Spring Reading: Alan Rosenthal on Lobbying I

Anonymous

Thu, 05/15/2014 - 05:40

Book Reviews

Although twenty years old and about the state level, Alan
Rosenthal's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=pcOyJfxNwfwC" target="”_blank”">The
Third House: Lobbyists and Lobbying in the States</a> (CQ
Press, 1993) provides valuable food for thought about lobbying at
the local level. This first of two posts looks at such topics as the importance of relationships to lobbying and what makes local lobbying so different.

One of the principal interests of this book is that it is based on
interviews with lobbyists and, therefore, provides the lobbyist's
point of view. The second post on this book ends with a few choice
quotes from lobbyists. 
 
Rosenthal says that lobbyists were originally called "lobby agents,"
that is, agents of companies that hung out in the lobbies of
legislative buildings. It's too bad that the word "agent" was
dropped from their name, because that makes it seem as if it's the
lobbyists, rather than those they work for, that are problematic.
This leads to too many lobbying codes putting the entire burden on
lobbyists and, often, leaving clients totally outside the lobbying
code's jurisdiction. 
 
The book's introduction contains a good story that illustrates why
it's so necessary to have a lobbyist. The Florida League of Cities
was lobbying for a state program to facilitate urban development
projects. State legislators demanded that the League come up with a
revenue source to fund the program. The League settled on a sales
tax on dry-cleaning. Why? Because the Florida dry-cleaning industry
didn't have a lobbyist to oppose it. The dry-cleaning industry
learned its lesson the hard way. But the story also illustrates how
much the game of lobbying is about defense even more than about
offense. 
 
It's worth noting that, twenty years later, the "new" techniques of
lobbying are the same ones considered "new" back then:
grass-roots mobilization, public relations and communications,
polling, and coalition building. Somehow the old, "inside" types of
lobbying are still what people — and most lobbying laws — consider
lobbying. For this reason, in most jurisdictions the "outside" types
of lobbying are still not being disclosed or otherwise regulated. 
 
The Personal Touch 
Why do so many elected officials become inside lobbyists? Rosenthal
argues that "the qualities that count most in lobbyists are thought
to be those normally possessed by legislators ... They know the
issues, the process, and the people as well, or better, than
anybody. They have built up relationships and friendships, which
takes time and requires proximity." It is relationships and
understanding of the process that count most in inside lobbying, and
understanding of the players that counts most in outside lobbying. 
 
The biggest problem with legislators becoming lobbyists is that they
are not used to working on the details. That's what staff is for. 
 
One reason influence is so personal is that legislators "identify
the lobbyist first and foremost, the issue next, and then the
client." Having a familiar lobbyist gives a client much greater
access, no matter what the issue. At the local level, things are
often much more simple, because there is no issue, and the client
and the lobbyist are the same, that is, the business owner or
nonprofit president does the local lobbying. Whoever it is, it is
important to do what it takes to develop personal relationships with
officials, including entertaining, going on trips and attending
conferences together, and being involved in campaigns. 
 
Cause lobbyists are at the other extreme. They are the least likely
to develop personal relationships, because it is their issues rather
than their familiarity that is most important and, in any event,
they lack the resources for what it takes to develop personal
relationships with any but their biggest supporters. They tend to
engage mostly, but not exclusively, in outside lobbying and in
developing relationships with the press. 
 
In Lobbying, the "Minors" Are the Majors 
Rosenthal explains in the first section of chapter 3 that lobbying
is most important and effective when it comes to the minor bills and
other matters that mean a lot to special interests, but little to
the public. With respect to minor matters, there is an assumption
that, if no one objects, the public interest is being served or, at
least, not being undermined. So officials feel more free to serve
personal interests. 
 
Rosenthal figures that about a third of state bills are "minor" in
this sense. At the local level, even more matters are "minor,"
because so much of what occurs there involves contracts, grants, and
permits, which are of specific interest only to those seeking
contracts, grants, and permits. This is also true of regulations.
Only the big projects and issues get a lot of attention from
community groups. With smaller projects, there are just the
neighbors. Thus, local government has many more "minor," one-sided issues
than state government and, therefore, is more open to special-interest lobbying. At the local level, it's the "minors" where the
most important games are played, before audiences that are
small, or non-existent. 
 
