Home › Blogs › Gary Andres's blog ›

Obama's Army of Lobbyists

Submitted by Gary Andres on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 08:55
in

This past Saturday, President Obama formally announced the formation of "Obama for America," an effort to harness and mobilize the millions of activists who worked on his campaign to help advocate for his legislative agenda. Others, like Patrick Ruffini, have written about this new organization here. The new organization is unprecedented at several levels and carries both potential risks and rewards. It's also a little ironic that a president who consistently criticized the practice of "lobbying" during the campaign is now mobilizing an army of his own grassroots advocates.

I write about these developments in this piece in today's Weekly Standard Online.

I agree with Jon Henke -- who I quote in the article -- that one of Mr. Obama's biggest challenges will be how to bring these activists into the policymaking process and still retain the kind of flexibility necessary to negotiate with Congress.

Anyone interested in the future of grassroots advocacy should watch how "Obama 2.0," as some call it, unfolds.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Don't insult our intelligence

Submitted by undoctored on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:28.

Gary when you write "it's a little ironic that a candidate who prevailed by decrying the evils of the advocacy world hopes to bolster his presidency by deploying an army of his own lobbyists," you insult our intelligence. Anyone who listened closely to Obama's words during the campaign, understands exactly to whom he was referring when he spoke of "lobbyists." He was speaking of the powerful influence brokers who are paid hugh salaries, who have permanent quarters in Washington, and who have  more or less direct access to policy makers. Whether they admit it or not, their principal aim is to advance the narrow interests of those who employ them.  I am not against advocacy as such, but against a system that has taken on too much importance.  Obama's approach is to empower the people.  His "army" will be made up primarily of ordinary citizens who have little in common with those who, for example, crafted the nation's energy policies under the leadership of Dick Cheney and in total secrecy. The Enron tragedy is a perfect example of what occurs when cynical lobbyists of this sort and their enablers are in charge.

There seems to be some confusion here

Submitted by Repack Rider on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:49.

It's also a little ironic that a president who consistently criticized the practice of "lobbying" during the campaign is now mobilizing an army of his own grassroots advocates.

Seriously unclear on the concept.  A lobbyist is an individual or a company that is paid to advocate a position.  The "grassroots" are unpaid large numbers of people who advocate their positions because they believe them.

Basically, instead of being similar in any respect, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Why do you think that "grassroots" activities that are directed from above are called "Astroturf?"

Huh?

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 11:09.

Do you think companies advocate positions they don't believe, or that citizens advocate positions in which they have no self-interest?  Moveon.org has lobbyists.  Are they illegitimate, just because they are paid to represent the opinions of Moveon.org members? 

Are lawyers illegitiminate because they are paid to represent their clients and are specialists at navigating the court and legal system?  That's exactly what lobbyists are and what they do.  In fact, the Constitution explicitly cited it as a basic civil right.

A lobbyist is simply a person who informs legislators and regulators about an issue, and advocates for a position on that issue.  It's quite unlike the ridiculous caricatures that often arise around the term "lobbyist".  They're just specialists at something we all do (or have the right to do).

umm... I think the public perception of lobbyists

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 11:15.

is that they persuade congress to do things against the interests of our country.

Repealing some of the regulations on banking is one of those things.

The bankruptcy act written by the lobbyists themselves is another.

seatbelt laws are yet a third instance of lobbyists for corporations monkeying with politics.

I think corporations have a responsibility to their stockholders to get the best price possible, the best investment possible. this often is best accomplished by persuading the government to favor you over other corporations or other sectors of the economy.

I know a lobbyist. He's really just there for the cocktail weenies -- this way, his organization doesn't have to pay for his lunch.

And...

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 11:24.

Do you not think that people try to persuade Congress to do things that are against the interests of our country?  You might disagree with the position those lobbyists advocate, fine.  But you're suggesting that they don't have the right to advocate them.  That's flatly unconstitutional.

