Month after month, I keep asking myself, "Why is President Obama still talking about lobbyists?" We have a bad economy, two wars, a growing federal deficit, fears about terrorism - and he's threatening to rein in the lobbying profession.
Rather than debate the merits of the latest rules the president proposed in his State of the Union speech, I'm just trying to understand the strategy.
Politicians love to brag that they don't pay attention to opinion polls. They also brag that they're in touch with the needs and feelings of voters. Well, could it be that the best way to figure out the needs and feelings of voters is to read an opinion poll?
This week, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press released a survey listing the public's top priorities for 2010. Here they are:
 Source: Pew Research Center |
Note that "lobbyists" came in 19th, just ahead of trade policy and well behind the economy, jobs, terrorism, Social Security and a host of other major concerns. Clearly, there is no clarion cry for Washington to drop everything and tighten up lobbying regulations.
"Ah," you say. "You're missing the point. Obama keeps attacking lobbyists because he's trying to shore up his base and appeal to independent voters."
Maybe, maybe not. Only 27% of Democrats who answered the survey said lobbyists were a top priority, and only 40% of independents said the same. Who seemed most worried about lobbyists? Republicans! And yet, according to Pew, fewer than half of them put lobbying on their list of big problems.
Let's move on to theory #2. Perhaps the president picks on lobbyists because he's trying to fulfill his campaign promise to clean up Washington. That theory has some merit given the White House's tough hiring rules and Obama's efforts to make government more transparent. Even if some of the new lobbying rules seem petty, the president deserves credit for standing on principle. He hasn't, for instance, tried to exempt Democratic or union lobbyists from his new policies. And yet, that doesn't sound like reason enough to do so much lobbyist-bashing in his first State of the Union speech. (He said the "L" word six times during the speech - as many times as he said "recession.")
Let's move on to theory #3. Perhaps Obama is merely trying to weaken opposition to his legislative agenda. Each time he takes on the "greedy corporate interests" on Wall Street and the "fat cat oil companies," he always points out the disproportionate influence these firms have on public policy. When you claim that the other side is not only wrong but that the game itself is unfair, it's easier to win others over to your point of view.
Or perhaps (this is theory #4 if you're keeping track), the president hopes a populist stance will channel public anger away from Washington. He certainly wouldn't be the first politician to try this.
While assailing lobbyists and other convenient targets could help the administration in the short term, it's not a wise strategy for dealing with the nation's long-term problems. If the president wants to pass financial reform, healthcare and climate change legislation, he's going to need lobbyists.
Yet over the last year, Obama has frustrated a lot of people who, out of party loyalty or common cause, would normally be his allies. I know because I've talked with many of them. These are people who voted for the president and still admire the man, but who are just plain insulted by the verbal hand grenades tossed at the lobbying community.
Fortunately, there are early signs (you can call them green shoots, if you like) that even Democratic leaders are starting to understand the downside of the populist approach. I almost spilled my coffee when I read in Roll Call that Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy - when asked about the lobbyist rules proposed in the president's speech - said, "I want to see the details. A lot of lobbyists are very helpful in fighting for their folks and a lot of lobbyists work very, very hard."
I give you the new spokesman for the lobbying profession - the senior senator from Vermont.
Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.
