Money in Politics

Lobbying is a paid activity in which advocacy groups hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress. It is often perceived negatively by journalists and the American public; critics consider it to be a form of bribery, influence peddling, or extortion and lobbying was illegal in the United States in the eighteenth and much of the nineteenth centuries.^[1]^[2]^[3] Lobbying is subject to complex rules which, if not followed, can lead to penalties including jail. Lobbying has been interpreted by court rulings as free speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since the 1970s, the numbers of lobbyists and the size of lobbying budgets has grown and become the focus of criticism of American governance.

Lobbying takes place at every level of government: federal, state, county, municipal, and local governments. In Washington, D.C., lobbyists usually target members of Congress, although there have been efforts to influence executive agency officials as well as Supreme Court appointees. Lobbying can have a strong influence on the political system; for example, a study in 2014 suggested that special interest lobbying enhanced the power of elite groups and was a factor shifting the nation’s political structure toward an oligarchy in which average citizens have “little or no independent influence”.^[4]

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.^[5] 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.^[6] 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.^[6] Wall Street spent a record $2 billion trying to influence the 2016 United States presidential election.^[7]^[8]

Overview

Political scientist Thomas R. Dye said that politics is about battling over scarce governmental resources: who gets them, where, when, why and how.^[9] 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 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.^[10] 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.”^[11]

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.^[12]

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.^[13] If advocacy is disseminating information, then lobbying is when this activity becomes focused on specific legislation, either in support or in opposition.^[13]

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.^[14] 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;^[15] an estimate from 2018 suggested that the count of registered lobbyists who actually lobbied that year was 11,656.^[16] 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.”^[5]

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

Generally, lobbyists focus on trying to persuade decision-makers: Congress, executive branch agencies such as the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission,^[17] the Supreme Court,^[18] 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.^[19] A large fraction of overall lobbying is focused on only a few sets of issues, according to one report.^[20] 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”.^[21] 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.^[22] In recent years there has been an increase in sanctions related lobbying, according to The Washington Post. In these lobbying efforts, foreign entities or governments lobby either to roll back sanctions that have been imposed on them by the U.S. government, or to impose sanctions on their rivals.^[23]

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.^[24] 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^[25] and St. Petersburg^[26] lobbied the Florida legislature using paid lobbyists to represent the city’s interests. There is lobbying activity at the county^[27] 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.^[28]

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.^[12] 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.^[29] 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.^[12]

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.^[30] One example of an outside lobbying effort is a film entitled InJustice, made by a group promoting lawsuit reform.^[31] Some lobbyists are now using social media to reduce the cost of traditional campaigns, and to more precisely target public officials with political messages.^[32]

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.^[33]^[34]^[35]

Three Pathways Lobbyist Influence

Transactional

Lobbyist provide money to public officials in exchange for political access and influence. This form of lobbying is used as a tactic for inside lobbying. The United States in known for using transactional. ^[36]

Persuasion

Persuade public officials by providing information, which could lead to a change in officials stances on policy positions. This form of lobbying is used as a tactic for inside lobbying. ^[36]

Mobalization

Lobbyist mobilize the public, interest group, stake holders, in order to increase the chance of achieving their goals. This form of lobbying is used as a tactic for outside lobbying. The EU is known for using mobilization. ^[36]

History of lobbying

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”, 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. In addition, the Constitution protected free speech, including the right to petition the government,^[12]^[37] 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^[38] 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.^[39]

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.”.^[5] In 2011, The Guardian estimated that in addition to the approximately 13,000 registered lobbyists, thousands more unregistered lobbyists could exist in Washington.^[40] The ratio of lobbyists employed by the healthcare industry, compared with every elected politician, was six to one, according to one account.^[40] 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”.^[41] 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.^[41] A benefit to an integrated arrangement was that the law firm and the lobbying department could “share and refer clients back and forth”.^[41] Holland & Knight earned $13.9 million from lobbying revenue in 2011.^[42] 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.^[43] 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.^[41]

