What (specifically) can be done to clean up lobbying in Washington DC?

Yes, it is fantasy. It is also worth noting that not all lobbying is “created equal.” Sure, we hear about stories like these in which lobbying firms skirt the legal lines and clearly cross the ethical ones. But we never hear about the thousands of lobbyists who toil away on behalf of causes that don’t bring them wealth. There are environmental lobbyists, and lobbyists for health care research, and lobbyists for poor children, and lobbyists for peace processes, and there are lobbyists for religious groups and community service groups and veterans groups.

Lobbying, for all its negative connotations and all its excesses, is the term we use to describe a very important and democratic process: the attempt to influence our country’s leaders toward a particular point of view. That’s not a bad thing, its a good thing.

@Michael Does it concern you that the chief way that many lobbyists and PACs appear to educate our political leaders about their particular issue appears to be a campaign contribution?

I have “lobbied on Capitol Hill”.....I assure you that any given issue is given much more attention the higher the cash flash.

I think it is impossible for a politician to know the intricacies of every issue. They may need to be educated. I resent, however, the notion of having (or my interest group having) to pony up cash to get their attention.

Having more money to give to a politician shouldn’t automatically prioritize any given issue to the top of the heap.

I agree with @Snoopy. @Michael, you just implied that throwing money at congresspeople is a very important and democratic process. Trying to communicate the importance of issues to congresspeople is definitely an important concept, as it should be: how else would senators know anything about anything?

I think that lobbyists should be barred from making financial political contributions, and should instead focus entirely on intellectual ones.

@Snoopy I couldn’t agree more. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Congressmen and Congresswomen (and to a lesser extent Senators) have very limited staff, and the range of issues which they are expected to understand is daunting, to say the least. Lobbyists can actually play a vital role in helping to provide information. The problem comes when lobbyists have to “pay to play.” That’s illegal (and, of course, ridiculously unethical), but the blame there lies primarily with dirty politicians.

@tonedef No, I don’t think I implied that, and if I did, I did not mean to. You inferred that because you associate lobbying with campaign contributions, which is actually not, generally, the case. I can assure you that the vast majority of registered federal lobbyists never give a dime to the Members of Congress they lobby. In fact, if you’re interested you can go check out the federal lobbyist database yourself and see what campaign contributions have been made (the database is a relatively new thing, created as part of the ethics reform package passed by Congress in 2007).

In any case, you echoed my basic point by saying, “Trying to communicate the importance of issues to congresspeople is definitely an important concept, as it should be: how else would senators know anything about anything?” That’s essentially the definition of lobbying.

The problem is how do you get into the door to “educate” the politician? There is a pecking order. You have to have some public credibility. You either know someone who knows someone, or you have made a name for yourself. The folks from K street are former colleagues. They know someone. They are paid a lot of money to represent the interests and to educate the folks currently in office.

It’s much harder for an individual to get in. I only did it once, and that was for a roomful of staffers. We’d been doing the work for years. However, we were considered fringe, and I suspect they were reluctant to see us for that reason.

Make no mistake, that in the office of a reputable member of Congress, your info is “heard”, regardless of whether or not you are a campaign contributor.
BUT that info is likely filtered through a young staffer or aid who is left to pass their own judgments on whether or not your info is important enough to be passed up the food chain in the office.

Every letter, phone call and email is read tallied and categorized.

On any issue, two things catch a Congressperson’s attention: volume of voters and money.

Without money you need a massive volume of voters to influence a Representative or Senator. i.e. X number of voters want their member of Congress to vote a certain way, can swing the Congressperson’s opinion as that can translate to reelection or not…..

Without volume of voters you need money. Large campaign contributions can influence a Congressperson’s vote a certain way….because money translates into a bigger and potentially more effective reelection campaign.

If you don’t have volume or money (or both) in DC, you are screwed.

Very specifically, and very powerfully, the biggest thing we can do to control and end lobbying would be to repeal the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

@laureth I am not suggesting that the lobbyists shouldn’t have a right to make their case about their issue (i.e. free speech).

My problem is the notion that campaign donations give more heft to certain issues…..based not on the content or validity of the issue, but on the campaign donation alone…..