n
The act of influencing, by argumentation, the course of action of a legislator.
| Dental Dictionary: lobbying |
The act of influencing, by argumentation, the course of action of a legislator.
| 5min Related Video: lobbying |
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: lobbying |
For more information on lobbying, visit Britannica.com.
| US Government Guide: lobbying |
Lobbyists are people hired by groups or organizations with particular interests to convince members of Congress to pass or defeat legislation. They may work for business corporations, labor unions, executive branch agencies, foreign governments, or private or public interest groups. Although lobbyists were present during the 1st Congress—and in the British Parliament before that—the term did not come into use until the 1820s. As the name suggests, lobbyists often work the lobbies and corridors surrounding the House and Senate chamber, intercepting members and arguing their client's case. Maurice Rosenblatt, a lobbyist for many causes, described the job as “one man, one buttonhole. It is that personal eye-to-eye contact that has the maximum effect."
Because of scandals in which lobbyists employed questionable tactics to win legislation for special interests, they acquired a sinister image. Senator Norris Cotton (Republican-New Hampshire) considered this image unjust because most lobbyists perform a legitimate and necessary function by “presenting diverse social and economic viewpoints to Congress” and by providing legal knowledge and technical skills to help frame legislation. Since 1876 Congress has enacted increasingly tighter requirements for lobbyists to register and to identify their clients and fees. Many loopholes remain in these regulations, but Congress has been concerned that further limitations on lobbying might also restrict the constitutional rights of free speech and freedom to petition.
Rather than return to their home state, some former members of Congress stay in Washington as lobbyists, making use of their experience on Capitol Hill—and their floor privileges in the House and Senate chambers and access to the cloakrooms and dining rooms. George Smathers (Democrat–Florida) explained that as a former senator he could “get in to see senators a lot more quickly than you can if you're just a normal lobbyist.” Over time, however, former members often find that their advantages as lobbyists diminish as fewer of their old colleagues remain in office.
See also Floor privileges
Sources
| US History Encyclopedia: Lobbies |
Lobbies, groups of individuals acting for themselves or others who seek to influence the decisions of government officials, primarily by informal off-the-record communications and exchanges. Their tactics range from such high-pressure techniques as bribery, threats of electoral retaliation, and mass mailings to such low-pressure methods as supplying research and information in support of their views or testifying before Congressional committees. Intermediate forms of influence include campaign contributions and persuasion.
The objects and tactics of lobbying have shifted sharply in American history. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the typical lobbyist focused on the legislative arena and used high-pressure methods, including bribery, to influence legislators. The most notorious examples of illicit lobbying in the nineteenth century involved railroad lobbyists, who brazenly handed out checks to legislators on the floor of the House and Senate. By the 1950s many lobbyists had enlarged their focus to include the executive branch and shifted to soft-sell tactics. This shift in technique was a response to exposure of lobbying scandals at both state and national levels.
Congress began investigating lobbies in 1913 with a study of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Since that time there has been at least one major investigation in every decade. The investigations were followed first by piecemeal legislation and then, in Title III of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, by general legislation to regulate lobbies. These acts and subsequent legislation aim at control primarily through publicity, but many loopholes remain that permit lobbies such as the NAM and Washington, D.C. law firms to avoid registration and others to avoid full disclosure of their activities. While not eliminating lobbies, the investigations and legislation have encouraged lobbies to seek a lower profile by moving away from high-pressure methods.
With the rise of the executive branch as initiator of legislation and the growth of the administrative bureaucracy, the focus of lobbyists began to shift from legislative bodies to executive offices. As a corollary, the growing proportion of lobbying that occurs outside the legislative limelight reduces its overall visibility. Increasingly, chief executives and bureaucratic agencies lobby for legislative passage of bills they have initiated. They often appear to be the sole influence on legislation, even though it is not uncommon for regulatory agencies to be lobbying in the interests of the clientele they are supposed to be regulating. These changes have led critical observers to question the validity of distinguishing between private and public lobbies.
