interests, today usually represented by lobbies, by having these factions compete. James Madison identified a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community",^[1] and Madison argued in Federalist No. 10 that there was less risk of injury by a narrowly focused faction in a large republic if any negative influence was counteracted by other factions.^[2][3] In addition, the Constitution protected free speech, including the right to petition the government, and these rights have been used by lobbying interests throughout the nation's history. There has been lobbying at every level of government, particularly in state governments during the nineteenth century, but increasingly directed towards the federal government in the twentieth century. The last few decades have been marked by an exponential increase in lobbying activity and expenditures.

Lobbying as a business

Key players

Lobbyists

The number of registered Washington lobbyists is substantial. In 2009, The Washington Post estimated that there were 13,700 registered lobbyists, describing the nation's Capitol as "teeming with lobbyists.". In 2011, The Guardian estimated that in addition to the approximately 13,000 registered lobbyists, thousands more unregistered lobbyists could exist in Washington. The ratio of lobbyists employed by the healthcare industry, compared with every elected politician, was six to one, according to one account. Nevertheless, the numbers of lobbyists actively engaged in lobbying is considerably less, and the ones occupied with lobbying full-time and making significant money is even less.

• Law firms: Several law firms, including Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight, had sizable departments devoted to so-called "government relations". One account suggested that the lobbying arms of these law firms were not held as separate subsidiaries, but that the law practices involved in government lobbying were integrated into the overall framework of the law firm. A benefit to an integrated arrangement was that the law firm and the lobbying department could "share and refer clients back and forth". Holland & Knight earned $13.9 million from lobbying revenue in 2011. One law firm employs so-called "power brokers" including former Treasury department officials such as Marti Thomas, and former presidential advisers such as Daniel Meyer. There was a report that two law firms were treating their lobbying groups as separate business units, and giving the non-lawyer lobbyists an equity stake in the firm.

Defense contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin sell extensively to the government and must, of necessity, engage in lobbying to win contracts.

Corporations

Corporations which lobby actively tend to be few in number, large, and often sell to the government. Most corporations do not hire lobbyists. One study found that the actual number of firms which do lobbying regularly is fewer than 300, and that the percent of firms engaged in lobbying was 10% from 1998 to 2006, and that they were "mainly large, rich firms getting in on the fun." These firms hired lobbyists year after year, and there was not much evidence of other large firms taking much interest in lobbying. Corporations considering lobbying run into substantial barriers to entry: corporations have to research the relevant laws about lobbying, hire lobbying firms, and cultivate influential people and make connections. When an issue regarding a change in immigration policy arose, large corporations currently lobbying switched focus somewhat to take account of the new regulatory world, but new corporations—even ones likely to be affected by any possible rulings on immigration—stayed out of the lobbying fray, according to the study.

Still, of all the entities doing lobbying in Washington, the biggest overall spenders are, in fact, corporations. In the first decade of the 2000s, the most lucrative clients for Gerald Cassidy's lobbying firm were corporations, displacing fees from the appropriations business. Wall Street lobbyists and the financial industry spent upwards of $100 million in one year to "court regulators and lawmakers", particularly since they were "finalizing new regulations for lending, trading and debit card fees." One academic analysis in 1987 found that firms were more likely to spend on lobbying if they were both large and concerned about "adverse financial statement consequences" if they did not lobby. Big banks were "prolific spenders" on lobbying; JPMorgan Chase has an in-house team of lobbyists who spent $3.3 million in 2010; the American Bankers Association spent $4.6 million on lobbying; an organization representing 100 of the nation's largest financial firms called the Financial Services Roundtable spent heavily as well. A trade group representing Hedge Funds spent more than $1 million in one quarter trying to influence the government about financial regulations, including an effort to try to change a rule that might demand greater disclosure requirements for funds. Amazon.com spent $450,000 in one quarter lobbying about a possible online sales tax as well as rules about data protection and privacy. Corporations which sell substantially to the government tend to be active lobbiers. For example, aircraft manufacturer Boeing, which has sizeable defense contracts, pours "millions into lobbying":

Boeing Co. is one of the most influential companies in airline manufacturing and has continually shown its influence in lobbying Congress ... Between January and September, Boeing spent a total of $12 million lobbying according to research by OpenSecrets. Additionally, Boeing has its own political action committee, which donated more than $2.2 million to federal candidates during the 2010 election cycle. Of that sum, 53 percent went to Democrats. ...Through September, Boeing's PAC has donated $748,000 to federal politicians.

— Chicago Sun-Times quoting OpenSecrets.org, 2011

In the spring of 2017, there was a fierce lobbying effort by Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast and AT&T, and tech firms such as Google and Facebook, to undo regulations protecting consumer privacy. Rules passed by the Obama administration in 2016 required ISPs to get "explicit consent" from consumers before gathering browsing histories, locations of businesses visited and applications used, but trade groups wanted to be able to sell this information for profit without consent. Lobbyists connected with Republican senator Jeff Flake and Republican representative Marsha Blackburn to sponsor legislation to dismantle Internet privacy rules; Flake received $22,700 in donations and Blackburn received $20,500 in donations from these trade groups. On March 23, 2017, abolition of privacy restrictions passed on a narrow party-line vote, and the lobbying effort achieved its result. In 2017, credit reporting agency Equifax lobbied Congress extensively, spending $1.1 million in 2016 and $500,000 in 2017, seeking rules to limit damage from lawsuits and less regulatory oversight; in August 2017, Equifax's databases were breached and the confidential data of millions of Americans was stolen by hackers and identity thieves, potentially opening up the firm to numerous class action lawsuits.

Major American corporations spent $345 million lobbying for just three pro-immigration bills between 2006 and 2008. Internet service providers in the United States have spent more than $1.2 billion on lobbying since 1998, and 2018 was the biggest year so far with a total spend of more than $80 million.

From a review in 2020, major food and beverage corporations spent $38.2 million on lobbying to strengthen and maintain big food influence in Washington, D.C.

Unions

One report suggested the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union spent $80,000 lobbying the federal government on issues relating to "the tax code, food safety, immigration reform and other issues."

Other players

Other possible players in the lobbying arena are those who might influence legislation: House & Senate colleagues, public opinion in the district, the White House, party leaders, union leaders, and other influential persons and groups. Interest groups are often thought of as "nonparty organizations" which regularly try to change or influence government decision-making.

Lobbying methods and techniques

Lobbying has much in common with highly people-intensive businesses such as management consulting and public relations, but with a political and legal sensibility. Like lawmakers, many lobbyists are lawyers, and the persons they are trying to influence have the duty of writing laws. That the disciplines of law and lobbying are intertwined could be seen in the case of a Texas lawyer who had been seeking compensation for his unfairly imprisoned client; since his exonerated-prisoner client had trouble paying the legal expenses, the lawyer lobbied the Texas state legislature to raise the state's payment for unfairly imprisoned prisoners from $50,000 per year to $80,000 per year; it succeeded, making it possible for his newly freed client to pay the lawyer's fees.

Connections count: Congressman Tom Perriello with lobbyist Heather Podesta at an inauguration party for Barack Obama.

