Who's Worse -- Lobbyists or Those They Lobby?

The crass behavior of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who funded swank "fact-finding" trips for House Majority Leader Tom Delay, has renewed cries for more openness about lobbyists' activities. That's fine, but we should worry more about the morality of the politicians on the receiving end of the lobby.

Abramoff is a fitting poster child for the world's second-oldest profession. He shook down Native American tribes for $66 million to promote their gambling interests while privately referring to them as "monkeys" and "troglodytes." He then funneled tribe money through a non-profit group to fund DeLay's golfing trips to Europe and pay for luxury sports suites that he lent to members of Congress for fundraising events. The list goes on.

A glimpse at this ugly side of politics is enough to make even the most jaded observers blush. Douglass Pinkham, president of a business-sponsored public relations association, has called for expanded lobbyist disclosure.

But improving disclosure by lobbyists will do little to strengthen public trust in politics. An inspector recently told me that I have termites eating away at my house. But what good does this disclosure do me unless I actually get rid of them?

What's eating away at the foundation of American government is not so much the lobbyists, but the politicians who join them in the lobby, the restaurant, or the resort. The actual act of lobbying is as American as apple pie. It merely consists of conveying information about an upcoming vote or action that an official could take. Information is good, right?

But in a world full of more information than anyone can possibly absorb, education from one side of the debate is not necessarily helpful. It's the full time job of a member of Congress to learn about all sides of an issue. But, some politicians are lazy. It is easier to take spoon-fed information from a lobbyist than to research something independently.

If all sides had equal resources to hire lobbyists, a system that relied on paid lobbyists to inform legislators might work. But lobbying is not balanced. The interests most willing to hire lobbyists are those that stand to make money off lobbyists. In 2003, for example, HMO's and pharmaceutical companies hired 952 lobbyists. That's nearly ten for every US Senator. The rest of us, who lose a little bit each off decision that helps the drug companies, have less ability to send in our own hired guns to lobby for us.

Improving disclosure would not alter this fundamental imbalance in the flow of information. Clamping down on Abramoff-style junkets might, however, help to shed light on elected officials acting in their own self-interest instead of serving their constituents.

When a lobbyist sends a congressional leader on a luxury trip, the concern goes beyond the unequal flow of information. The secondary concern is that politicians will feel beholden for the lavish attention and will subliminally work to repay the debt through granting favors. The payback might be as simple as sending a letter on behalf of a client or placing a call to a fellow legislator on the lobbyist's behalf. Whatever the case, the rest of us lose.

The answer to self-serving politicians is not a crackdown on lobbyists but to get new politicians. Does anyone think for a moment that if we had true public servants in office they'd give lobbyist hucksters the time of day?

The world is full of people who genuinely want to serve the public and seek only satisfaction in return -- people who serve on your local PTA or volunteer at your church. Trouble is, these people rarely run for Congress. When they do, political consultants destroy them with huge warchests raised from self-interested campaign donors. Jack Abramoff, for instance, raised more than $100,000 for President Bush's campaign in 2004.

Until we change the rules for getting into Congress, we'll have little luck changing the moral character of those who wind up there. Shining a light on their cozy relationship with lobbyists is a good thing to do, but the results may be more depressing than empowering. So let's be sure that better lobby rules are just the beginning of political reform, not the end.