The Separation of Lobbying and Campaign Services

According to <a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140501/BLOGS04/140509993/speaker…; target="”_blank”">a
post in the <i>Crain</i>'s Insider blog last week</a>, the New
York City council hired as deputy general counsel a lobbyist whose
firm recently had been the council speaker's campaign consultant (the speaker is the leader of the NY city council, elected by its members).
This raises an interesting conflict issue relating not only to
hiring, but also to firms that both provide campaign services and lobby local
government officials.<br>
<br>
When a firm advises a local government official with respect to a campaign, this creates a
special relationship — personal, business, and political — that
creates the impression that anything that is done for the firm, its members, or
its clients involves some level of preferential treatment based on
this relationship. It can appear that an official owes her election
to such a firm, and she can feel this way about it, too.<br>
<br>

Thus, when the body she leads hires a member of that firm (or a
member's relative or a client of the firm), it appears that this was
due to her paying back a favor. Even if she does not participate in
the hiring in any way, it appears that her colleagues (who, after
all, just elected her their leader) are doing what she could not do
herself. Therefore, withdrawal is not a cure.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, it would be natural for a high-level official to
hire as a political adviser someone who has already been a trusted
adviser, or someone highly recommended by that adviser. Political
positions have different rules; they can be given to a political ally, best friend,
business associate, or relative. Therefore, the question here is
whether the position of deputy general counsel is a professional
position (for the council) or a political position (for the
speaker). If it is the latter, then her relationship with the
individual or his firm is irrelevant.<br>
<br>
What is most problematic here is the fact that one firm gets
involved in two areas that are supposed to be kept separate: 
campaigning and lobbying. Lobbyists make and bundle campaign
contributions on behalf of their clients, and for themselves as
well, where this is legal. But there are limits on this activity and
it is allowed primarily because of judicial decisions based on a First
Amendment free speech right to make campaign contributions.<br>
<br>
But actually being involved in, even running or being an important
adviser to, a campaign places an individual or firm in a very
special relationship with a high-level official. Not only does it create mutual obligations, but they have fought in the trenches
together. It's a strong emotional bond. When that same individual or firm lobbies the official,
during and after the campaign, it gives clients a special advantage
and makes it appear to the public that the official, when she
supports spending or a bill that benefits those clients, is not
acting in the public interest.<br>
<br>
This is not good for anyone involved. Lobbyists should limit
themselves to lobbying (legal representation is a good complement, because it consists of the same sort of representation of clients). If one or more members of a lobbying firm
have been involved in an official's recent campaign, the firm should
not lobby the official or her staff, or even lobby her indirectly
through her close colleagues on the council.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---