Special Interests Washington Lobbyists, Influence, and Money

Special Interests Washington lobbyists, influence, and money are concatenate forces in the current political dynamic. The 2008 election cycle saw Barack Obama spend in excess of 730 million on his run for the Presidency. John McCain was seemingly dwarfed, spending only 333 million" (OpenSecrets.org. N.D. 1). The spending however was only a portion of the 5.2 billion spent nationally in the 2008 election cycles (OpenSecrets.org. N.D. 1). Further, the situation seems to be accelerating.

In 2010, a midterm election year when political spending tends to wane, the election cycle proved "the most expensive in history, with a total cost that is now expected to equal roughly $4 billion" (Kurtzleben 2010, 1) This figure will be seemingly insignificant to the 2012 election spending, which according to Bill Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, could be as much as $8 billion" (Gorenstein, 2011, 1). The growing ubiquity of money in the political system highlights the enormous influence which insiders and special interest have in Washington.

James Barnes article Insiders Say Special Interests Here to Stay discusses this influence in the context of President Obama's new ethic rules. The Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel requires that lobbyists who become members of Obama administration will not be able to work on matters they lobbied on for two years, or in the agencies they lobbied during the previous two years. Anyone who leaves the Obama administration will not be able to lobby his administration.

The orders also instituted a ban on gifts by lobbyists to members of the administration.

(ABC News 2009, 1) If the influence of special interests will only continue to grow, how will the political process be impacted, who will be the winners and losers, and will the average citizen's voice be drowned out, if that fact has not already occurred? Bipartisan Agreement Rarely does one find agreement between Democratic and Republican parties in Washington on any issue however, in the context of the lobbyist influence prevalent in the Nation's Capital, "more than two thirds of the Democratic Insiders said that the Obama guidelines would not reduce the influence of special interests in Washington, and an astonishing 100% of Republican Insiders concurred" (Barnes 2009, 1).

The Obama guidelines are designed to stop the turnstile of lobbyists who become political consultants inside the administration and vice versa. Interestingly though, despite the belief that the rules will not significantly impinge on lobbyist conduct and influence, the respondents indicated that both Republican and Democratic Insiders "who are part of the influence industry said that Obama's rules were too restrictive" (Barnes 2009, 2).

This bifurcation between the reality that ethics laws will not substantively effect lobbyist influence, and the perception that the rules are too tough, can be summed up by a non-lobbyist who is close to the administration; "the cries of unfairness coming from K. Street are proof that the medicine is working just fine" (Barnes 2009, 4). Winners and Losers The nature of legislation is that there are winners and losers, in some cases defined, and in others unintended.

Because legislation crafted by 535 Congressional members directly and indirectly impacts millions of American, businesses, and advocacy groups, there is a need for the voice of those impacted to be heard. "As long as there is legislation there will be lobbyists" (Barnes 2009, 4). Independent of Obama's new ethical guidelines the influence of specific lobbyists will change as it does from administration to administration. Under Bush's tenure the lobbying and campaign donations poured in from the financial, oil and gas, and Fortune 500 firms (OpenSectrets.org. N.D. 1).

Under the Obama Administration, political insiders predict: wind, solar and alternative energy groups, environmental groups, and the AFL-CIO will provide the campaign funding and control the biggest influence in Washington. The winners under President Bush will invert to the bottom of the pecking order as the American Petroleum Institute, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America will take a substantial hit in their clout (Barnes 2009, 2).

Which Voice Matters? The considerable influence of money and lobbyists on legislation and executive decisions begs the question as to whether those without either (money or influence) have any real voice in Washington. Obama's ethical guidelines are an attempt in some ways to dull this overwhelming lobbyist influence however, as indicated the lobbying efforts and special interests will continue more or less unfettered. What can change this dynamic of large scale influence both from K.

Street after the election, and from the stockpiles of money contributions during the election cycle? "Not much will change until we have public financing. Until then, money will unduly influence the political system, lobbyists or no lobbyists" (Barnes 2009, 4). Somber words but even truer with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which articulated "that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections" (Liptak 2010, 1).

Labor unions, PAC's, and advocacy groups also have free reign to spend money in the election cycle according to the Court's decision which upheld free speech rights as more critical than the possibility of undue influence. "The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle -- that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy" (Liptak 2010, 1).

After the Citizens United decision in 2010 money flowed into the midterm election pool, while not a post hoc, the issue of money and even greater influence of special interests is certainly a growing and complex issue. For the average citizen who has no contribution to make, no insider looking after their interest, and a disconnect from the politics of Washington; the K. Street influence, lobbying efforts, and billions of dollars dilutes their voice and places a looming shadow over the democratic process.

Conclusion If the Democratic and Republican Insiders are correct, and there is little reason to believe that these individuals in the know would not be; the golden age of political influence, lobbying, and money may be just beginning. While moderate controls on the behavior of lobbyist actions outlined in Obama's new ethical rules may change influence at the margins, "the Political Insiders generally believe that when it comes to wielding influence, some of the old rules still apply" (Barnes 2009, 1).

Money and influence seem to be the dominant theme in the Washington of the 21st Century. If real change is to occur there must be serious limitations on the money flows into Congressional and Presidential campaigns, and a substantive adjustment to the lobbying practices of large- scale Insiders. The reality though is no one, save the average American, and advocacy groups fighting for the.