In the 1970s most lobbyists were still acting for associations with an economic interest—business, farm, labor, and the professions. Over half of all registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. are specialized business associations such as the American Petroleum Institute and Aerospace Industries Association. Although multiinterest peak associations such as the AFL-CIO, the Farm Bureau Federation, and the NAM continue to lobby on a variety of congressional issues, critics of lobbying have moved on to new targets—for example, the "military-industrial complex" and the impact of corporate campaign contributions on executive policymaking. In addition to primarily economic lobbies, the twentieth century has seen major lobbying efforts by prohibition groups like the Anti-Saloon League, civil rights groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), reform groups like Common Cause, and peace groups like the National Peace Action Committee.
In the 1980s and 1990s social issues became a major focus of lobbying activity in Washington. For example, Christian evangelical organizations such as the Moral Majority lobbied Congress to outlaw abortion and legalize school prayer. In contrast, civil liberties groups such as People for the American Way lobbied Congress to maintain a strict separation of church and state, and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) lobbied Congress to preserve abortion rights. The overall number of lobbies proliferated and included groups as diverse as teacher's unions, policemen, and scientists. Along with the rise in the number of lobbies, the amount of money spent by lobbies on political campaigns escalated enormously.
The late twentieth century also saw a dramatic increase in the role of lobbies in the Senate confirmation process. In 1987 the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, and other liberal lobbies vigorously opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. The lobbying campaign created a media firestorm, and after weeks of contentious hearings, the Senate rejected Bork's nomination. In the aftermath of the Bork controversy, lobbying organizations have become regular participants in Senate confirmation hearings.
By the 1990s public outcry against lobbies focused on their role in campaign finance. Virtually every major candidate for federal office in the United States relied on contributions from lobbies to finance their campaigns. The massive infusion of money into the political process led many Americans to conclude that lobbies and other political pressure groups threatened to corrupt democracy itself. By the early twenty-first century, the effort to reign in lobbies and reduce the role of money in politics had emerged as one of the principal issues in American political life.
Bibliography
Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. The Lobbyists: How Influence Peddlers Get Their Way in Washington. New York: Times Books, 1992.
Deakin, James. The Lobbyists. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1966.
Hayes, Michael T. Lobbyists and Legislators: A Theory of Political Markets. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1981.
| Columbia Encyclopedia: lobbying |
In the United States lobbying has become an accepted and ubiquitous part of the political system; while federal and state legislators are technically representatives of geographical areas, they spend much of their time with lobbyists, and can be said at times to be responding to interest groups rather than to their constituents, to the degree that legislation drafted by lobbyists is sometimes introduced. Organizations such as corporations, financial institutions, labor unions, professional associations, educational groups, medical interests, farm alliances, and various public interest and social issue groups like Common Cause, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, the National Rifle Association, and the National Coalition for the Homeless maintain permanent lobbies in Washington and in state capitals to protect and further their interests. Lobbyists often deal directly with governmental decisionmakers, supplying technical information, making political threats or promises, and supplying friendship, entertainment, and other favors. Their indirect methods include the use of the mass media and mailing and telephone campaigns (some purporting to come from the "grass roots") and the organization of campaign funding vehicles known as political action committees (PACs).
The potential for corruption, especially bribery of officials, has given lobbying an unsavory connotation and has led to many attempts to regulate it, first at the state and later at the national level. The basic federal law has been the Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, which requires registration of and regular financial reports from all individuals and agents seeking to influence legislation. In 1995, Congress passed a new bill intended to strengthen registration and disclosure requirements and to include within the definition of "lobbyist" some, e.g., lawyers, who had not previously been so designated.
Bibliography
See V. O. Key, Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups (5th ed. 1964); A. M. Scott et al., Congress and Lobbies (1966); S. Farkas, Urban Lobbying (1971); G. Wooton, Interest Groups (1971); M. T. Hayes, Lobbyists and Legislators (1984); C. Barnes, The Politics of Policy-Making and Pressure Groups (1987); R. G. Kaiser, So Damn Much Money (2009).
| Law Encyclopedia: Lobbying |
The process of influencing public and government policy at all levels: federal, state, and local.