Well-connected lobbyists work in Washington for years, know the issues, are highly skilled advocates, and have cultivated close connections with members of Congress, regulators, specialists, and others. They understand strategy and have excellent communication skills; many are well suited to be able to choose which clients they would like to represent. Lobbyists patiently cultivate networks of powerful people, over many years, trying to build trust and maintain confidence and friendships. When a client hires them to push a specific issue or agenda, they usually form coalitions to exert political pressure. Lobbying, as a result, depends on trying to be flexible to new opportunities, but at the same time, to act as an agent for a client. As one lobbyist put it:

It's my job to advance the interests of my association or client. Period. — comment by a lobbyist

Access is important and often means a one-on-one meeting with a legislator. Getting access can sometimes be difficult, but there are various avenues: email, personal letters, phone calls, face-to-face meetings, meals, get-togethers, and even chasing after congresspersons in the Capitol building:

My style of lobbying is not to have big formal meetings, but to catch members on the fly as they're walking between the House and the office buildings. — a lobbyist commenting on access

When getting access is difficult, there are ways to wear down the walls surrounding a legislator. Jack Abramoff explained:

Access is vital in lobbying. If you can't get in your door, you can't make your case. Here we had a hostile senator, whose staff was hostile, and we had to get in. So that's the lobbyist safe-cracker method: throw fundraisers, raise money, and become a big donor. — Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011

Lobbyists often assist congresspersons with campaign finance by arranging fundraisers, assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients. Many lobbyists become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for congresspersons. This helps incumbent members cope with the substantial amounts of time required to raise money for reelection bids; one estimate was that congresspersons had to spend a third of their working hours on fundraising activity. PACs are fairly easy to set up; it requires a lawyer and about $300, roughly. An even steeper possible reward which can be used in exchange for favors is the lure of a high-paying job as a lobbyist; according to Jack Abramoff, one of the best ways to "get what he wanted" was to offer a high-ranking congressional aide a high-paying job after they decided to leave public office. When such a promise of future employment was accepted, according to Abramoff, "we owned them". This helped the lobbying firm exert influence on that particular congressperson by going through the staff member or aide. At the same time, it is hard for outside observers to argue that a particular decision, such as hiring a former staffer into a lobbying position, was purely as a reward for some past political decision, since staffers often have valuable connections and policy experience needed by lobbying firms. Research economist Mirko Draca suggested that hiring a staffer was an ideal way for a lobbying firm to try to sway their old bosses—a congressperson—in the future.

In a one-on-one meeting with a lobbyist, it helps to understand precisely what goal is wanted. A lobbyist wants action on a bill; a legislator wants to be re-elected. The idea is to persuade a legislator that what the lobbyist wants is good public policy. Lobbyists often urge lawmakers to try to persuade other lawmakers to approve a bill.

Still, persuasion is a subtle business. In one instance of a public relations reversal, a lobbying initiative by the Cassidy firm which targeted Senator Robert C. Byrd blew up when the Cassidy-Byrd connection was published in The Washington Post; this resulted in a furious Byrd reversing his previous pro-Cassidy position and throwing a "theatrical temper tantrum" regarding an $18 million facility. Byrd denounced "lobbyists who collect exorbitant fees to create projects and have them earmarked in appropriation bills... for the benefit of their clients."

Since it often takes a long time to build the network of relationships within the lobbying industry, ethical interpersonal dealings are important. A maxim in the industry is for lobbyists to be truthful with people they are trying to persuade; one lobbyist described it this way: "what you've basically got is your word and reputation". An untruth, a lie is too risky to the successful development of a long-term relationship and the potential gain is not worth the risk. One report suggested that below-the-belt tactics generally do not work. One account suggest that groping for "personal dirt" on opponents was counterproductive since it would undermine respect for the lobbyist and their clients. And, by reverse logic, if an untruth is told by an opponent or opposing lobby, then it makes sense to publicize it. But the general code among lobbyists is that unsubstantiated claims are bad business. Even worse is planting an informant in an opponent's camp, since if this subterfuge is ever discovered, it will boomerang negatively in a hundred ways, and credibility will drop to zero. The importance of personal relationships in lobbying can be seen in the state of Illinois, in which father-son ties helped push a smart-grid energy bill, although there were accusations of favoritism. And there is anecdotal evidence that a business firm seeking to profitably influence legislation has to pay particular attention to which lobbyist it hires.

Strategic considerations for lobbyists, trying to influence legislation, include "locating a power base" or a constituency logically predisposed to support a given policy. Timing, as well, is usually important, in the sense of knowing when to propose a certain action and having a big-picture view of the possible sequence of desired actions. Strategic lobbying tries to estimate the possible responses of different groups to a possible lobby approach; one study suggested that the "expectations of opposition from other interests" was a key factor helping to determine how a lobby should operate.

Increasingly, lobbyists seek to put together coalitions and use outside lobbying by swaying public opinion. Bigger, more diverse and deep pocketed coalitions tend to be more effective in outside lobbying, and the "strength in numbers" principle often applies. Interest groups try to build "sustainable coalitions of similarly situated individual organizations in pursuit of like-minded goals". According to one study, it is often difficult for a lobbyist to influence a staff member in Congress directly, since staffers tend to be well-informed and subject to views from competing interests. As an indirect tactic, lobbyists can try to manipulate public opinion which, in turn, can sometimes exert pressure on congresspersons. Activities for these purposes include trying to use the mass media, cultivating contacts with reporters and editors, encouraging them to write editorials and cover stories to influence public opinion, which may have the secondary effect of influencing Congress. According to analyst Ken Kollman, it is easier to sway public opinion than a congressional staff member since it is possible to bombard the public with "half-truths, distortion, scare tactics, and misinformation." Kollman suggests there should be two goals: (1) communicate that there is public support behind an issue to policymakers and (2) increase public support for the issue among constituents. Kollman suggested outside lobbying was a "powerful tool" for interest group leaders. In a sense, using these criteria, one could consider James Madison as having engaged in outside lobbying, since after the Constitution was proposed, he wrote many of the 85 newspaper editorials arguing for people to support the Constitution, and these writings later became the Federalist Papers. As a result of this "lobbying" effort, the Constitution was ratified, although there were narrow margins of victory in four of the state legislatures. Lobbying today generally requires mounting a coordinated campaign, using targeted blitzes of telephone calls, letters, emails to congressional lawmakers, marches down the National Mall, bus caravans, and such, and these are often put together by lobbyists who coordinate a variety of interest group leaders to unite behind a hopefully simple easy-to-grasp and persuasive message.

It is important for lobbyists to follow rules governing lobbying behavior. These can be difficult and complex, take time to learn, require full disclosure, and mistakes can land a lobbyist in serious legal trouble.

Gifts for congresspersons and staffers can be problematic, since anything of sizeable value must be disclosed and generally such gifts are illegal. Failure to observe gift restrictions was one factor which caused lobbyist Jack Abramoff to eventually plead guilty to a "raft of federal corruption charges" and led to convictions for 20 lobbyists and public officials, including congressperson Bob Ney and Bush deputy interior secretary Stephen Griles. Generally gifts to congresspersons or their staffs or federal officials are not allowed, but with a few exceptions: books are permitted, provided that the inside cover is inscribed with the congressperson's name and the name of one's organization. Gifts under $5 are allowed. Another exception is awards, so it is permitted to give a congressperson a plaque thanking him or her for support on a given issue. Cash gifts payable by check can only be made to campaign committees, not to a candidate personally or to staff; it is not permitted to give cash or stock.

Wealthy lobbyists often encourage other lobbying clients to donate to a particular cause, in the hope that favors will be returned at a later date. Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy encouraged other clients to give for causes dear to a particular client engaged in a current lobbying effort. Some lobbyists give their own money: Cassidy reportedly donated a million dollars on one project, according to one report, which noted that Cassidy's firm received "many times that much in fees from their clients" paid in monthly retainers. And their clients, in turn, had received "hundreds of millions in earmarked appropriations" and benefits worth "hundreds of millions more".

Jack Abramoff was at the center of an extensive corruption investigation

The dynamics of the lobbying world make it fairly easy for a semi-skilled operator to defraud a client. This is essentially what happened in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. There was a concerned client—in this case, an Indian casino—worried about possible ill-effects of legislation on its gambling business; and there were lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff who knew how to exploit these fears. The lobbyists actively lobbied against their own casino-client as a way to ratchet up their fears of adverse legislation as well as stoke possible future contributions; the lobbyists committed other violations such as grossly overbilling their clients as well as violating rules about giving gifts to congresspersons. Numerous persons went to jail after the scandal. The following are factors which can make fraud a fairly easy-to-do activity: that lobbyists are paid only to try to influence decision-makers, and may or may not succeed, making it hard to tell if a lobbyist did actual work; that much of what happens regarding interpersonal relations is obscure despite rather strict disclosure and transparency requirements; that there are sizable monies involved—factors such as these almost guarantee that there will be future scandals involving fraudulent lobbying activity, according to one assessment. A fraud similar to Abramoff's was perpetrated in Maryland by lobbyist Gerard E. Evans, who was convicted of mail and wire fraud in 2000 in a case involving falsely creating a "fictitious legislative threat" against a client, and then billing the client to work against this supposed threat.

