Posts Tagged ‘ Lee Drutman ’

Another Look at the Leveling Off of Lobbying

Monday, February 7th, 2011
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

The Washington Post’s reporting on the apparent leveling off of Washington lobbying expenditures has a misleading but telling lede: “Could the great lobbying gold rush be over?”

The more banal misunderstanding tied up in this framework is the tendency to overhype small changes, which,  of course, is the nature of a news business in which every new piece of information demands a story. But if lobbying is indeed a gold rush (more on this shortly), it’s hard to see how this gold rush could be over when organizations are still spending $9.5 million a day (or $3.5 billion a year) on it.

Rather, given the amount of money that is still spent, it seems like it’s still very much a booming business, and as I’ve written before, my strong guess is that this is but a hiccup in what has been and will continue to be a steadily increasing interest in lobbying. Any speculation about the demise of lobbying is presumably much over-rated.

The more significant misunderstanding is that lobbying is a gold rush, and I think this is a more pervasive misunderstanding. Do companies and other organizations come to Washington to pursue special programs, earmarks, tax breaks? No doubt many do, and this is a non-trivial part of the lobbying business.

But look at who the heaviest spenders on lobbying are, and you’ll not find a lot of gold rushing.

I stole the excellent chart below from the Center for Responsive Politics, which does an invaluable service in collecting federal lobbying data.

Client 2010 Total 2009 Total Difference % Change
U.S. Chamber of Commerce $132,067,500 $144,496,000 -$12,428,500 -8.6%
PG&E Corp. $45,460,000 $6,280,000 $39,180,000 623.9%
General Electric $39,290,000 $26,400,000 $12,890,000 48.8%
FedEx Corp. $25,582,074 $16,370,000 $9,212,074 56.3%
American Medical Association $22,555,000 $20,720,000 $1,835,000 8.9%
AARP $22,050,000 $21,010,000 $1,040,000 5.0%
PhRMA $21,740,000 $26,150,520 -$4,410,520 -16.9%
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $21,007,141 $23,646,439 -$2,639,298 -11.2%
ConocoPhillips $19,626,382 $18,069,858 $1,556,524 8.6%
American Hospital Association $19,438,358 $18,347,176 $1,091,182 5.9%
Boeing Co. $17,896,000 $16,850,000 $1,046,000 6.2%
National Cable &
Telecommunications Association
$17,710,000 $15,980,000 $1,730,000 10.8%
National Association of Realtors $17,560,000 $19,477,000 -$1,917,000 -9.8%
Verizon Communications $16,750,000 $17,680,000 -$930,000 -5.3%
Northrop Grumman $15,740,000 $15,180,000 $560,000 3.7%
AT&T Inc. $15,395,078 $14,729,673 $665,405 4.5%
United Technologies $14,530,000 $8,100,000 $6,430,000 79.4%
National Association of Broadcasters $13,710,000 $11,090,000 $2,620,000 23.6%
Pfizer Inc. $13,330,000 $25,819,268 -$12,489,268 -48.4%
Southern Co. $13,220,000 $13,450,000 -$230,000 -1.7%

First, it’s worth noting that that among these top 20 lobbying organizations, two-thirds (65 percent) of these organizations spent more on lobbying in 2010 than they did in 2009.

But more importantly, it’s worth peeking under the hood of these numbers and seeing what it means to spend eight or nine figures on lobbying.
Last year was certainly not a gold rush for The Chamber of Commerce, which accounts for four percent of all lobbying. Mostly, I suspect they’ve been playing quite a bit of defense, trying to shape intellectual environment by spinning narratives and doing everything they can to advance a free-market, pro-business perspective.

If you take a look at one of the Chamber’s quarterly lobbying reports from last year, you should be impressed at the length of the thing. The first quarter report runs 92(!) pages.

Here are the listings from a sample page, listing the Chamber’s lobbying on a single issue, category: “ENG – ENERGY/NUCLEAR”:

H.R. 3246/ S. 2843, Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009 H.R. 3534, Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009 H.R. 5320, Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010, including an amendment by Rep. Diana DeGette which would establish disclosure requirements regarding materials used in the hydraulic fracturing process S. 1462, American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 S. 1792, A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the requirements for windows, doors, and skylights to be eligible for the credit for nonbusiness energy property S. 2818, A bill to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act to improve weatherization for low-income persons, and for other purposes S. 3177 / H.R. 5019 / S. 3434, Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 S. 3072, Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act S. 3663, Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010 S. J. Res. 26, A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (bill number not yet assigned) Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011 (bill number not yet assigned)

Draft climate legislation expected to be sponsored by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman (not yet introduced) Draft legislation to provide incentives to deploy nuclear power (not yet introduced) Various issues relating to the Kerry-Lieberman “American Power Act” (draft legislation, not yet introduced) Legislation to reauthorize the “Diesel Emissions Reduction Act” (not yet introduced)