Lobbying involves the advocacy of an interest that is affected, actually or potentially, by the decisions of government leaders. Individuals and interest groups alike can lobby governments, and governments can even lobby each other. The practice of lobbying is considered so essential to the proper functioning of the U.S. government that it is specifically protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The practice of lobbying provides a forum for the resolution of conflicts among often diverse and competing points of view; provides information, analysis, and opinion to legislators and government leaders to allow for informed and balanced decision making; and creates a system of checks and balances that allows for competition among interest groups, keeping any one group from attaining a permanent position of power. Lobbyists can help the legislative process work more effectively by providing lawmakers with reliable data and accurate assessments of a bill's effect.
The role lobbyists play in the legislative arena can be compared to that of lawyers in the judicial arena. Just as lawyers provide the trier of fact (judge or jury) with points of view on the legal issues pertaining to a case, so do lobbyists provide local, state, and federal policymakers with points of view on public policy issues.
Although lobbying as a whole serves as a checks-and-balances safeguard on the legislative process, individual lobbyists are not necessarily equal. Unlike voters, who each get one vote, lobbyists vary in their degree of influence. The level of influence a lobbyist has over the legislative process is often proportional to the resources — time and money — the lobbyist can spend to achieve its legislative goal. Some people think lobbyists in general have too much power. During his 1912 campaign for president, Woodrow Wilson remarked, "The government of the United States is a foster child of the special interests. It is not allowed to have a will of its own."
The term lobbyist has been traced to the mid-seventeenth century, when citizens would gather in a large lobby near the English House of Commons to express their views to members of Parliament. In the early nineteenth century, the term lobby-agent had come to the United States, where it was applied to citizens seeking legislative favors in the New York Capitol lobby, in Albany. By 1832 it had been shortened to lobbyist and was widely used at the U.S. Capitol.
Today lobbyists practice their trade not only in the halls of the U.S. Capitol and the corridors of state legislatures, but also on playgrounds, in boardrooms, in manufacturing plants, at cocktail parties, and in retirement homes. Contemporary lobbying methods include campaigns to mobilize constituents at the grassroots level, political action committees, high-tech communication techniques, and coalitions among groups and industries sharing the same political goals. Today's lobbyists include schoolchildren who want to prevent their favorite neighborhood park from becoming a shopping mall, corporations who contribute to a particular legislator's campaign, lawyers who speak with legislators on behalf of their clients' business interests, cities who lobby the state legislature for changes in transportation laws, presidential aides who suggest new amendment language to congressional committee members, retired persons who want to save their government benefits, and many others. Each type of lobbyist attempts to win support for a particular point of view.
Samuel Ward, a well-respected lobbyist, was so successful at influencing legislators that in the mid-1800s Congress decided to investigate him. When questioned about the elegant dinners he orchestrated for politicians, the self-described King of the Lobby said, "At good dinners people do not talk shop, but they give people a right, perhaps, to ask a gentleman a civil question and get a civil answer."
Despite the noncorrupt success of lobbyists such as Ward, lobbyists during the mid-nineteenth century were often regarded as ethically questionable individuals. This reputation was enhanced whenever lobbyists abused their position with improper practices such as bribing members of Congress.
Although lobbying is specifically protected by the Constitution, numerous attempts have been made to regulate it — attempts that, not surprisingly, lobbyists have historically resisted. Congress began efforts to reform lobbying in 1907, when it banned campaign contributions from banks and corporations. In 1911 proposed restrictions on domestic lobbying were first considered, but these were not approved until 1946, when Congress passed the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C.A. §§ 261, 261 note, 262-270 [1946]).
In 1954 lobbyists challenged the Regulation of Lobbying Act for being unconstitutionally vague and unclear. In United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 74 S. Ct. 808, 98 L. Ed. 989, the Supreme Court responded by upholding the act's constitutionality, but also by narrowing the scope and application of the act. The Court ruled that the act applies only to paid lobbyists who directly communicate with members of Congress on pending or proposed federal legislation. This means that lobbyists who visit with congressional staff members rather than members of Congress themselves are not considered lobbyists. In addition, the act covers only attempts to influence the passage or defeat of legislation in Congress, and excludes other congressional activities. Further, the act applies to and restricts only individuals who spend at least half of their time lobbying.
