(this is post #5 in a series on money and influence in politics)
In the preceding post, I suggested that lobbyists playing an active role in the political process might not necessarily be such a terrible thing. After all, they do provide a lot of valuable information and expertise.
One might be more concerned, however, if that information and expertise is not well-balanced.
Let us now bring some data to bear. Below, I show the number of groups representing business (corporations, trade associations, business-wide groups) as compared to the number representing potentially countervailing interests (Unions and public interest groups (i.e. consumer, environmental, and good government groups)).
!http://www.leedrutman.com/uploads/2/3/0/1/2301208/bias.gif!
As we can see, there seems to be a pretty systematic bias, and one that is only growing. There are now more than 25 groups representing business for every one representing a potentially countervailing interest.
Another way to examine this is to look at who business lobbyists see as their competition. In conducting interviews with corporate lobbyists (in late 2007/early 2008), I asked them to tell me what issues they were currently spending their time on. Then I asked them who they saw as their competition on these issues. The results are below:
!http://www.leedrutman.com/uploads/2/3/0/1/2301208/competition.gif!
The big finding here is that not a single lobbyist described a public interest group or a union as the primary opponent on a priority issue. This, again, suggests that there is not a lot of balance in the Washington, DC interest group community. Businesses are not generally being checked much by public interest groups and unions. Businesses only check other businesses on roughly one-quarter of all issues.
Another significant finding from this list of issue opponents is that on 37 percent of issues, there was no opponent to report (though often, admittedly, because the issue had not yet gained much visibility).
This suggests a lot of issues that businesses care about are falling beyond the radar of anybody except the interested lobbyists – exactly the kind of situation where lobbyists are apt to have the most influence.
On some issues, especially high profile issues, there is decent balance. (Also, on high profile issues, public opinion tends to play a role, and this can help to neutralize business lobbying, as the public is generally skeptical of too much business influence.)
At the macro-level, healthcare reform is this kind of a high-profile issue, with a ton of public attention. But healthcare is actually not a typical issue. Look at the lobbying disclosure forms of any large corporation or trade group, and you will find dozens of abstruse and often very technical issues that you will have never heard of, and the press does not bother with, either.
And even on big issues like healthcare, there are a lot of small little details on which there is not likely to be much lobbying balance or public exposure, as I suggested in an earlier post. There are lobbyists representing all types of healthcare providers and drug and medical device manufacturers, each looking out for little provisions of interest to them. (And each with the resources to hire well-connected lobbyists to represent them, and help them to package and sharpen their expertise in a way that will be useful to Hill staffers.)
So again, big point of this post: There is a tremendous resource imbalance.
Corporations and business associations not only have the most people to represent them. They also have the most (and the most expensive) lobbyists to help them develop arguments and present research and spread expertise, to build coalitions and mobilize grassroots, and anything else necessary.
In the end, if one side is able to spread its message a lot more exhaustively and professionally, and if one side is able to stay up on more developments, keep aware of more opportunities, and just be in more places at a time… presumably that adds up to something.
In my final posting, I’m going to suggest some possible reforms that would bring better balance to the pressure system, and help to get American democracy closer to James Madison’s pluralist dream of faction actually counteracting faction. So stay tuned for the grand finale!