NHTSA Proposed Rulemaking on Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program (see June 14, 2010, Fed. Reg., Vol. 75, No. 113, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079) EPA Proposed Rulemaking on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (see January 19, 2010, Fed. Reg., Vol. 75, No. 1, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172) EPA Proposed Rulemaking on Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste (see Januaray 2, 2009, Fed. Reg., Vol. 75, No. 107, Docket No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329) EPA Proposed Rulemaking on National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Boilers MACT) (see June 9, 2010, Fed. Reg., Vol 75, No. 110, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058)

General issues including: policy for storing nuclear waste, the Department of the Interior’s moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, DOE Loan Guarantees for Rare Earth Elements, and Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (specific legislation not yet introduced)

Or similarly, here are the listings for “CSP – CONSUMER ISSUES/SAFETY/PRODUCTS”

H.R. 1521, Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009 H.R. 2271, Global Online Freedom Act of 2009 H.R. 2309, Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act H.R. 2221, Data Accountability and Trust Act H.R. 690 / S. 144, Modernize Our Bookkeeping In the Law for Employee’s Cell Phone Act of 2009 H.R. 3458, Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 H.R. 2267, Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act H.R. 3924, Real Stimulus Act of 2009 H.R. 3126, Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 H.R. 6038, Financial Industry Transparency Act of 2010 H.R. 4173, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, all issues pertaining to Title X, the Consumer Protection Bureau H.R. 5777, To foster transparency about the commercial use of personal information, provide consumers with meaningful choice about the collection, use, and disclosure of such information, and for other purposes (BEST PRACTICES Act) H.R. 1346 / S. 540, Medical Device Safety Act of 2009

S. 139, Data Breach Notification Act S. 43, Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2009 S. 773, Cybersecurity Act of 2009 S. 1490, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2009 S. 1192, Mobile Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2009 S. 788, m-SPAM Act of 2009 S. 1597, Internet Poker and Game of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act of 2009 S. 3155 / H.R. 4962, International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act S. 3480, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 S. 3386, Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act S. 3742, Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2010 S. 3579, Data Security Act of of 2010

Legislation Regarding Offline and Online Privacy (draft released by Rep. Boucher)

What impresses me is the sheer range of issues on which the Chamber is lobbying. The Chamber has the resources to make sure that every time a piece of legislation comes up that touches on some aspect of the broader business community, it can get in to see the right folks to explain why a particular piece of legislation would be good or bad for business, and help people on the Hill to “improve” legislation in a way that the Chamber approves of. There’s something to be said for being ubiquitous, I’m sure.

General Electric, third on the list, also has a similarly expansive quarterly lobbying report at 35 pages, covering an impressive range of issues. Again, pulling from the Center for Responsive Politics, here are the areas on which General Electric lobbied in 2010:

Issues

Issue Specific Issues No. of Reports*
Defense 26 39
Fed Budget & Appropriations 23 34
Taxes 20 33
Finance 17 24
Transportation 13 19
Railroads 13 17
Copyright, Patent & Trademark 10 17
Radio & TV Broadcasting 11 16
Trade 9 14
Telecommunications 4 11
Health Issues 9 11
Energy & Nuclear Power 9 11
Environment & Superfund 7 8
Clean Air & Water 4 8
Aviation, Airlines & Airports 5 6
Banking 6 6
Labor, Antitrust & Workplace 3 6
Medicare & Medicaid 5 5
Aerospace 3 5
Advertising 4 4
Law Enforcement & Crime 3 4
Torts 2 4
Retirement 2 4
Roads & Highways 1 4
Science & Technology 3 4
Foreign Relations 1 1
Government Issues 1 1

Yes, General Electric is a major conglomerate and an important part of the American economy. But again, one can’t help but be impressed by the range of issues on which GE is lobbying. It clearly wants to be part of the debate on just about everything.

Institutions like the Chamber, GE, and others are permanent parts of the Washington policymaking community. They are not part of a gold rush, and they are certainly not going away.

More broadly, if you look at the top 20 spenders on lobbying for 2010, it turns out that they represent $524 million in expenditures, or about 15 percent of all lobbying expenditures. There are about 15,000 organizations that have hired lobbyists in Washington, but the distribution of expenditures is highly skewed: a handful of large organizations (mostly companies and business groups) dominate.

From this vantage point, lobbying in 2010 looks a lot like lobbying in 2009: Mostly dominated by a handful of large important companies and business lobbying groups who want to have a say on a wide range of issues, and more broadly, to ensure that any conversation that might impact on them does not happen without them.

Let’s Not Just Read the Constitution, Let’s Actually Discuss It

Thursday, January 6th, 2011
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

Sign calling for people to get the "Constitution Flu"So the House Republicans are planning to get their “People’s House” show started today by reading the U.S. Constitution, that beloved document that our constitutional law scholar of a President has apparently never bothered to read.

