The Quid Pro Quo of Social Relationships

An excellent <a>article on the front page of last Sunday's New York <i>Times</i></a> looks at a <a href="www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-13/pdf/2011-23311.pdf&quot; target="”_blank”">proposal by the federal Office of Governmental Ethics</a> (OGE) to limit
two exceptions to the prohibition on accepting gifts from
lobbyists:  the "widely-attended gathering" (WAG) exception and
the "social invitations" exception.<br>
<br>
First, the proposal recognizes something the U.S. Supreme Court has
been unable or unwilling to acknowledge:<ul>

If one views the problem of lobbyist gifts as the mere potential for
some quid pro quo, then probably an invitation to a gala ball will
not directly influence an official to take action benefiting the
giver. But it is increasingly recognized that the more realistic
problem is not the brazen quid pro quo, but rather the cultivation of familiarity
and access that a lobbyist may use in the future to obtain a more
sympathetic hearing for clients.</ul>

Government ethics is not about bribes, with their quid pro quos, but
about special relationships, including conduct that creates special
relationships. Lobbyists speak about being heard, but no one is
saying they should not be heard. The question is not about whether
they should be heard, but rather the extent to which they should be
permitted to have special relationships with government officials,
either beforehand (as former aides, for example) or after (through
invitations to social events, playing golf, dining together, etc., where they can go beyond the business
relationships formed in meetings).<br>
<br>
Second, what makes the <i>Times</i> article so valuable are the responses
of trade associations, whose events are targeted by the proposal (as
opposed to the educational and professional development activities
of nonprofit professional associations, scientific organizations,
and learned societies). The Motion Picture Association insists that
its special screenings of films for government officials “‘are not
purely social events akin to sporting events or theatrical and
musical events, but rather serve as educational opportunities,’
allowing federal employees to learn about moviemaking techniques and
‘challenges facing the industry.’” In 3D, no less.<br>
<br>
The USA Rice Federation (American rice is highly subsidized by the
federal government) "called the proposal insulting. The
administration, it said, appears to view lobbyists as predators and
federal employees as ‘weak, unprincipled victims.’"<br>
<br>
Instead of
maturely commenting on the issue of special relationships and how
they give rise to appearances of impropriety, this and other
lobbyists create a cartoonish picture of shark lobbyists preying on
weak, corrupt officials. After drawing this horrific picture of
themselves, they call it "insulting" as if it came from elsewhere.
This is the Jaws version of <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/272&quot; target="”_blank”">the Straw Man Fallacy</a>.<br>
<br>
Lobbyists insist they use these social and other events to train
officials. But why should those doing business with government be
permitted to make such gifts to officials? If officials are not
receiving sufficient training, why don't they ask the government to
provide more training itself? When officials go to professional
conferences, the government pays for their attendance or sets up the
conference itself. If lobbyists care so much about helping the
government with training, why don't they give the government a gift
to cover the cost of professional conferences and not use them as
opportunities to develop personal relations with officials? In other
words, why must supposedly caring gifts have the quid pro quo of
personal relations?<br>
<br>
It is <i>this</i> quid pro quo, of social relationships, that is the common problem, that and the
appearance of impropriety that comes from interested parties with
big money socializing with government officials at fancy hotels, when
ordinary citizens have trouble getting any access at all to their
officials.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959