From my perspective here in the belly of the beast itself, Washington DC, this seems to be vastly overly broad generalization of who lobbyists really are and what role they serve.
in all that entails: schmoozing at $1,000 a head receptions, waiting for lawmakers outside of hearing rooms, and building relationships with staff over many, many years.
I would be the last to claim that this system is perfect. However, there is a mighty important distinction that I fear gets lost in all of this vilification of lobbying: not all lobbyists are created equal.
Hillary was on to something when she said that lobbyists represent real people with real concerns. The Sierra Club has lobbyists. The ACLU has lobbyists. NARAL has lobbyists. The HRC has lobbyists. And, of course, the vast majority of member unions of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win have lobbyists.
These groups represent tens of millions of progressive people who otherwise would have a very limited voice in DC. Their presence here is--90% of the time--made up of dedicated in-house employees who have made their careers fighting these fights. At their best, these lobbyists give often overlooked, factual information to lawmakers and their staff so that they can come to the best decision.
Clearly this is but a slice of a much larger lobbying pie. Unfortunately, the agnostic guns-for-hire give the true-believing in-house lobbyists a much worse name than they deserve.
Firms that rake in millions of dollars a year in fees from the highest bidder are the real problem; they not only muddy the legislative waters regardless of the outcome, they fight tooth and nail to keep the current system in place.
And that is exactly where the problem lies: the current system. Candidates have to raise exorbitant amounts of cash in order to buy ridiculously expensive TV commercials that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.
Moving to a public finance system would take away those $1,000 a head cocktail parties. Since the hired guns have loads of corporate cash, they can afford to attend a lot more parties and give a lot more money to candidates of both parties.
We in the labor movement have to pick and choose how our much more limited money gets divvied up.
So we get the money out of the system. Lawmakers will still need advice from representatives of the people they serve and still need votes on election day. Progressive lobbyists in such a brave new world would be in even greater demand, as they represent actual people, not corporations (which, despite what the courts say about their inalienable rights, still can't vote).
Back to the current situation, saying that a candidate ought never accept money from a lobbyist is, frankly, silly. If someone who works for the ACLU wants to give Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama or anyone for that matter $200 of her own money, why shouldn't a lobbyist that works for the Sierra Club be able to do the same?
All I'm asking for is just a wee bit of nuance when talking about the special interests buying their way into Washington. At the end of the day, there are truly dedicated, honest people fighting the good fight on the ground in DC, toiling in obscurity and playing a game not of their creation or choosing.
In fact, let's applaud these hard-working men and women who step into our nation's capitol everyday, trying to counter the overwhelming money and clout of MegaCorp's hired legislative muscle. Without these lobbyists, we would be a lot worse off than we already are.
Why shouldn't they, too, be able to support a candidate?