Rosenthal gives as an example of a one-sided issue where lobbying has been
especially successful. It is a bill that was killed year after year
because there was only one lobbyist focused on it: a local
government ethics bill in New Jersey. The bill was killed by the
lobbying of the state's local government officials' association.
Eventually, an ethics bill was passed (after the book was
published), but it created a weak program that the same association
has been able to keep weak. 
 
Local Lobbying Is Different in Many Ways 
Besides the greater prevalence of "minor" matters at the local
level, lobbying at the local level differs from lobbying at the
state level in several important ways. One involves a principal role of the lobbyist: monitoring the status of matters. At the
state level, this is now relatively easy. But at the local level,
things are usually not so transparent. This makes lobbyists who have
connections and an understanding of the way things work especially
valuable. 
 
At the state level, "the real action is in the budget." At the local
level, the real action is in land use. At the state level, taxes are
the big issue. At the local level, the biggest tax issue is
in-lieu-of-taxes payments by universities and hospitals. And
contracts are much more important at the local level. At the state
level, regulation is more important than at the local level, as
are issues that bring out lots of lobbyists, but do not exist at the
local level, such as tort reform, abortion, and gun control. Local lobbying's principal issue is
one that plays a much smaller role at the state level: development. 
 
Throughout the book, Rosenthal considers the difference between
defensive and proactive lobbying. At the state level, most lobbying
is defensive, because most businesses and associations want to
preserve the status quo, to keep taxes from rising, to keep
regulation from getting more stringent, etc. At the local level,
lobbyists need to be more proactive, because their clients are
focused on initiating projects and getting contracts, grants, and
permits. There is often no one on the defense, because while
benefits are concentrated on one or two entities, costs are widely
distributed and often not recognized at all. 
 
Local government lobbyists are needed to facilitate action. To do
this, a lobbyist must have a close relationship with officials so
that the lobbyist can not only convince officials to act, but also
be able to guide their actions by (1) drafting specifications and
ordinances, (2) getting them to push aside obstacles in the contract
and permit processes, and (3) convincing them to give money to their
clients rather than to other businesses and organizations. 
 
Another major difference between the state and local levels is that, at
the local level, elected officials have fewer staff. Therefore, they
need more help. Lobbyists can prove even more useful to them than to
state officials by doing a lot of the work for them, including
research, drafting, and professional advice in areas ranging from
engineering to accounting. Rosenthal notes that this is also true in
the smaller states and in those with less professional, part-time
legislatures. The less support officials have, the more support they
need from lobbyists. 
 
At the local level, businesses seeking special benefits are smaller
and, therefore, less likely to have an in-house lobbyist. Often the
business owner or nonprofit president is the lobbyist. Local
lobbying is more personal, less professional, and more direct. 
 
The result is that people do not think of what goes on as
"lobbying." Yes, the big developers and contractors sometimes hire
contract lobbyists, but everyone else is just doing business.
Therefore, cities and counties feel they don't need to register
lobbyists, not to mention regulate their activities. 
 
Another advantage lobbyists have at the local level is that local
officials don't have a long commute. State representatives disperse
to their home towns. Local officials are, by definition, at home.
Therefore, all year long they socialize at the same bars and
restaurants as lobbyists (including business owners), play golf and
tennis at the same clubs, etc. This is a huge advantage that state
and federal lobbyists lack. 
 
Constituent services is an important part of some lobbyists' work,
and constituent services are a very important part of the job of a
local legislator or mayor. Those in the best position to provide
constituent services are local universities and hospitals, social
service agencies, arts organizations, and professional associations. 
 
Local lobbyists can also be of great help building support for
programs and bills that local legislators want to get through the
council with the least amount of trouble. Lobbyists who help build
support or put together coalitions for one program will likely get
the sponsors' support for their own goals. Of course, the most
important program for most elected officials is their campaign. The
lobbyists in the best position to provide campaign and other
community support are those that
lead or represent organizations, associations, and unions that have
lots of members in the community, as well as companies with lots of
employees. And it is easier to do this kind of outside lobbying when
the lobbyist has more direct contact with those who will
participate. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Spring Reading: Alan Rosenthal on Lobbying I

Tags

Share This Page