We all know the public has a low opinion of lobbying - almost as low as its opinion of Congress.  Fair or unfair, this opinion is widespread.

So, if you're a lobbyist, does that mean your best strategy is to keep a low profile and mumble when people ask what you do for a living? Do you say you "work in public policy" and risk accusations that you're a government employee (another category with low ratings)?

What if you run a government relations department at a large corporation? What do you say to employees, customers, shareholders and others?

Unfortunately, many companies don't say much of anything.

In a town where effective messaging is key to winning political campaigns and legislative battles, it's remarkable how poor a job many organizations do of communicating why they engage in advocacy.

Rather than dwell on the bad examples, I'll give you some good ones. Let's start with Hewlett-Packard, whose website provides complete information on U.S./global public policy priorities, association memberships, political engagement and global citizenship programs. Here's how HP describes its approach to lobbying:

HP's global Government Affairs team builds relationships with key officials around the world to discuss emerging issues, understand their thinking, offer HP's unique expertise and insight, and describe the company's positions. We are committed to active participation in the global public policy dialogue in accordance with laws and our Standards of Business Conduct.

Nike, which faced harsh criticism in the 1990s over human rights concerns, has since made a strong commitment to transparency in all of its communications - including the way it talks about lobbying. It describes its criteria for supporting political candidates and its process for evaluating legislation.  I particularly like this section (in a Nike corporate social responsibility report), where the company acknowledges the difficulty of crafting a position:

We constantly grapple with the selection of issues to influence and the positions we take. We face the age-old dilemma: there are risks and downsides to every position, including the potential of alienating a group of employees, a non-governmental organization partner or a political ally on another issue. To address this concern and bring some clarity to our decision-making deliberations, we have developed a process for systematic and timely policy decision making.

Pfizer explains clearly on its website that "Public policy affects our ability to meet patient needs and provide shareholder value." It also makes the case on an issue-by-issue level:

Essential aspects of our business are being challenged by barriers to access, counterfeits, illegal importation and challenges to intellectual property protection. For this reason, we actively participate in public policy dialogues to explain our perspectives.

One would assume that brand-based firms (like the ones listed above) would be under the most pressure to be transparent and thorough in reporting about their government relations programs. But the most complete and useful corporate government relations website I've seen in the last five years belongs to Cisco Systems, which can only be called a brand-based firm if you are an IT executive who buys routers, switches and wireless LAN controllers.

Cisco publishes a High Tech Policy Guide covering major issues facing tech companies. The site is easy to navigate and even includes archived analyses of issues that are no longer on Cisco's agenda. Cisco also was the first company (and still one of the few) to provide a robust public policy blog, which was launched in 2005.

What these approaches have in common is they thoughtfully demystify the process of monitoring legislative issues, taking positions, building alliances and trying to affect policy outcomes. When a company is straight-forward about why it lobbies and emphasizes its commitment to ethical practices, it is more likely to gain the trust of stakeholders.

Know of other good examples (or bad examples) of how companies talk about lobbying? Readers of this blog would love to see them. Send links to blog@pac.org.

**************

These and other efforts to regain the public's trust are coming none too soon because the Obama administration plans to limit the role of  registered lobbyists on federal advisory panels, according to a White House blog post by Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform.

Such panels were set up under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. Trade panels, in particular, are designed to ensure that U.S. trade policies reflect both public and private sector interests.

Eisen said federally registered lobbyists who currently serve on these agency boards and committees may continue, but "when these appointments expire, it is our hope that agencies not reappoint anyone who is currently registered as a federal lobbyist at the time of their potential reappointment."

Critics of the proposal say that trade negotiators will be severely hampered if trade experts from companies, unions and public interest groups are prevented from serving on advisory bodies because they spend part of their time lobbying.

Just one more reason why Washington will probably have fewer registered lobbyists in 2010 than it had in 2009. Anyone close to the threshold for registration (20% of one's time spent on advocacy work), is going to find a way to ensure they won't be subject to LDA reporting requirements.