It’s clearly symbolic politics, but I’m not as offended as, say the New York Times editorial board (who thinks it is a “a presumptuous and self-righteous act”). Rather, I think that Akhil Reed Amar, author of “America’s Constitution: A Biography” and a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, has it right. Here’s what he told the Washington Post:

I like the Constitution. Heck, I’ll do them one better. Why only once in January? Why not once every week?… My disagreement is when we actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn’t say what the tea party folks think it says.

For the political right and especially the Tea Party, the Constitution has taken on the quality of a holy relic, a symbol of a lost America. Running through the Tea Party mythology is a familiar decline-of-civilization narrative: America was once an Edenic land of limited government and personal liberty. If only we return to the lost and mythic Constitution, we can somehow Restore America. (Apparently, in this story, Congress has been recklessly passing un-Constitutional laws without anybody even noticing – not even the most conservative Supreme Court in 80 years!)

Tea Partiers certainly have great fun making oh-so-clever signs about America’s lost constitution, but I’d happily wager that very few of them could actually pass a basic test about what’s in the hallowed document. (Surveys show that Americans actually know depressingly little about what’s in their beloved Constitution: a remarkable 49 percent think the President has the power to suspend the Constitution; 60 percent think the President can appoint judges without Senate approval; three-quarters of Americans think the Constitution guarantees a high school education; 45 percent of Americans’ think the Communist manifesto slogan  “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is found in the U.S. Constitution. Could you name all Ten Amendments?)

In this respect, a public conversation about what’s actually in the Constitution would probably be a very good thing. We might actually have a more informed discussion, and, as E.J. Dionne and Greg Sargent have both noted, there’s plenty of reason for progressives to welcome it. Rather than ceding it as a symbol of the political right, maybe we should discuss the broad federal powers to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States” (Article I, Section 8).

Unfortunately, the great likelihood is that the Constitution will be read once, and then promptly tossed aside. The words, in all their 18th Century legalese, will go in one ear and out the other (assuming anybody is actually listening). And life will pretty much be the same as it was before, with the majority of Tea Partiers still desperately clinging to their particular fantasy of what they believe the Constitution represents without any better understanding of what is actually says.

Will American Exceptionalism Sink or Save Obama?

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

A new Gallup poll out today highlights what could be a problem for Obama going into the 2012 election: his reluctance to embrace the idea of American exceptionalism. According to Gallup’s polling, 37 percent of Americans think that Obama does not “believe the U.S. has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world.”

What makes this dangerous is that Americans are in an anxious and insecure mood these days, seeing a world that doesn’t match up with well-established ideas about American greatness. These days, only 20 percent of Americans think the U.S. has the strongest economy in the world, and only 34 percent expect Americans can get back to the world’s top economy in 20 years. Only 17 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States.

And yet, despite all this, 80 percent of Americans still believe in America’s unique greatness (73 percent of Democrats, 91 percent of Republicans).

There is a gap here. American exceptionalism is part of our cultural heritage and our self-identification. We believe there is something special about our nation. And yet, something is preventing us from achieving its full potential. What is it? No wonder there is so much anxiety.

The danger is the temptation to blame the wrong causes. The political right has increasingly spinning stories about how big government socialism is preventing America from achieving its true potential, and as The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty recently noted in an excellent round up of Republican talking points on American exceptionalism, “Lately, it seems to be on the lips of just about every Republican who is giving any thought to running for president in 2012.

But there is an upside here too, which is that despite the mood of declinism, there is also an underlying base of confidence and resilience. Americans still feel there is something special about this country, which means that there is a narrative on which to build a story of recovery. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again. This is America. We can roll up our sleeves and make hard choices about our future.

Can Obama be the leader to make that pivot? The good news is that 58 percent of Americans actually do think Obama believes in America’s unique greatness, including 57 percent of Independents (not surprisingly, 83 percent of Dems but only 34 percent of Republicans think Obama believes this). Not overwhelming, but at least it’s a start.

As numerous commentators have noted, the Obama administration is in need of an overarching narrative, a coherent and aspirational story about the direction in which he is trying to take the country. Recently, Obama tried out a “Sputnik Moment” trope in speeches. Though it hasn’t exactly caught on (and the analogy is a bit strained), at least he’s thinking along the right lines.

American greatness does not have to be a jingoistic tool of the political right. It can also be a powerful set of ideas for Obama to tap into about how we don’t have to give into declinism, and how we can indeed get America moving again because always have. We’re special like that.

The Restless Independents: Can Obama Win Them Back?

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

On Wednesday, November 17, the Progressive Policy Institute hosted a lively discussion on how Obama and the Democrats could win back independents, who broke so strongly for Republicans in 2010 after breaking solidly for Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

The event featured:  Stan Greenberg, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner; William Galston, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution; Will Marshall, President, Progressive Policy Institute; and Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow, Progressive Policy Institute.

For those who weren’t able to attend, we offer an audio recording:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

If you want to download as an mp3 to listen to during your commute or your morning jog right-click here and “save link as…”