You seem to have this "people VS corporation" mindset, as if they have opposing interests.  Some people have interests that oppose those of a corporation.  Some don't.  Remember, businesses ARE people.  A lot of business lobbying simply amounts to pointing out that regulation isn't all milk and honey.  It has real costs (to the economy, society and consumers), and is often ineffectual or even counter-productive.

my argument is more one of morality

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 12:47.

and of the public good.

I made no such claim that it should be illegal for corporations to lobby. Illegal is a subset of immoral, carefully chosen to maximize freedom for the mostest amount of people.

Certain corporations have interests that prove counterproductive to the economy as a whole. Take hedge funds, for example.

A corporation's best interest is served by paying it's staff as little as possible, while getting as much work out of them as possible. This is basic economics. Sure, you can say that Costco doesn't do that, and you're right, but they're an exception, hardly the rule. As such, a corporation's best interest is frequently at odds with it's employees.

Corporations are not in anything for the long term, anymore. if they were, they'd get bought out, as chrysler did. stockholders continue to demand consistet 8% growth out of companies -- and that is clearly not sustainable.

Who's being naive here?

Submitted by undoctored on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 13:39.

 The recent history of lobbying practices suggests a far more aggressive and self-serving approach than your "simply amounts to pointing out" would have us believe. What you fail to understand is the PRESSURE exerted on policymakers to fashion legislation in ways quite often not  beneficial to the interests of the public at large.  The ways this pressure is exerted are varied and the subject of another post.

Which is why I loved the move "Thank You For Smoking"

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 11:36.

In the end it kinda was wishy-washy, but it showed the liberty/freedom aspect of lobbyists. Granted, I don't like many of them, mostly due to them twisting facts, but Congressmen chooses which lobbyists they listen to. If they want to line their pockets with money from dirty players, that's their choice.

Trick question

Submitted by Repack Rider on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 19:26.

Do you think companies advocate positions they don't believe, or that citizens advocate positions in which they have no self-interest?

Two questions phrased to appear equivalent.  They are not.

First let me say that you didn't even address my point, which is that the post conflating lobbyists and grassroots is a lie.  They are opposite ends of the spectrum.

Do companies advocate positions they don't believe?  Hell, yes.  Recently a reporter called around to a bunch of lobbying firms, purporting to represent a brutally repressive middle eastern regime looking for some positive press.  No problem.  Everyone wanted the money, and are you are ready to suggest that these companies had policies of torture, summary execution, and abuse of women just like their "clients?"

Do people who DO NOT take money when they offer opinions advocate positions which they have no self-interest.  Of course they do.  People often offer support for victims of crimes that did not affect them personally, or contribute to programs that help people in other countries. What would be the "self-interest" there?  Having no self-interest, however, is not the same as not believing in the cause.   My point was that the "grassroots" works for free, and no one who works for free works against his own principles, while lobbyists are on record working for countries whose interests conflict with our own.

Can you provide an example of someone who did something against his own belief system without a reward being offered for the act?

Some Points

Submitted by cr on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 13:15.

1.  The difference between activist and lobbyist is paid/unpaid. I think it's misleading to say things like 'army of lobbyist'. The strategies are different as well. Lobbyist influence by power and relationships and of course perks, but activist use the power of numbers. So a group of activists aren't like the power of a lobbyist times 100 or 1 mil. But of course, there are cases where the line is blurreed . . . as in this case? Like separating the colon from the asshole. But are they advocating policy, or an extension of policy making?

2. Heck yeah he's going to try to push his agendy any way can. Don't all presidents? Even indluencing they're own party. OB would love to take influence outside of DNC. All presidents struggle to get congress to toe to the line.

3. Is this any different than Reps using Church or other civic groups?

4. No one likes elections laws, but like it or not, unless something is passed, the parties will always up the ante when it comes to election. Welcome to the free market, right?

5. It'll be interesting if he can sustain momentum. I still think the same rules apply, popularity is tightly corrolated with power.  Right now, he has a lot of it, reps have very little of it. And he's going to do whatever he can to sustain it. And he has a shrwed and savvy bunch of cats working for him.