At first glance, the current scandal centering around Jack Abramoff appears to be a product of undue influence of Republican congressmen by lobbyists. Ironically, the real problem is the control of the lobbying industry by Republican representatives and the Republican party.
For several years now I have heard reference to the "K Street project," but did not fully understand the mission, mechanics or implications of this inititiative. In essense, it was a successful attempt by the Republican party to assume control of the lobbying industry and ensure that it used its considerable resources of money and influence to support a Republican agenda. Following the gain of a Republican majority in Congress in 1994, key Republican congressional leaders such as Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum teamed with other conservative leaders such as Grover Norquist to bring pressure on the key lobbying firms to hire only approved Republicans as staff and provide campaign and PAC contribuitions only to Republican politicians.
Pragmatists to the core, lobbyists had always contributed to politicians on a bi-partisan basis, hoping to garner the broadest level of support for their agendas. By filling the lobbyists ranks with faithful former staffers (actually providing lists of job candidates and haggling over open job positions in closed meetings), Republicans were able to ensure that 33 of the 36 major lobbying firms had Republicans in the top administrative positions.
This transformed the role of lobbying on the Hill. Rather than simply promoting the narrow interests of their clients, the lobbying firms were expected first to support the Republican agenda, even if it required subordinating their own agendas at times. The article below cites the example of this process in the Medicare changes of the early 2000s. And of course, the influence of typical corporate interests such as the pharmaceutical industry on the Medicare prescription plan is obvious.
A secondary goal of the K Street Project was to dramatically increase the contributions to Republican campaign committees and PACs. Essentially, the Republicans strove to forbid lobbyists from contributing to Democratic candidates' campaigns and PACs. In addition, they were able to mobilize the various industries' PR efforts on issues (e.g., Supreme Court nominations, privitization of Social Security) to support only Republican positions. The effectiveness of this program is evidenced by the relatively small number of Democrats who received actual campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff.
The article below from the Washington Monthly, published more than two years ago, provides a concise history of the K Street Project and its implications. While attmpting to understand the current Abramoff scandal, it is necessary to look at both the history and present-day status of the K Street Project. More important, however, is the issue of what we do about it. Lobbying is specifically protected by the constitution and will not go away. Additionally, it is perhaps less important to try to restrict lobbying than to revamp the legislative process that allows their influence to go unchecked.
Stopping the practice of having Congressional representatives and Senators dictate the hiring process in lobbying firms would be a start. However, another suggestion that I heard recently would be to disallow the practice of attaching "earmarks," or pet pork projects, to bills and the lumping of thousands of projects under "omnibus" bills. These techniques allow lawmakers to hide loopholes and benefits for special interests in bills so huge that the expensive add-ons receive no scrutiny. A return to the old days of "one issue, one bill" would bring greater scrutiny to the content of individual bills. However, practically speaking, I am sure that a few cosmetic band-aids will undoubtedly suffice!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html