Corporations

Corporations which lobby actively tend to be few in number, large, and often sell to the government. Most corporations do not hire lobbyists.^[5] 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,^[29] and that they were “mainly large, rich firms getting in on the fun.”^[5] These firms hired lobbyists year after year, and there was not much evidence of other large firms taking much interest in lobbying.^[5] 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.^[5]^[44]^[45]^[46] 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.^[29]

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.^[39] 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.”^[47] 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.^[48] Big banks were “prolific spenders” on lobbying; JPMorgan Chase has an in-house team of lobbyists who spent $3.3 million in 2010;^[47] the American Bankers Association spent $4.6 million on lobbying;^[47] an organization representing 100 of the nation’s largest financial firms called the Financial Services Roundtable spent heavily as well.^[47] 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.^[17] Amazon.com spent $450,000 in one quarter lobbying about a possible online sales tax as well as rules about data protection and privacy.^[49] 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”:^[50]

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^[50]

Corporations have a positive correlation when it comes to spending on lobbying. Research has shown that there is a positive impact in market value equity when it comes to lobbying expenditures. Many corporation spend money on lobbying in hopes that it will lead to increased revenue , reduced costs, and lower risks, and hope to influence policies that will benefit their corporation. Some of the highest paying lobbyist are those who were previously employed by senators. ^[51]

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.^[52] 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.^[52] 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.^[52] On March 23, 2017, abolition of privacy restrictions passed on a narrow party-line vote, and the lobbying effort achieved its result.^[52] 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.^[53]

Major American corporations spent $345 million lobbying for just three pro-immigration bills between 2006 and 2008.^[54] 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.^[55]

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.^[56]

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.”^[57]

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.^[30] Interest groups are often thought of as “nonparty organizations” which regularly try to change or influence government decision-making.^[30]

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.^[58]

Well-connected lobbyists work in Washington for years, know the issues, are highly skilled advocates,^[59] 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.^[59] 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.^[12] 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:

[59]

Access is important and often means a one-on-one meeting with a legislator.^[60] 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:

[59]

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

[61]

Lobbyists often assist congresspersons with campaign finance^[59] by arranging fundraisers, assembling PACs,^[29]^[39] 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.^[39] PACs are fairly easy to set up; it requires a lawyer and about $300, roughly.^[12] 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.^[62] When such a promise of future employment was accepted, according to Abramoff, “we owned them”.^[62] 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.^[63] 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.^[63]

In a one-on-one meeting with a lobbyist, it helps to understand precisely what goal is wanted.^[12] A lobbyist wants action on a bill; a legislator wants to be re-elected.^[60] The idea is to persuade a legislator that what the lobbyist wants is good public policy.^[30] Lobbyists often urge lawmakers to try to persuade other lawmakers to approve a bill.^[60]

Still, persuasion is a subtle business.^[30] 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.”^[64]

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”.^[59] 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.^[59] One report suggested that below-the-belt tactics generally do not work.^[12] One account suggest that groping for “personal dirt” on opponents was counterproductive since it would undermine respect for the lobbyist and their clients.^[12] And, by reverse logic, if an untruth is told by an opponent or opposing lobby, then it makes sense to publicize it.^[12] But the general code among lobbyists is that unsubstantiated claims are bad business.^[12] 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.^[12] 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.^[65] And there is anecdotal evidence that a business firm seeking to profitably influence legislation has to pay particular attention to which lobbyist it hires.^[66]

Strategic considerations for lobbyists, trying to influence legislation, include “locating a power base” or a constituency logically predisposed to support a given policy.^[60] 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.^[30] 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.^[67]

Increasingly, lobbyists seek to put together coalitions and use outside lobbying by swaying public opinion.^[30] Bigger, more diverse and deep pocketed coalitions tend to be more effective in outside lobbying, and the “strength in numbers” principle often applies.^[68] Interest groups try to build “sustainable coalitions of similarly situated individual organizations in pursuit of like-minded goals”.^[13] 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.^[59] 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.^[59] 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.”^[59] 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.^[30] Kollman suggested outside lobbying was a “powerful tool” for interest group leaders.^[30] 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.^[9] 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.^[30]