Lobbyists routinely monitor how congressional officials vote, sometimes checking the past voting records of congresspersons. One report suggested that reforms requiring "publicly recorded committee votes" led to more information about how congresspersons voted, but instead of becoming a valuable resource for the news media or voters, the information helped lobbyists monitor congressional voting patterns. As a general rule, lawmakers must vote as a particular interest group wishes them to vote, or risk losing support.

Strategy usually dictates targeting specific office holders. On the state level, one study suggested that much of the lobbying activity targeted the offices of governors as well as state-level executive bureaucrats; state lobbying was an "intensely personal game" with face-to-face contact being required for important decisions.

Lobbying can be a counteractive response to the lobbying efforts of others. One study suggested this was particularly true for battles surrounding possible decisions by the Supreme Court which is considered as a "battleground for public policy" in which differing groups try to "etch their policy preferences into law". Sometimes there are lobbying efforts to slow or derail other legislative processes; for example, when the FDA began considering a cheaper generic version of the costly anti-clotting drug Lovenox, the French pharmaceutical firm Sanofi "sprang into action to try and slow the process." Lobbyists are often assembled in anticipation of a potential takeover bid, particularly when there are large high-profile companies, or a large foreign company involved, and substantial concern that the takeover may be blocked by regulatory authorities.

An example may illustrate. The company Tyco had learned that there had been discussion about a possible new tax provision that might have cost it $4 billion overall. So the firm hired Jack Abramoff and paid him a retainer of $100,000 a month. He assembled dozens of lobbyists with connections to key congressional committees with the ultimate objective being to influence powerful Senator Charles Grassley. Abramoff began with a fundraising effort to round up "every check" possible. He sought funds from his other lobbying clients:

I had my clients understand that just as other clients who had nothing to do with them, would step up and give contributions to congressmen they needed to have some sway with, so similarly they needed to do the same. I went to every client I could, and rounded up every check we could for him.

— Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011

Lobbyists as educators and advisors

"Government has grown so complex that it is a virtual certainty that more than one agency would be affected by any piece of legislation," according to one view. Lobbyists, therefore, spend considerable time learning the ins and outs of issues, and can use their expertise to educate lawmakers and help them cope with difficult issues. Lobbyists' knowledge has been considered to be an intellectual subsidy for lawmakers. Some lobbyists become specialists with expertise in a particular set of issues, although one study suggested that of two competing criteria for lobbyists—expertise or access—that access was far more important.

Lobby groups and their members sometimes also write legislation and whip bills, and in these instances, it is helpful to have lawyers skilled in writing legislation to assist with these efforts. Lobbyists may write the actual text of the proposed law, and hire lawyers to "get the language down pat"—an omission in wording or an unclear phrase may open up a loophole for opponents to wrangle over for years. Lobbyists can often advise a lawmaker on how to navigate the approval process.

Lobbying firms can serve as mentors and guides. For example, after months of protesting by the Occupy Wall Street, one lobbying firm prepared a memo to its clients warning that Republicans may "turn on big banks, at least in public" which may have the effect of "altering the political ground for years to come." Here are parts of the memo which were broadcast on the MSNBC network.

Leading Democratic party strategists have begun to openly discuss the benefits of embracing the growing and increasingly organized Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement ... This would mean more than just short-term discomfort for Wall Street firms. If vilifying the leading companies of this sector is allowed to become an unchallenged centerpiece of a coordinated Democratic campaign, it has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye. ... the bigger concern should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies...

— Clark, Lytle, Geduldig, Cranford, law/lobbying firm, to a Wall Street client

A growing billion dollar business

Top lobbying sectors 1998–2010

	Client	Amount Spent	%
1	Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$4,274,060,331	15%
2	Health	$4,222,427,808	15%
3	Misc Business	$4,149,842,571	14%
4	Communications/Electronics	$3,497,881,399	12%
5	Energy & Natural Resources	$3,104,104,518	11%
6	Transportation	$2,245,118,222	8%
7	Other	$2,207,772,363	7%
8	Ideological/Single-Issue	$1,477,294,241	5%
9	Agribusiness	$1,280,824,983	4%
10	Defense	$1,216,469,173	4%
11	Construction	$480,363,108	2%
12	Labor	$427,355,408	1%
13	Lawyers & Lobbyists themselves	$336,170,306	1%
	Total	$28,919,684,431	99%
	Note: Amounts do not include campaign contributions.

Since the 1970s, there has been explosive growth in the lobbying industry, particularly in Washington D.C. By 2011, one estimate of overall lobbying spending nationally was $30+ billion dollars. An estimate of lobbying expenses in the federal arena was $3.5 billion in 2010, while it had been only $1.4 billion in 1998. And there is prodigious data since firms are required to disclose lobbying expenditures on a quarterly basis.

The industry, however, is not immune to economic downturns. If Congress is gridlocked, such as during the summer and early fall of 2011, lobbying activity dipped considerably, according to The Washington Post. Lobbying firm Patton Boggs reported drops in revenue during that year, from $12 million in 2010 to $11 million in 2011. To cope with the downturn, some law firms compensated by increasing activity in litigation, regulatory work, and representing clients in congressional investigations.

A sea-change in government, such as a shift in control of the legislature from one political party to the other, can affect the lobbying business profoundly. For example, the primarily Democratic-serving lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates learned that control of Congress would change hands from Democrats to Republicans in 1994, and the firm acquired Republican lobbyists before the congressional handover of power, and the move helped the lobbying firm stay on top of the new political realities.

Examples of lobbying

There are numerous examples of lobbying activity reported by the media. One report chronicled a somewhat unusual alliance of consumer advocates and industry groups to boost funding for the Food and Drug Administration; the general pattern of lobbying efforts had been to try to reduce the regulatory oversight of such an agency. In this case, however, lobbying groups wanted the federal watchdog agency to have tougher policing authority to avert expensive problems when oversight was lax; in this case, industry and consumer groups were in harmony, and lobbyists were able to persuade officials that higher FDA budgets were in the public interest. Religious consortiums, according to one report, have engaged in a $400 million lobbying effort on such issues as the relation between church and state, civil rights for religious minorities, bioethics issues including abortion and capital punishment and end-of-life issues, and family issues.

Lobbying as a career

While national-level lobbyists working in Washington have the highest salaries, many lobbyists operating at the state level can earn substantial salaries. The table shows the top lobbyists in one state—Maryland—in 2011.

Top Maryland lobbyists (2011)

Lobbyist	Income
Gerard E. Evans	$1,232,000
Timothy A. Perry	$1,217,793
Joel D. Rozner	$1,215,161
Robin F. Shaivitz	$1,156,368
Gregory S. Proctor Jr.	$1,107,144
John R. Stierhoff	$1,059,766
Michael V. Johansen	$1,050,234
Nicholas G. Manis	$1,016,250
D. Robert Enten	$863,193
Lisa Harris Jones	$857,000
	Source: State Ethics Commission

Top power-brokers such as Gerald Cassidy have made fortunes from lobbying:

Cassidy's reaction to his own wealth has been complicated. He lives large, riding around town in his chauffeured car, spending thousands on custom-made clothes, investing big money in, for example, the Charlie Palmer Steak restaurant at the foot of Capitol Hill just for the fun of it. He has fashioned a wine cellar of more than 7,000 bottles. He loves to go to England and live like a gentleman of the kind his Irish antecedents would have considered an anathema.

— journalist Robert G. Kaiser in 2007 in The Washington Post

Effectiveness of lobbying

There is general agreement that money is a key variable in lobbying.

The consensus is that lobbying generally works overall in achieving sought-after results for clients, particularly since it has become so prevalent with substantial and growing budgets, although there are dissenting views. A study by the investment-research firm Strategas which was cited in The Economist and The Washington Post compared the 50 firms that spent the most on lobbying relative to their assets, and compared their financial performance against that of the S&P 500 in the stock market; the study concluded that spending on lobbying was a "spectacular investment" yielding "blistering" returns comparable to a high-flying hedge fund, even despite the financial downturn of the past few years. A 2009 study by University of Kansas professor Raquel Meyer Alexander suggested that lobbying brought a substantial return on investment. A 2011 meta-analysis of previous research findings found a positive correlation between corporate political activity and firm performance. There are numerous reports that the National Rifle Association or NRA successfully influenced 45 senators to block a proposed rule to regulate assault weapons, despite strong public support for gun control. The NRA spends heavily to influence gun policy; it gives $3 million annually to the re-election campaigns of congresspersons directly, and gives additional money to PACs and others to influence legislation indirectly, according to the BBC in 2016.