According to the 1946 act, lobbyists to whom the law applies are required to disclose their name and address; the names and addresses of clients for whom they work; how much they are paid and by whom; the names of all contributors to the lobbying effort and the amount of their contributions; an accounting of all money received and expended, specifying to whom it was paid and for what purposes; the names of any publications in which the lobbyists have caused articles or editorials to be published; and the particular legislation they have been hired to support or oppose. In addition, the act requires lobbyists to file registration forms with the clerk of the House of Representatives and the secretary of the Senate prior to engaging in lobbying. These forms must be updated in the first ten days of each calendar quarter for as long as the lobbying activity continues. Violation of the act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or a jail sentence of up to twelve months, and a three-year prohibition on lobbying.
Although a number of lobbying statutes have been enacted that regulate special situations— such as lobbying by the agents of foreign governments, employees of holding companies, and firms affected by various federal shipping laws — the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act remains the only comprehensive law governing the practice of lobbying.
Critics of the 1946 act suggest that its effectiveness is limited, since it does not apply to a large part of the population that actually lobbies the government. In fact, in 1991 the General Accounting Office found that nearly 10,000 of the 13,500 individuals and organizations listed in a popular lobbyist directory were not registered under the 1946 act.
In 1995 Congress passed a law designed to close loopholes in the 1946 law by increasing lobbyists' accountability: the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-65, 109 Stat. 691). Under the new law, individuals who receive at least $5,000 in a six-month period from a single client are required to register with the clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate, listing the congressional chambers and federal agencies they contacted, the issues they lobbied for, and how much money was spent on the effort. The reporting requirements also apply to organizations whose own employees lobby on their behalf and spend at least $20,000 in a six-month period on that effort.
Besides these federal regulations, states may separately enact their own regulations governing state lobbying. Most lobby restrictions involve reporting and registration provisions similar to those in place at the federal level.
| Wikipedia: Lobbying |
Lobbying is the practice of influencing decisions made by the government (in groups or individually). It includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups.[1] A lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby.[2] Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.[3][4][5][6]
Contents |
The supposed origins of the term "lobbyist" came from Eric Michael Patch IV.[citation needed] The BBC holds that "lobbying" comes from the gathering of Members of Parliament and peers in the hallways (or lobbies) of Houses of Parliament before and after parliamentary debates.[7] One story states that the term originated at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, where it was used by Ulysses S. Grant to describe the political wheelers and dealers frequenting the hotel's lobby in order to access Grant, who was often found there, enjoying a cigar and brandy.[8]
The term "lobbying" appeared in print as early as 1820:[9]
| “ |
Other letters from Washington affirm, that members of the Senate, when the compromise question was to be taken in the House, were not only "lobbying about the Representatives' Chamber" but also active in endeavoring to intimidate certain weak representatives by insulting threats to dissolve the Union. |
” |
|
— April 1, 1820, New Hampshire Sentinel
|
It can be argued that lobbying is undesirable because it allows people with particular interests which represent a minority to gain special access to law-makers and through contributions and favors have controversial relationships with representatives. This is a danger to democracy as described in Article 22 of the Federalist Papers. Though many see lobbying as a potential corruption to the system, others disagree. Bill Clinton defended his wife's reception of lobbyist money for her campaign by saying:[10]
| “ | Lobbyists are registered, they register with the federal government and can give the same amount of money, $2300, anybody else can. That's not going to influence you. What gives the lobbyists influence is the people who hire them to work for them. It's all the people they represent. So all these people who don't take money from lobbyists, they take money from the lobbyists' spouses, their children, their brothers, their sisters, from all the people they represent. It's a distinction without a difference, I think. There's no significant financial gain, because there are not that many lobbyists. If we're going to take money from the guys who pay the lobbyists, why treat them [the lobbyists] as less than full citizens? | ” |
Economist Thomas Sowell defends corporate lobbying as simply an example of a group having better knowledge of its interests than the people at large do of theirs.[11]
The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee argued that while there are shortcomings in the regulation of the lobbying industry in the United Kingdom, "The practice of lobbying in order to influence political decisions is a legitimate and necessary part of the democratic process. Individuals and organisations reasonably want to influence decisions that may affect them, those around them, and their environment. Government in turn needs access to the knowledge and views that lobbying can bring."[12]
Lobbying in Brussels was born only in the late 1970s. Up to that time, "diplomatic lobbying" at the highest levels remained the rule. There were few lobbyists involved in the system and except for some business associations, representative offices were rarely used. The event that sparked the explosion of lobbying was the first direct election of the European Parliament in 1979. Up until then the Parliament consisted of a complex, and companies increasingly felt the need of an expert local presence to find out what was going on in Brussels. The foundation of lobbying was therefore the need to provide information. From that developed the need to influence the process actively and effectively. The next important step in lobbying development was the Single European Act of 1986 which both created the qualified majority vote for taking decisions in the Council and enhanced the role of the Parliament, again making EU legislation more complex and lobbying further more important and attractive for stakeholders.
