How to Make Life Hard for Lobbyists
I’m pleased to announce the publication of my first effort at Politics Daily — it’s a think piece that makes an argument for prohibiting Congressional representatives from inhabiting Washington DC.
Check it out.
Okay, you back?
Usually I refrain from advancing arguments that I’m uncertain about, but there are so many institutional obstacles to making this one a reality that it seemed safe enough to advocate for it as a thought experiment.
An excerpt:
As professional lobbyists grow ever more powerful, it is increasingly consequential that members of Congress spend significant stretches of time hundreds or thousands of miles from their constituents, but mere minutes away from every K Street firm. An e-Congress wouldn’t merely result in legislators more attuned to their constituents by virtue of spending their working lives among them — it would make influence peddling far more difficult on lobbying firms, who’d find it more expensive and time-consuming to get face-time with multiple senators and Congressional representatives, or to simultaneously court a senator, six members of the federal bureaucracy, a few political journalists, and a dozen House underlings.
Neither should the impact an e-Congress would have on congressional staff be underestimated. Staffers in their twenties and their thirties are enormously influential in shaping the agenda of the men and women for whom they work, and they are, by and large, denizens of Washington. This changes the characteristics of those willing to apply to be staff members — it skews the labor pool toward people who want to live Inside the Beltway, making a career there. Inevitably, whoever is hired loses touch with constituents, at least relative to a hypothetical staffer who ate, drank and dated among the folks back home, as opposed to living among other District of Columbia politicos.
I offer more pro arguments, and point out some powerful objections, here. Since Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein have been voicing there frustration with our present institutional arrangements, I’d be curious to hear what they think about this. Also, after I’d submitted the piece, but prior to it running, Will Wilkinson published a blog post that doesn’t address my argument directly, but probably cuts against it in an intelligent way.
Let me guess, you live on the East Coast?
So let’s say there’s funding available from, I don’t know, DHS, and the leading candidates to receive said funding are in Washington State and Maryland. So the Washington State rep and her staffers start making calls, setting up video conferences, and sending e-mail. Meanwhile the Maryland rep hops in his car and takes the relevant department head out to dinner. Yeah, that’s going to work out real well for us out here.
And another thing, what office hours do they keep at the Hawaiian rep’s office? 4am-2pm?
— five toed sloth · Dec 30, 02:56 PM · #
Homophone alert: “Since Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein have been voicing there frustration with our present institutional arrangements,” meaning “their”
— Ted Shepherd · Dec 30, 04:33 PM · #
I see three issues.
Lobbyists have access to the same technology that Congress would use, probably to more and better technology. Given the depth of their pockets and the intensity of their interests they could adapt to a virtual, radically decentralized paradigm as fast or faster than most any group, especially including government.
This would be made easier because the distribution of House seats matches that of the general population — most members of the House represent the largest metropolitan areas in the US, or areas next door, greatly reducing the stretch that lobbyists would have to make. Branch offices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, plus the home office in DC and a couple cities more would put lobbyists at the doorstep of probably half, if not more, of the House membership. Add a few more regional offices and you have covered eighty or ninety percent of Congress. The cost of doing business would rise, of course, but if money is the basic tool of your business — if you are a money mine — some extra overhead is not a problem, especially if your people can now work out of their homes. You don’t even need an imposing office anymore.
Can you imagine a lobbyist saying “the committee chairman who we need on our side for this multi-billion dollar deal is literally a two hour plane ride away. Cancel Christmas.”
My third issue is a sneaky one. Even if Congress and the lobbyists can afford this new world, I doubt that the national media can, anymore. We need all the sneaky bastards in one place so we can better keep an eye on them.
— J Kilian · Dec 30, 11:47 PM · #
I think lobbyists have influence more from having access to money for political donations rather then living in DC. Who do you think has more influence with congress; the residents of Anacostia or Wall Street bankers?
— Mercer · Dec 31, 01:16 AM · #
Four comments in two days? One is alerting you to a typo. Wow. This isn’t exactly the “big story,” eh Conor? Say something interesting, buddy! It’ll pay off. Trust me.
— lasorda · Dec 31, 01:55 AM · #