There is widespread agreement that a key ingredient in effective lobbying is money. This view is shared by players in the lobbying industry.

Deep pockets speak; the money trumps it all.

— Anonymous lobbyist, 2002

Still, effectiveness can vary depending on the situational context. One view is that large multiple-issue lobbies tend to be effective in getting results for their clients if they are sophisticated, managed by a legislative director familiar with the art of compromise, and play "political hardball". But if such lobbies became too big, such as large industrial trade organizations, they became harder to control, often leading to lackluster results. A study in 2001 which compared lobbying activity in US-style congressional against European-style parliamentary systems, found that in congressional systems there was an advantage favoring the "agenda-setters", but that in both systems, "lobbying has a marked effect on policies". One report suggested that the 1,000 registered lobbyists in California were highly influential such that they were called the Third House.

Studies of lobbying by academics in previous decades painted a picture of lobbying being an ineffectual activity, although many of these studies were done before lobbying became prevalent in American politics. A study in 1963 by Bauer, Pool, & Dexter suggested lobbyists were mostly "impotent" in exerting influence. Studies in the early 1990s suggested that lobbying exerted influence only "marginally", although it suggested that when lobbying activity did achieve political impacts, that the results of the political choices were sufficient to justify the expenditure on lobbying. A fairly recent study in 2009 is that Washington lobbies are "far less influential than political rhetoric suggests", and that most lobbying campaigns do not change any views and that there was a strong entrenchment of the status quo. But it depends on what is seen as "effective", since many lobbying battles result in a stalemate, since powerful interests battle, and in many cases, merely keeping the "status quo" could be seen as a victory of sorts. What happens often is that varying coalitions find themselves in "diametrical opposition to each other" and that stalemates result.

There is anecdotal evidence from numerous newspaper accounts of different groups battling that lobbying activity usually achieves results. For example, the Obama administration pledged to stop for-profit colleges from "luring students with false promises", but with this threat, the lobbying industry sprang into action with a $16 million campaign, and their efforts succeeded in watering down the proposed restrictions. How did the lobbying campaign succeed? Actions taken included:

1. spent $16 million
2. hired "all-star list" of prominent players including Democrats and Republicans with White House ties
3. plotted strategy
4. worked with "fund-raising bundler" Jamie Rubin, a former Obama communications director
5. won support from influential people including congressperson-turned-lobbyist Dick Gephardt, senator-turned-lobbyist John Breaux, lobbyist Tony Podesta, Washington Post CEO Donald E. Graham, education entrepreneur and University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, others
6. key leaders made "impassioned appeals"
7. mobilization effort produced 90,000 public documents to the Education department advocating against changes

And sometimes merely keeping the status quo could be seen as a victory. When gridlock led to the supposed supercommittee solution, numerous lobbyists from all parts of the political spectrum worked hard, and a stalemate resulted, but with each side defended their own special interests. And while money is an important variable, it is one among many variables, and there have been instances in which huge sums have been spent on lobbying only to have the result backfire. One report suggested that the communications firm AT&T failed to achieve substantial results from its lobbying efforts in 2011, since government antitrust officials rejected its plan to acquire rival T-Mobile.

Lobbying is a practical necessity for firms that "live and die" by government decisions, such as large government contractors such as Boeing. A study done in 2006 by Bloomberg News suggested that lobbying was a "sound money-making strategy" for the 20 largest federal contractors. The largest contractor, Lockheed Martin Corporation, received almost $40 billion in federal contracts in 2003–4, and spent $16 million on lobbying expenses and campaign donations. For each dollar of lobbying investment, the firm received $2,517 in revenues, according to the report. When the lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates began achieving results with earmarks for colleges and universities and medical centers, new lobbying firms rose to compete with them to win "earmarks of their own", a clear sign that the lobbying was exceedingly effective.

Lobbying controversies

Lobbying has been the subject of much debate and discussion. There is general consensus that lobbying has been a significant corrupting influence in American politics, although criticism is not universal, and there have been arguments put forward to suggest that the system is working properly.

Unfavorable image

Main article: Corruption in the United States

"The Bosses of the Senate", corporate interests as giant money bags looming over senators.

Generally the image of lobbyists and lobbying in the public sphere is not a positive one, although this is not a universal sentiment. Lobbyists have been described as a "hired gun" without principles or positions. Scandals involving lobbying have helped taint the image of the profession, such as ones involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Bob Ney and others, and which featured words such as "bribery", "lobbyist", "member of Congress" and "prison" tending to appear together in the same articles. Negative publicity can sully lobbying's image to a great extent: high-profile cases of lobbying fraud such as Abramoff's; dubious father-son exchange-of-favors ties; public officials such as Newt Gingrich being accused and then denying accusations of having done lobbying and earning $1.6 million from "strategic advice". There are a variety of reasons why lobbying has acquired a negative image in public consciousness. While there is much disclosure, much of it happens in hard-to-disclose personal meetings, and the resulting secrecy and confidentiality can serve to lower lobbying's status.

Revolving door

Main article: Revolving door (politics)

The image of a revolving door has been used to describe the relation between working in government and for lobbyists.

Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "going downtown"—becoming lobbyists—and the big draw is money. The "lucrative world of K Street" means that former congresspersons with even "modest seniority" can move into jobs paying $1 million or more annually, without including bonuses for bringing in new clients. The general concern of this revolving-door activity is that elected officials—persons who were supposed to represent the interests of citizens—have instead become entangled with the big-money interests of for-profit corporations and interest groups with narrow concerns, and that public officials have been taken over by private interests.

In July 2005, Public Citizen published a report entitled "The Journey from Congress to K Street": the report analyzed hundreds of lobbyist registration documents filed in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act among other sources. It found that since 1998, 43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join private life have registered to lobby. A similar report from OpenSecrets found 370 former members were in the "influence-peddling business", with 285 officially registered as federal lobbyists, and 85 others who were described as providing "strategic advice" or "public relations" to corporate clients. The Washington Post described these results as reflecting the "sea change that has occurred in lawmakers' attitudes toward lobbying in recent years." The report included a case study of one particularly successful lobbyist, Bob Livingston, who stepped down as Speaker-elect and resigned his seat in 1999. In the six years since his resignation, The Livingston Group grew into the 12th largest non-law lobbying firm, earning nearly $40 million by the end of 2004. During roughly the same time period, Livingston, his wife, and his two political action committees (PACs) contributed over $500,000 to the campaign funds of various candidates. The percentage of former members of Congress who become lobbyists has continued to increase. A 2019 study found that 59% of representatives who leave Congress to work in the private sector are working for lobbying or political consulting firms, trade groups or business groups tasked with influencing federal government policy.

Numerous reports chronicle the revolving door phenomenon. A 2011 estimate suggested that nearly 5,400 former congressional staffers had become federal lobbyists over a ten-year period, and 400 lawmakers made a similar jump. It is a "symbiotic relationship" in the sense that lobbying firms can exploit the "experience and connections gleaned from working inside the legislative process", and lawmakers find a "ready pool of experienced talent." There is movement in the other direction as well: one report found that 605 former lobbyists had taken jobs working for lawmakers over a ten-year period. A study by the London School of Economics found 1,113 lobbyists who had formerly worked in lawmakers' offices. The lobbying option is a way for staffers and lawmakers to "cash in on their experience", according to one view. Before the 1980s, staffers and aides worked many years for congresspersons, sometimes decades, and tended to stay in their jobs; now, with the lure of higher-paying lobbying jobs, many would quit their posts after a few years at most to "go downtown."