In short, the stronger the EU developed from a Member States organization to its own political player in the world, the more policy areas it covered, the more important it became as a lobbying target. With the EU enlargement in 2004 this development has taken a further step, bringing in not only a lot more players and stakeholders but also a wide range of different political cultures and traditions.
In the wake of the Abramoff scandal in Washington and the massive impact that this had on the lobbying scene in the United States, the rules for lobbying in the EU—which until now consist of only a non-binding code of conduct-—may also be tightened.[13]
The fragmented nature of EU institutional structure provides multiple channels through which organized interests may seek to influence policy-making. Lobbying takes place at the European level itself and within the existing national states. The most important institutional targets are the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament.[14] The Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in Community decision-making. Since it has the power to draft initiatives, it makes it ideally suited as an arena for interest representation. There are three main channels of indirect lobbying of the Council. First, interest groups routinely lobby the national delegations in Brussels. The second indirect means of lobbying the Council is for interest groups to lobby members of the many Council-working groups. The third means of influencing the Council is directly via national governments. As a consequence of the co-decision procedures, the European Parliament attracts attention from lobbyists who target the rapporteur and the chairman of the committee. The rapporteurs are MEPs appointed by Committees to prepare the parliament’s response to the Commission’s proposal and to those measures taken by the Parliament itself.
There are currently around 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) seeking to influence the EU’s legislative process. Some 2,600 special interest groups have a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution is roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).[citation needed]
In France, the political system does not integrate the lobbying practice. Much French republican thought has been suspicious of the claims of "particular interests," which are often contrasted with the "general interest" of the nation. This is one interpretation of Rousseau's Social Contract, for example. So while lobbying has always been practiced in France, organized lobbying made a significant appearance in France only in the early 1980s. Since then, it has steadily grown; many interest groups routinely seek to influence the French institutions as the Government and the French Parliament (“National Assembly” and “Senate”). In order to make up the lost time, more and more French enterprises try to organize their own lobbies by creating their own public affairs department. In recent years, growing numbers of grassroots and grasstop lobbies have been organized by citizen groups, representing interests such as genetically modified organisms and software piracy.
But there is currently no regulation at all for lobbying activities in France and, as a consequence, this practice suffers from a lack of transparency. There is no regulated access to the French institutions and no register. For example, the internal rule of the National Assembly (art. 23 and 79) forbid to members of Parliament to be linked with a particular interest. However, MPs don’t have to declare their interest and the list of MPs' assistants is not public. At last, there is no rule at all for consultation of interest groups by the Parliament and the Government. Nevertheless, a recent parliamentary initiative (motion for a resolution) [15] has been launched by several MPs so as to establish a register for representatives of interest groups and lobbyists who intend to lobby the MPs. The purpose of this initiative is to introduce standards of conduct and access to the National Assembly. Through the use of a register, these standards of conduct and access will enable the Assembly to identify and maintain a list of the representatives of interest groups who follow legislative activity and to supervise fully the access of those representatives to the National Assembly. This motion has not been adopted yet.
In the United Kingdom lobbying traditionally referred to the attempt to influence an MP's vote by either their fellow parliamentary colleagues, by one of their constituents or by any outside organisation. Currently the term often refers to the more narrow usage of the operation of "lobbyists" hired to represent the views of an organisation,[citation needed] though "there is no neat way of defining what is generally acknowledged to be a porous concept."[12] The professional lobbying industry has been steadily growing in recent years and was estimated by the Hansard Society in 2007 to be worth £1.9 billion and employ 14,000 people.[16] Their report also suggested that some MPs are approached over 100 times a week by lobbyists.
