RALEIGH – An interesting question came up Wednesday at a press conference announcing the formation of the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying Reform. Noting that the room at the Legislative Building in Raleigh was crowded not only with lawmakers and think-tankers but also registered lobbyists, one reporter asked if anyone represented within the coalition lobbied for a business or trade association.
No one’s hand went up.
The implication was obviously that “business” was against the coalition’s call for full disclosure, limits on gifts to public officials, and a “cooling-off period” before those leaving office can turn around and lobby their former colleagues. But I think the implication is far too sweeping and thus potentially misleading.
It is reasonable to assume that for-profit entities are the largest-single source of the expenditures for so-called “goodwill lobbying” that currently escape disclosure or regulation. Much of this is, of course, assumed rather than known precisely because there is no disclosure of lobbying expenditures, no matter how extravagant, unless a specific bill is discussed during whatever event or activity is being funded.
But that doesn’t mean that businesses and trade groups are alone in using such spending to attempt to build relationships and influence policy outcomes. Lobbyists for government agencies also convey valuable gifts to lawmakers without restriction, with perhaps the most egregious (and timely) example being tickets to high-profile sporting events such as the ACC tournament. Nonprofits, too, employ lobbyists to engage lawmakers and executive-branch officials on a host of issues involving millions, hundreds of millions, and sometimes even billions of taxpayer dollars.
Moreover, as former Rep. Art Pope observed at the press conference, it is not the case that “business” lines up on one side of every issue, and then uses its lobbying heft to get its way. Some of the most spirited – and expensive – lobbying campaigns involve one business or industry trying to get its favorite policy or version of the facts accepted by government over that of a competing business or industry.
Indeed, it is far too simplistic too equate “business” with “conservative” or “Republican,” as some observers hastily do. For decades, the Left has made it a core strategy to coopt or pressure businesses to advance a political agenda. Two recent pieces offer further details as to how – and how often – this strategy works. “Some of these groups push for codes of conduct by companies and industries, realizing that the impossibly high standards set by such codes will be difficult to meet, thus setting up the targeted companies to be attacked for bad faith,” stated a summary. “These groups spread rumors, file lawsuits, make complaints to regulators and mount shareholder proxy campaigns; one group, Institutional Shareholder Services, gives “independent” advice to institutional investor managers on how to vote their proxies, without disclosing that it may have been involved in stirring up the proxy issue in the first place.”
There are several good books that offer a longer account of the origins of the “corporate social responsibility” movement and analyze its economic and political aspects. I must admit a bias in favor of a certain 1996 volume on the subject.
The reason to reform lobbying laws in North Carolina is not, in my opinion, to punish business or put them at a disadvantage when facing regulators, lawmakers, and special-interest groups seeking to use political power to bring them to heel. The reason for reform is that the citizens of the state deserve a policymaking process that is based on free and open discussion, substantive debate, and public access to public servants. Lobbying reform won’t necessarily result in any particular policy outcome, which is why the coalition favoring it is so broad.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.