And it is not just staffers, but lawmakers as well, including high-profile ones such as congressperson Richard Gephardt. He represented a "working-class" district in Missouri for many years but after leaving Congress, he became a lobbyist. In 2007, he began his own lobbying firm called "Gephardt Government Affairs Group" and in 2010 it was earning close to $7 million in revenues with clients including Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Visa Inc., Ameren Corporation, and Waste Management Inc. Senators Robert Bennett and Byron Dorgan became lobbyists too. Mississippi governor Haley Barbour became a lobbyist. In 2010, former representative Billy Tauzin earned $11 million running the drug industry's lobbying organization, called Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). His bill to provide prescription drug access to Medicare recipients gave major concessions to the pharmaceutical industry: (1) Medicare was prevented from negotiating lower costs for prescription drugs (2) the reimportation of drugs from first world countries was not allowed (3) Medicare D was undermined by a policy of Medigap D. After the bill passed a few months later, Tauzin retired from Congress and took an executive position at PhRMA to earn an annual salary of $2 million. Many former representatives earned over $1 million in one year, including James Greenwood and Daniel Glickman.

Insider's game

Occupy Wall Street protesters have been critical of lobbying in government.

A similar concern voiced by critics of lobbying is that Washington politics has become dominated by elites, and that it is an "insider's game" excluding regular citizens and which favors entrenched firms. Individuals generally can not afford to lobby, and critics question whether corporations with "deeper pockets" should have greater power than voters. In this view, the system favors the rich, such that the "rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker", admits lobbyist Gerald Cassidy. Those having more money and better political connections can exert more influence than others. There is so much money that it has been described as a "flood" that has a "corrupting influence", so that the United States appears to be "awash" in interest groups. If coalitions of different forces battle in the political arena for favorable treatment and better rules and tax breaks, it can be seen as fair if both sides have equal resources and try to fight for their interests as best they can. Gerald Cassidy said:

In a lot of areas, the stakes are between big companies, and it's hard to argue that one solution is better than another solution with regard to the consumer's interest ... The issue ... is whether Company A's solution, or Company B's solution, based on their technology or their footprint, is the right one.

— Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy

A related but slightly different criticism is that the problem with lobbying as it exists today is that it creates an "inequity of access to the decision-making process". As a result, important needs get left out of the political evaluation, such that there are no anti-hunger lobbies or lobbies seeking serious solutions to the problem of poverty. Nonprofit advocacy has been "conspicuously absent" from lobbying efforts, according to one view. Critics suggest that when a powerful coalition battles a less powerful one, or one which is poorly connected or underfunded, the result may be seen as unfair and potentially harmful for the entire society. The increasing number of former lawmakers becoming lobbyists has led Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to propose paring back the many Capitol Hill privileges enjoyed by former senators and representatives. His plan would deprive lawmakers-turned-lobbyists of privileges such as unfettered access to otherwise "members only" areas such as the House and Senate floors and the House gym.

Choice-making problems

A concern among many critics is that influence peddling hurts overall decision making, according to this criticism. Proposals with merit are dropped in favor of proposals backed by political expediency. An example cited in the media is a 2011 battling between food industry lobbyists and healthcare lobbyists regarding school lunches. A group supported by the United States Department of Agriculture proposed healthier lunches as a way to combat childhood obesity by limiting the number of potatoes served, limiting salty foods, and adding more fresh vegetables, but this group was countered by a strong food lobby backed by Coca-Cola, Del Monte, and makers of frozen pizza. The food lobbyists succeeded in blocking the proposed reforms, even writing rules suggesting that the tomato paste on a pizza qualified as a vegetable, but overall, according to critics, this case appeared to be an example where business interests won out over health concerns. Critics use examples such as these to suggest that lobbying distorts sound governance. A study by IMF economists found that the "heaviest lobbying came from lenders making riskier loans and expanding their mortgage business most rapidly during the housing boom," and that there were indications that heavy-lobbying lenders were more likely to receive bailout funds. The study found a correlation between lobbying by financial institutions and excessive risk-taking during 2000–2007, and the authors concluded that "politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financial crisis". Another study suggested that governments tend to protect domestic industries, and have a habit of shunting monies to ailing sectors; the study suggested that "it is not that government policy picks losers, it is that losers pick government policy." One critic suggested that the financial industry has successfully blocked attempts at regulation in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse.

Governmental focus

Critics have contended that when lawmakers are drawn into battles to determine issues such as the composition over school lunches or how much an ATM fee should be, more serious issues such as deficit reduction or global warming or social security are neglected. It leads to legislative inertia. The concern is that the preoccupation with what are seen as superficial issues prevents attention to long-term problems. Critics suggested that the 2011 Congress spent more time discussing per-transaction debit-card fees while neglecting issues seen as more pressing.

Methodological problems

In this line of reasoning, critics contend that lobbying, in and of itself, is not the sole problem, but only one aspect of a larger problem with American governance. Critics point to an interplay of factors: citizens being uninvolved politically; congresspersons needing huge sums of money for expensive television advertising campaigns; increased complexity in terms of technologies; congresspersons spending three days of every week raising money; and so forth. Given these temptations, lobbying came along as a logical response to meet the needs of congresspersons seeking campaign funds and staffers seeking personal enrichment. In a sense, in competitive politics, the common good gets lost:

I know what my client wants; no one knows what the common good is.

— Anonymous lobbyist

A lobbyist can identify a client's needs. But it is hard for a single individual to say what is best for the whole group. The intent of the Constitution's Framers was to have built-in constitutional protections to protect the common good, but according to these critics, these protections do not seem to be working well:

The structure of representative government, elected by the people, was to be our system's built-in protection of the whole of us—fairly elected officeholders were to represent their constituent groups, free from any obligations to special interests. Unfortunately, money has corrupted the system and compromised both the fairness of the electoral process as well as the independence and impartiality of elected officials.

— Barry Hessenius in Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits, 2007

Former convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff (left) listens to Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig in 2011.

Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and author of Republic, Lost, suggested that the moneyed persuasive power of special interests has insinuated itself between the people and the lawmakers. He quoted congressperson Jim Cooper who remarked that Congress had become a "Farm League for K Street" in the sense that congresspersons were focused on lucrative lobbying careers after Congress rather than on serving the public interest while in office. In a speech, Lessig suggested the structure of incentives was such that legislators were tempted to propose unnecessary regulations as a way to further lobbying industry activity. According to one view, major legislation such as proposed Wall Street reforms have spurred demand for "participating in the regulatory process." Lessig suggested the possibility that it was not corporations deciding to take up lobbying, but Congress choosing to debate less-than-important issues to bring well-heeled corporations into the political fray as lobbyists. As a result of his concerns, Lessig has called on state governments to summon a Second Constitutional Convention to propose substantive reform. Lessig believes that a constitutional amendment should be written to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals.

Our current tax system with all its complexities is in part designed to make it easier for candidates, in particular congressmen, to raise money to get back to congress ... All sorts of special exceptions which expire after a limited period of time are just a reason to pick up the phone and call somebody and say 'Your exception is about to expire, here’s a good reason for you to help us fight to get it to extend.' And that gives them the opportunity to practice what is really a type of extortion – shaking the trees of money in the private sector into their campaign coffers so that they can run for congress again.

— Lawrence Lessig, 2011

Scholars such as Richard Labunski, Sanford Levinson, Glenn Reynolds, Larry Sabato, as well as newspaper columnist William Safire, and activists such as John Booth of RestoringFreedom.org have called for constitutional changes that would curb the powerful role of money in politics.

Expansion of lobbying

Law in the United States is generally made by Congress, but as the federal government has expanded during much of the twentieth century, there are a sizeable number of federal agencies, generally under the control of the president. These agencies write often industry-specific rules and regulations regarding such things as automobile safety and air quality. Unlike elected congresspersons who are constantly seeking campaign funds, these appointed officials are harder to influence, generally. However, there are indications that lobbyists seek to expand their influence from the halls of Congress deeper into the federal bureaucracy.