The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee held an investigation into lobbying, and its 2009 report called for "a statutory register of lobbying activity to bring greater transparency to the dealings between Whitehall decision makers and outside interests."[17] It also concluded that the self-regulation of the professional lobbying industry was "fragmented" and appeared to "involve very little regulation of any substance".[12]
There are two self-regulatory bodies which UK public affairs companies can join - the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) - and also the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) which registers individual lobbyists.
In addition to "open" lobbying, the United Kingdom, political parties have been accused of trying to raise campaign funds by offering peerages and other honors. Since peers sit in the House of Lords, part of the UK legislature, they are in a position to initiate or amend Bills on their way to becoming Acts of Parliament - a very influential position. The rules of Parliament do, however, require participants in debates to 'declare their interest'. The 'sale' of peerages is a criminal offence. To circumvent this law, it is alleged that some contributions thus solicited, are given not as outright gifts but as loans.[18] These issues were also the focus of a Public Administration Select Committee investigation.[19]
Many jurisdictions, in response to concerns of corruption, require the formal registration of lobbyists who come in contact with government representatives. Since 1995, under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. § 1601–1612), most people who are paid to make direct "lobbying contacts" with members of Congress and officials of the federal executive branch are required to register and file reports twice a year. If lobbyists neglect to register, they are susceptible to criminal charges and harsh penalties.
However, there are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on lobbying activities, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the right to petition government officials, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
For example, in January 2004, the U.S. Senate considered S. 1, an omnibus "ethics reform" bill. This bill contained a provision (Section 220) to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying." The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, who argued that attempts by constituents to influence their representatives are at the heart of representational democracy, and that neither such contacts nor efforts to motivate such contacts should be considered "lobbying." On January 18, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 220 from the bill. However, other proposed regulations on "grassroots lobbying" remain under consideration in the 110th Congress.
Another controversial bill, the "Executive Branch Reform Act, H.R. 985, would require over 8,000 Executive Branch officials to report into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." Although promoted as a regulation on "lobbyists," the bill defines "private party" as "any person or entity" except "Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official." Thus, under the proposal, anyone who contacts a covered government official is in effect deemed to be a lobbyist, unless the communicator is another government official or government staff person. The bill defines "significant contact" to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." The bill is supported by some organizations as an expansion of "government in the sunshine," but other groups oppose it as an infringing on the right to petition by making it impossible for citizens to communicate their views on controversial issues without having their names and viewpoints entered into a government database.[20] The U.S. Department of Justice has raised constitutional and other objections to the bill.[21]
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected congressional efforts to regulate grassroots communications as a form of "lobbying," on constitutional grounds. In 1953, in a suit involving a congressional resolution authorizing a committee to investigate "all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation," the Supreme Court narrowly construed "lobbying activities" to mean only "direct" lobbying (which the Court described as "representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees"), and rejected a broader interpretation of "lobbying" out of First Amendment concerns.[22]. The Supreme Court thereby affirmed the earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said:
| “ |
In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. . . . |
” |
|
— [23]
|
While lobbyists' precise influence over legislative decision-making in the United States can never be fully determined, non-profit organizations such as the Center for Responsive Politics attempt to track money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy.[24] This is an imprecise measure, however, since lobbying and campaign finance are different activities, and not all lobbyists or lobbying organizations make campaign donations. Also, cause and effect relationships in complex systems such as lawmaking are difficult to establish.
Only countries where lobbying is regulated in parliament bills are: Georgia (1998), Lithuania (2001) Poland (2005) and Hungary (2006). All require registration of professional lobbyists. So far, there is no complex lobbying regulation in other European countries. There were many attempts, but with no satisfactory results.[25]
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| election campaign financing | |
| floor privileges | |
| Government Regulation of Business |
| What is the Israel lobby? Read answer... | |
| What does a lobby group do? Read answer... | |
| Meaning of lobbying? Read answer... |
| What is lobby desk? | |
| What are the affects of lobbying? | |
| Who runs lobbying? |
Copyrights:
![]() | Dental Dictionary. Mosby's Dental Dictionary. Copyright © 2004 by Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US Government Guide. The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002 by John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, Donald M. Ritchie. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more | |
![]() | Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Lobbying". Read more |
Mentioned in