If you believe President Obama, congressional leaders, political reform groups and most of the national media, lobbyists wield more power and influence in Washington, D.C., than anyone else. Or maybe not.

A 10-year study shows that advocates on both sides of major issues form diverse coalitions that often cancel each other out, says Miller-McCune magazine, which recently reviewed, "Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why." The book is the winner of the 2010 Leon D. Epstein Outstanding Book Award from the American Political Science Association.

In a meticulous analysis of 98 randomly selected issues, the researchers found that opposing lobbyists only had a 40% success rate in changing policy over a four-year period. In most cases, the outcome was the maintenance of the status quo.

While thousands of lobbyists work the halls of Congress and government agencies and billions of dollars are spent each year on advocacy, the groups with the most lobbyists and money don't necessarily win. "Any issue that unites business groups is likely to unite environmentalists, consumers and labor officials in opposition," writes Miller-McCune's Melinda Burns. "Wealth and resources can make a difference, the researchers conclude, but only if the balance of resources is heavily skewed toward one side, and that occurred only 19% of the time. Even then, the wealthier side didn't always win."

Penn State's Marie Hojnacki, one of the study's authors, tells the magazine that the research also debunks the notion that interest groups can produce results by twisting the arm of the right member of Congress. "Policy doesn't work that way. We have a system in place that is designed to move slowly. Many of these organizations are in it for the long haul. It requires a long process of building coalitions of support and looking for the right moment."

The right moment can occur when party leaders and the president jump on board an issue. According to the study, the side with the active support of these key players wins a remarkable 78% of the time.  David Kimball, one of the study's authors and an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, says Obama's intervention on health care reform made all the difference. "We found that the president is a big foot on these policy debates and prevails the vast majority of the time."

That's why it generally takes new political leadership for major reforms to take place. "It's democracy through the ballot box," writes Burns, "and when reforms happen, they tend to be big."

Now, before lobbyists start celebrating the fact that their poor reputation is undeserved because a landmark study has proven their lack of effectiveness, it's worth considering why there is such a weak link between money and policy change. The reason, concluded the study's authors, is that the balance of power in national politics already favors the rich. Outcomes that keep the status quo often preserve the advantages the wealthy have gained over the years.

While interests representing business, unions or consumers may cancel each other out in major policy debates, groups advocating for affordable housing, criminal justice reform or neighborhood safety may not even have a seat at the table. If a cause doesn't have a politically active constituency - or if a group can't afford to hire a lobbyist - its voice can be drowned out by all the other warring factions.

Given the findings of "Lobbying and Policy Change," (which was also referenced last week in The New York Times), here are some implications for lobbyists and other public affairs professionals:

• This is the latest, and most comprehensive, research report showing that Washington is not ruled by a small cabal of rich corporations or special interests. It flies in the face of those who claim lobbyists are inherently evil or that political contributions are bribes. "I feel a little better about democracy after this project," says Kimball in Miller-McCune. "I was expecting to find more evidence that resources played a huge role in policymaking."

• The study also shows that thousands of political players, representing various causes, lobby on major issues through diverse and fluid factions. These factions (which were envisioned by James Madison and the other Founding Fathers) generally cancel each other out and prevent disruptive swings in public policy.

• Though lobbyists and campaign dollars don't have nearly as much influence as the public assumes, this is no reason for organizations to step away from political involvement. While passion often trumps money, choosing to sit on the sidelines is not a smart decision.

• Lobbyists and the companies that hire them should try to find common ground with groups that represent "the public good" yet don't have a strong voice. Many companies already do this, from pharmaceutical companies (like Pfizer) that support orphan drugs to banks and retailers (like Home Depot) that support affordable housing. As governments struggle with growing needs for services as well as large budget deficits, companies will be expected to play an even greater role in addressing society's problems.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.