Президент Обама пообещал во время избирательной кампании, чтобы обуздать лоббирование. В качестве президента в январе 2009 года он подписал два исполнительных распоряжения и три президентских меморанду. Чтобы помочь его администрации была более открытой, прозрачной и подотчетной. Эти документы пытались обеспечить повышенную ответственность за федеральные расходы и ограничить влияние особых интересов и включали запрет на подарок лоббиста и запрет на воротный запрет на дверь. В мае 2009 года Закон о восстановлении . Закон о реформе исполнительной власти , HR 985, был законопроектом, который потребовал бы, чтобы более 8 000 чиновников исполнительной власти сообщали в публичную базу данных почти любой «значительный контакт» от любой «частной партии». Цель состояла в том, чтобы определить лоббистскую деятельность. Законопроект был поддержан сторонниками как расширение «правительства на солнце», включая такие группы, как общественный гражданин .

Но предложения столкнулись с серьезной оппозицией со стороны различных групп, включая саму лоббистскую отрасль. Противники утверждали, что предлагаемые правила отчетности нарушили бы право на ходатайство, что затрудняет не только лоббистов, но и для постоянных граждан, чтобы сообщать свои взгляды на спорные вопросы, не имея их имен и точек зрения, введенных в правительственную базу данных . Оппозиционные группы предположили, что, хотя предлагаемые правила были продвинуты как способ регулировать «лоббистов», лица, описанные как «частная партия», могут быть практически кем -либо, и что любой, кто обращается к федеральному чиновнику, может считаться «лоббистом». Министерство юстиции США выдвинуло конституционные и другие возражения против законопроекта. Оппоненты мобилизовали более 450 групп, включая Торговую палату США и Национальную ассоциацию риэлторов с кампаниями по написанию письма против предлагаемых ограничений. Лоббист Говард Марлоу спорил в «строгой букве» То, что ограничение подарков федеральным служащим создаст «страх возмездия за политические пожертвования»:

С момента вашего объявления о том, чтобы добиться президентства, вы постоянно нападали на почетную профессию лоббирования ... лоббисты играют важную роль в законодательном процессе, служат преподавателями для избранных должностных лиц. В интересах правительству будет информировать людей, которые служат экспертами на каждой арене государственной политики. Наша способность получить доступ и ориентироваться в законодательном процессе и продвигать проблемы вперед через бюрократический кластер является жизненно важной службой для страны. Проектный приказ препятствует одним из самых жизненно важных инструментов в арсенале адвоката, создавая страх возмездия за политические пожертвования. Выполнение такого рода раскрытия частью процесса торгов запятнает конкуренцию, основанную на квалификации, добавляет ненужный уровень бюрократии и сталкивается с угрозой защиты свободы слова, предоставленной всем американцам первой поправкой к Конституции ...

- Говард Марлоу, президент Американской лиги лоббистов , в письме к президенту Обаме, 31 мая 2011 г.

В 2011 году были предприняты усилия по «изменению регулирующей власти с исполнительной власти в Конгресс», требуя, чтобы любое «основное правило» может стоить экономике более 100 миллионов долларов США, чтобы решить Конгресс с голосованием вверх или вниз. Но скептики думают, что такой шаг, предложенный республиканскими законодателями, может «открыть лоббирование бонанзы от промышленности и других групп специальных интересов», чтобы использовать вклад кампании, чтобы изменить нормативную среду.

Потенциал для реформ

Критики предполагают, что Конгресс имеет право исправлять себя, но не хочет жертвовать деньгами и властью. В одном из сообщений предполагалось, что у тех, кто контролировался, была «непрерывная запись о поиске способов перемещаться по законам о реформе или повернуть нормативные стандарты в свои преимущества».

Аргументы для лоббирования

Согласно Мэдисонианскому взгляду на политику, в каких фракциях должны были конкурировать с другими фракциями, система работает точно так же, как и должна. Иногда мощные финансовые интересы теряют битву.

Поскольку лоббисты часто становятся хорошо осведомленными о конкретной проблеме, изучая ее в течение многих лет, они могут принести значительный опыт, чтобы помочь законодателям избежать ошибок, а также понять нюансы сложных проблем. Утверждалось, что лоббисты могут помочь Конгрессу, возможно, подняв «красные флаги» о предлагаемых решениях.

Другим аргументом в поддержку лоббирования является то, что различные группы интересов и лоббисты, пытаясь создать коалиции и завоевать поддержку, часто изменяют или смягчают или изменяют свои позиции в этом процессе, а также заинтересованные группы и лоббисты, в некотором смысле.

Но более общее настроение, подтверждающее соглашение о лоббировании, заключается в том, что каждый гражданин может быть истолкован как «представлен» десятками особых интересов:

Каждый гражданин представляет особый интерес ... чернокожие, потребители, учителя, профессионалы, защитники, защитники оружия, люди с ограниченными возможностями, инопланетяне, экспортеры и продавцы-все это особые интересы ... сегодня не существует американского. (Независимо от того, знает он или она это или нет) как минимум дюжины групп с особыми интересами. ... Особый интерес у одного человека - деспотизм другого человека ...

- Дональд Э. Декиффер , автор «Гражданского руководства по лоббированию Конгресса» , 2007

в лоббистской кампании, оттолкнув энциклопедию на один день, и призвал пользователей связаться Это то, что пользователи видели, когда они пытались получить доступ к английской Википедии 18 января 2012 года. Она участвовала лоббирование усилий.

Если мощным группам, таким как нефтяная промышленность, успешно выиграли битву в правительстве, потребители, которые управляют автомобилями с газом, могут немного принести пользу, согласно этой точке зрения. Даже читатели Википедии могут быть задуманны как особые интересы и представлены различными лобби. Например, противники Закона о пиратстве «Стоп онлайн» считали, что этот акт может ограничивать такие сайты, как Arc.Ask3.Ru; 18 января 2012 года в качестве формы протеста и способа поощрения читателей и участников английской Википедии написать свои конгрессы, онлайн -энциклопедия была « отключена на один день в рамках усилий по лоббированию правительства.

Другим взглядом в поддержку лоббирования является то, что он служит полезной целью как охранять защиту от экстремизма. Согласно этой точке зрения, лоббирование добавляет «встроенные задержки» и разрешает и поощряет противоположные лобби сражаться. В борьбе, возможно, повреждающие указы и неправильные решения укусаются, казалось бы, бесполезными задержками и ожиданиями.

Немного отличается точка зрения, что лоббирование ничем не отличается от других профессий:

Лоббирование не более совершенное, чем практика права или практика медицины.

- лоббист Джеральд С.Дж. Кэссиди, 2007

Нормативно -правовая среда

Раскрытие и внутренние правила

Как правило, Соединенные Штаты требуют систематического раскрытия лоббирования, и это может быть одной из немногих стран, которые имеют такие обширные требования. Раскрытие в каком -то смысле позволяет лоббистам и государственным чиновникам оправдать свои действия под знаменем открытости и с полным соблюдением закона. Правила часто указывают, сколько лоббист может потратить на конкретные действия и как сообщать о расходах; Многие из законов и руководящих принципов указаны в Законе о раскрытии информации о лоббировании 1995 года . Требования к прозрачности и раскрытию означают, что существуют объемы статистики, доступных для всех видов анализа - журналистами, со стороны общественности, благодаря конкурирующим усилиям по лоббированию. Исследователи могут подразделения по лоббированию расходов по многочисленным сбоям, например, вкладами энергетических компаний.

Иногда ясно определяет, кто является «лоббистом» и то, что именно является лоббистским деятельностью, может быть трудным. Согласно Закону о раскрытии лоббирования, несколько авторизованных определений включают в себя:

• Деятельность по лоббированию означает «лоббирование контактов и усилия в поддержку таких контактов, включая деятельность по подготовке и планированию, исследования и другую фоновую работу, которая предназначена, в то время, когда они выполняются, для использования в контактах и ​​координации с лоббистскими деятельностью других. "
• Контактное лицо лоббирования означает «любое пероральное или письменное общение (включая электронную связь) с покрытым чиновником исполнительной власти или должностным лицам законодательного отделения».

Тем не менее, отличия лоббистов от стратегического советника может быть затруднено, поскольку обязанности каждого из них часто могут перекрываться и их трудно определить. Были возникшие проблемы с тем, что представляет собой разницу между лоббистом и связью ; В одном сообщении описывается «Бундлеры» как «сторонников, которые вносят свои собственные деньги в его кампанию и запрашивают их у других», и возник вопрос, были ли такие люди действительно лоббисты, связанные с поднятием денежных средств для выборов Барака Обамы , и сломал Обаму. его собственное обещание не получать деньги от лоббистов. Юридические последствия лоббирования дополнительно связаны с аспектами реформы финансирования кампании , поскольку лоббисты часто тратят время на поиск пожертвований на переизбрание конгресснов; Сортировка этих вопросов может представлять этические проблемы.