It is important for lobbyists to follow rules governing lobbying behavior. These can be difficult and complex, take time to learn, require full disclosure,^[59] 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.^[62] 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.^[62] 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.^[12] Gifts under $5 are allowed.^[12] Another exception is awards, so it is permitted to give a congressperson a plaque thanking them for support on a given issue.^[12] 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.^[12]

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.^[64] 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.^[64] And their clients, in turn, had received “hundreds of millions in earmarked appropriations” and benefits worth “hundreds of millions more”.^[64]

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;^[59] 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.^[69]

Lobbyists routinely monitor how congressional officials vote, sometimes checking the past voting records of congresspersons.^[12] 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.^[70] As a general rule, lawmakers must vote as a particular interest group wishes them to vote, or risk losing support.^[12]

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.^[71]

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”.^[18] 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.”^[72] 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.^[43]

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.^[61] So the firm hired Jack Abramoff and paid him a retainer of $100,000 a month.^[61] He assembled dozens of lobbyists with connections to key congressional committees with the ultimate objective being to influence powerful Senator Charles Grassley.^[61] Abramoff began with a fundraising effort to round up “every check” possible.^[61] He sought funds from his other lobbying clients:

[61]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[61]

	Client	Amount Spent
1	Health	$867,539,940
2	Finance/insur/RealEst	$711,251,433
3	Communic/Electronics	$666,000,817
4	Misc Business	$661,387,859
5	Energy & Natural Resources	$485,324,539
6	Other	$374,038,720
7	Transportation	$369,918,339
8	Ideological/Single-Issue	$238,907,628
	Total	$4,374,369,275
	Note: Amounts do not include campaign contributions.

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^[83]

Lobbying in the United States
History
Topics	Direct lobbying Political action committee Super PAC Hybrid PAC 527 organization Campaign finance (reform) Legislative scorecard
Major industrial and business lobbies	Agricultural Energy Health Insurance Organized labor Pharmaceutical Software Tobacco Transportation
Major single-issue lobbies	Administration Abortion Environmental Federal leadership Feminism Foreign policy Guns Immigration LGBT Retirees Taxes
Diaspora and ethnic lobbies	Arab Egypt Libya Palestine Saudi Arabia Armenia China Cuba (Anti Castro) Greece Ireland Israel Jewish lobby Anti-Israel lobby Japan Pakistan Turkey Uganda
See also	Congressional caucus

Political finance
Terms	Campaign finance Corporate donations “Follow the money“ Grassroots fundraising Political corruption Party funding Party subsidies Revolving door
By country	Australia Austria Canada Germany Party foundation Ireland Israel Japan Netherlands New Zealand Sweden United Kingdom United States European Union

Authority control databases
National	United States France BnF data Japan Israel
Other	NARA Yale LUX

Money in Politics

Summary

News

About

Challenges

Solutions

Websites

Legislation

Laws & Appropriations

Bills

Committees, Agencies, & Programs

Committees

Government Agencies

Government Programs & Initiatives

More Information

Judiciary

Key Issues and Concerns:

Efforts to Address These Concerns:

Ongoing Debate and Challenges:

Nonpartisan Organizations

Other

Lobbying (Wikipedia)

Overview

Different types of lobbying

The focus of lobbying efforts

Paid versus free lobbying

Single issue versus multiple issue lobbying

Inside versus outside lobbying

Taxpayer-funded lobbying

Three Pathways Lobbyist Influence

Transactional

Persuasion

Mobalization

History of lobbying

Lobbying as a business

Key players

Lobbyists

Corporations

Unions

Other players

Lobbying methods and techniques

Lobbyists as educators and advisors

A growing billion dollar business

Examples of lobbying

Lobbying as a career

Effectiveness of lobbying

Lobbying controversies

Unfavorable image

Revolving door

Revolving Door Phenomenon

Insider’s game

Choice-making problems

Governmental focus

Methodological problems

Expansion of lobbying

Potential for reform

Arguments for lobbying

The regulatory environment

Disclosure and domestic regulations

Foreign lobbying

See also

Notes

References

Further reading

External links

Campaign Financing (Wiki)

Private financing

Public financing

Regulation

See also

Notes

References

Sources

Further reading

External links

Discuss