Существуют многочисленные правила, регулирующие практику лоббирования, часто требующие прозрачности и раскрытия. Люди, заплаченные за лобби, должны зарегистрироваться с секретарем Сената и клерком Палаты представителей в течение 45 дней с момента контакта с законодателем в первый раз, или через 45 дней после работы. Исключением является то, что лоббисты, которые зарабатывают менее 3000 долларов США на клиента за каждый финансовый квартал или чьи общие расходы на лоббирование составляют менее 11 500 долларов США в каждом квартале, не нужно регистрироваться. Лоббисты неполный рабочий день освобождаются от регистрации, если они не тратят более 20% своего рабочего времени, занимаясь лоббированием в любом квартале. Если у лоббистов есть два или более контактов с законодателем в качестве лоббиста, то они должны зарегистрироваться. Как правило, некоммерческие организации, кроме церквей, освобождаются от регистрации, если они нанимают внешнюю лоббистскую фирму.

Государства движутся в направлении большего раскрытия и прозрачности в отношении лоббистских действий. В Калифорнии есть онлайн-база данных под названием Cal-Access , хотя были сообщения о том, что она была недофинансирована. Деньги, собранные от регистрационных сборов, часто используются для оплаты услуг раскрытия, таких как CAL-Access. были жалобы В Иллинойсе на то, что требования к раскрытию информации часто не были достаточно строгими и позволяли лоббистам работать «без публичного уведомления» и с возможными «конфликтами интересов». Многие местные муниципалитеты требуют, чтобы законодательные агенты регистрировались в качестве лоббистов, чтобы представлять интересы клиентов среди членов местного городского совета, таких как в штате города Огайо, таких как Колумбус и Цинциннати.

Законы, требующие раскрытия, были более распространены в двадцатом веке. В 1946 году был так называемый «Закон о солнечном свете», требующий от лоббистов раскрывать то, что они делают, от имени которого и сколько они получили при оплате. Получившиеся федеральное регулирование закона о лоббировании 1946 года регулировало правила лоббирования вплоть до 1995 года, когда его заменил Закон о раскрытии лоббирования. Федеральная избирательная кампания 1971 года, впоследствии в 2002 году, в 2002 году в качестве Закона Маккейна Фейнгольда , имели правила, регулирующие взносы кампании. У каждого отделения Конгресса также есть правила. Законодательство, как правило, требует отчетов, содержащих учет основных расходов, а также законодательство, на которое оказалось; Формулировка некоторых соответствующих законов можно найти в 2 USC CH. 26 ​

Лоббирование закона - это постоянно развивающееся поле; Американская ассоциация адвокатов опубликовала книгу руководств в 2009 году с более чем 800 страницами. Законы часто довольно специфичны, а когда не наблюдаются, могут привести к серьезным неприятностям. Неспособность подать ежеквартальный отчет или сознательно подавать неправильный отчет или не удалось исправить неправильный отчет, может привести к штрафам до 200 000 долларов США и тюремному заключению до пяти лет. Штрафы могут применяться к лоббистам, которые не могут перечислить подарки, сделанные законодателю. В других ситуациях это наказание может быть легким: например, помощник-адвокат, ставший в Конгресс, Фрейзер Веррусио провел несколько часов в тюрьме после признания себя виновным в том, что клиент в бейсбольную игру World Series и не сообщил об этом. Налоговые правила могут применяться к лоббированию. В одной ситуации благотворительный семейный форум на Гавайях рискует потерять свой статус освобожденного от налогов после того, как он занялся лоббистским деятельностью; Федеральное налоговое законодательство требует, чтобы такие благотворительные организации, как тот, чтобы ограничить их лоббирование до 20% их общих расходов, или иметь право на налогообложение как коммерческая корпорация.

Лоббисты иногда поддерживают правила, требующие большей прозрачности и раскрытия:

Наша профессия находится в критической точке, где мы можем либо принять конструктивные изменения и реформы Конгресса, либо мы можем искать лазейки и продолжить скользкий слайд в историю на стороне рядов продавцов змеиных нефти.

- лоббист Джеральд С.Дж. Кэссиди, 2007

Скандалы также могут стимулировать импульс к большей регуляции. Индийский скандал с индийским лоббированием Джека Абрамоффа , который начался в 1990 -х годах и привел к признанию вины в 2006 году, вдохновил Закон о прозрачности и ответственности за законодательный закон 2006 года ( S. 2349 ). Согласно журналу Time, законопроект Сената:

1. Запрещенные лоббисты сами от покупки подарков и еды для законодателей, но оставили лазейку, в которой фирмы и организации, представленные этими лоббистами
2. Разрешены по частному финансированию, если законодатели получили предварительное одобрение от уполномоченного комитета по этике;
3. Требуются лоббисты для подачи частых и подробных отчетов о деятельности и публично публиковать их. Законопроект был утвержден в 2006 году 90–8 голосами.

В 1995 году 104 -й Конгресс попытался реформировать лоббирование лоббирования, приняв закон о раскрытии лоббирования 1995 года , который определяет и требует лоббистов, которые получают компенсацию за свои действия для регистрации с чиновниками Конгресса. Законопроект был позже внесен в поправки в соответствии с Законом о технических поправках к лоббированию в 1998 году . Были последующие модификации, ведущие к Закону о честном лидерстве и открытом правительстве 2007 года. Закон о прозрачности и подотчетности лоббирования законодательства 2006 года ( HR 4975 ) изменил правила Сената, хотя некоторые сенаторы и коалиция групп хорошего правительства напала на законопроект как слишком слабый. Закон о честном лидерстве и открытом правительстве 2007 года стал комплексным законопроектом об этике и лоббировании реформ ( HR 2316 ), который был принят в 2007 году в Палате представителей и Конгресса подавляющим большинством. Параллельная версия законодательства Сената ( с. 1 ), принятая в 2007 году почти единодушным голосованием. После того, как Палата представителей и Сената разрешили свои различия и принял измененный пересмотр, президент Буш подписал зарегистрированный законопроект ( Pub. L. Public Tool Public Tool Public Law (Соединенные Штаты)   110–81 (текст) (PDF) ).

Некоторые штаты посчитали навсегда запретить государственных служащих на лоббирование по вопросам, над которым они работали. Например, в этом направлении было предложение о предотвращении работников округа в Мэриленде лоббирования по вопросам, над которыми они работали. Предложение настаивает на том, что чиновники округа публикуют финансовые данные, а также запрещают подарки подрядчиков.

Джек Абрамофф, выходящий из тюрьмы, публично говорил о лоббировании. По его мнению, правила, предназначенные для обуздания излишек лоббирования, не были эффективными, а реформы и правила вообще не очистили систему «вообще». Абрамофф сказал, что лоббисты могут «найти способ обойти практически любой принятый конгресс реформы», и привлек пример:

Вы не можете пригласить конгрессмена на обед за 25 долларов и купить ему гамбургер, стейк или что-то в этом роде ... но вы можете отвезти его на обед в сборе средств и не только купить ему этот стейк, но и дайте ему еще 25 000 долларов И назовите это сбором средств-и имейте все одинаковый доступ и все одинаковое взаимодействие с этим конгрессменом.

- Джек Абрамофф , комментируя 60 минут , согласно CNN

Подобная точка зрения предполагала, что усилия по реформе лоббирования были «борются с зубом и гвоздью, чтобы предотвратить его проход», поскольку люди, имеющие право на реформу, будут ограничивать свои собственные полномочия и потоки дохода.

Иностранное лоббирование

Поскольку коммерция по всему миру становится все более интегрированной, со штаб -квартирой фирм в одной стране все чаще ведет бизнес во многих других странах, логично ожидать, что усилия по лоббированию будут отражать растущую глобализацию . Иногда корпорации, принадлежащие иностранным лицам, захотят лоббировать правительство Соединенных Штатов, и в таких случаях могут применяться новые правила, поскольку это может быть особенно резким разрешением, национальной безопасности поставлены ли на карту интересы и как они могут быть затронуты.

В 1938 году Закон о регистрации иностранных агентов требовал явного списка всей политической деятельности, предпринятой лоббистом от имени любого иностранного директора. Были серьезные опасения по поводу лоббистских фирм, представляющих иностранные организации - и потенциально ценности, противоположные американским принципам - после того, как Axis Power AgitProp была посажена на американских почвах во время Второй мировой войны Благодаря усилиям специалиста по прокси-контакту с общественностью Айви Ли " German Dye Trust ". В результате в 1938 году Конгресс был принят Закон о регистрации иностранных агентов или FARA, и этот закон требовал, чтобы иностранные лоббисты делились информацией о своих контрактах с министерством юстиции. Мандат Фары состоял в том, чтобы раскрыть политикам источники информации, которые повлияли на общественные мнения, политику и право. Тем не менее, целью не было ограничить речь лоббиста или содержание лоббирования. Тем не менее, было подсчитано, что менее половины иностранных лоббистов, которые должны были зарегистрироваться при Фаре, действительно сделали это.

К 1960 -м годам воспринимаемые неудачи в исполнении Фары привели к общественному протест против лоббирования излишков, в то время как откровения иностранного взяточничества регулярно распространялись в начале 1970 -х годов. Это побудило законодательство, предложившее снизить автономию иностранных фирм, большинство из которых не были ратифицированы из -за опасений по поводу отсутствия конституционности. Пока Палата представителей приняла правило Чтобы увеличить общественное изучение иностранного лоббирования, одна из которых заключалась в том, что около 75% лоббистов были освобождены от требования регистрации, в том числе лиц, представляющих иностранные интересы.

Саудовская Аравия потратила не менее 7,5 млн. Долл. США на лоббирование против справедливости против спонсоров Закона о терроризме .

Общая тенденция заключается в том, что число лоббистов, представляющих иностранные компании, растет. Случай Washington's Apco Worldwide , фирму, которая представляла диктатуру генерала Сани Абачи из Нигерии в 1995 году, режим которого повелел девять активистов, занимающихся продемократией, привлек негативную рекламу. В то время как нынешний закон запрещает иностранные государства участвовать в федеральных, государственных или местных выборах, лазейки позволяют американским дочерним компаниям иностранных корпораций создавать так называемые разделенные сегрегированные средства или SSF для сбора денег. Согласно одной точке зрения, определение, которое фирмы определяются как «иностранные», было неясно, и отсутствие ясности подрывает способность регулировать свою деятельность. Усилия по лоббированию, финансируемые иностранцем, включают в себя усилия Израиля , Саудовской Аравии , Турции , Египта , Пакистана , Ливии и Китая . В 2010 году иностранные правительства потратили около 460 миллионов долларов на лоббирование Конгресса и правительства США . В период с 2015 по 2017 год Саудовская Аравия выплатила 18 миллионов долларов США зарегистрированным лоббистам, чтобы повлиять на правительство США.

В то время как Конгресс пытался подавить критику против рычага внутренних лоббистских фирм путем обновления законодательства о внутреннем лоббировании, таких как пересмотр Закона о раскрытии информации о лоббистах в 1997 году) - Было сообщение о том, что его бездействие в исправлении лазейков в регулировании иностранного лоббирования привело к скандалам. В начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 года в начале 2010 г. Предлагаемым было ограничить лоббирование дочерними компаниями иностранных фирм США. В 2011 году китайская фирма Alibaba наняла лоббистскую фирму в Вашингтоне, когда она начала обдумать покупку американской фирмы Yahoo! Полем Был случай, когда лоббистские усилия, описываемые как «экстраординарные», пытался изменить обозначение личной иранской оппозиционной группы с террористической организацией в доброкачественную организацию. Лоббисты, стремящиеся понизить назначение, наняли влиятельных чиновников иностранных дел, в том числе бывших директоров ЦРУ , бывшего директора ФБР и других, чтобы защищать смену назначения. Но были обвинены в незаконном лоббировании иностранных наций или кто не смог зарегистрироваться в качестве иностранного агента кто может столкнуться с тюрьмой в результате.

Смотрите также

• Торговая палата США
• История лоббирования в Соединенных Штатах
• Комитет по политическим действиям
• Citizens United
• Честное лидерство и акт открытого правительства 2007 года
• Прямое лоббирование в Соединенных Штатах
• Финансирование кампании в Соединенных Штатах
• Ископаемое топливо лобби
• Оппозиционное исследование
• OpenSecrets
• Индийский лоббисский скандал Джека Абрамоффа
• Джерри Льюис - Лоббистская фирма по лоббированию лоббирования
• Закон о раскрытии лоббирования 1995 года
• Военно-промышленный комплекс
• Соединенные Штаты против Харрисса
• Нарф (национальные активные и отставные федеральные служащие)
• Темные деньги
• Взяточничество

Более...

Примечания

1. ^ Федералист № 10. с. 56 из издания Доусона и викируса.
2. ^ Федералист № 10. с. 58 издания Доусона в Wikisource.
3. ^ Федералист № 10. с. 60 издания Доусона в Wikisource.

Дальнейшее чтение

• Балог, Брайан (2009). стиль в Америке двадцатого века » « . и целевой интересов , Зеркала желаний » : группы выборы  9781400825820 .
• Baumgartner, Frank R. и Beth L. Leech. Основные интересы: важность групп в политике и в политологии (1998), 64–82, рассматривает политологическую литературу о группах интересов ISBN   9780691059150
• Blanes I Vidal, Jordi; Мирко Драка и Кристиан Фонс-Росен: Возобновляющие дверные лоббисты , 5-я ежегодная конференция по эмпирическим юридическим исследованиям, июль 2010 г.
• Клеменс, Элизабет С. Лобби народа: организационные инновации и рост политики группы интересов в Соединенных Штатах, 1890–1925 (1997) ISBN   9780226109930
• Хансен, Джон М. Получив доступ: Конгресс и лобби на ферме, 1919–1981 (1991).
• Кайзер, Роберт Дж. (2010). Так что чертовски много денег: триумф лоббирования и коррозия американского правительства . Knopf Doubleday Publishing. ISBN  9780307385888 .
• Лумис, Кристофер М. (2009). «Политика неопределенности: лоббисты и пропаганда в Америке начала двадцатого века». Журнал истории политики . 21 (2): 187–213. doi : 10.1017/s0898030609090083 . S2CID   154647291 .
• Люкс, Шон; Крук, Т. Рассел; Вер, Дэвид Дж. (2011). «Смешивание бизнеса с политикой: метаанализ предшествующих и результатов корпоративной политической деятельности». Журнал управления . 37 : 223–247. doi : 10.1177/0149206310392233 . S2CID   144560276 .
• Стоукс, Лия Кардамор (2020). Краткое окружение политики: заинтересованные группы и борьба за чистую энергию и климатическую политику в американских штатах . Издательство Оксфордского университета. doi : 10.1093/oso/9780190074258.001.0001 . ISBN  978-0-19-007425-8 .
• Маргарет С. Томпсон ,
• Tichenor, Daniel J.; Харрис, Ричард А. (2002). «Организованные интересы и американское политическое развитие» . Политология ежеквартально . 117 (4): 587–612. doi : 10.2307/798136 . JSTOR   798136 . онлайн
• Zelizer, Джулиан Э. Арсенал демократии: политика национальной безопасности - от Второй мировой войны до войны с терроризмом (2009). Выдержка и поиск текста

Внешние ссылки

• База данных лоббирования от OpenSecrets
• Правительственные группы подотчетности (от «500 ведущих американских прогрессивных организаций по категории»)
• Источник -чат
• Lobbyists.info База данных лоббистов и специалистов по связям с правительством
• Лоуренс Лессиг Тед разговоры о лоббировании
• Фонд солнечного света
• Поиск в Сенате США в Сенате Архивировал 1 декабря 2020 года на машине Wayback
• Палата представителей США Лобби Поиск взносов Архивировал 7 октября 2015 года на машине Wayback