New Obama Policy Bars Lobbyists from Advisory Panels
Lobbyists pushed off advisory panels
White House initiative to limit influence could affect thousands
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 27, 2009
Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts.
The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.
The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.
Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.
"Some folks have developed a comfortable Beltway perch sitting on these boards while at the same time working as lobbyists to influence the government," said White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen, who disclosed the policy in a September blog posting on the White House Web site. "That is just the kind of special interest access that the president objects to."
But lobbyists and many of the businesses they represent say K Street is being unfairly demonized by a White House intent on scoring political points with scandal-weary voters. They warn that the latest policy will severely handicap federal regulators, who rely heavily on advisory boards for technical advice and to serve as liaisons between government and industry.
"It's taken me years to learn what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is," said Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board. "It's a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists."
'Bureaucratic labyrinth'
Vastine is deeply familiar with the system because he helped create it as a top Senate Republican staffer during the early 1970s, when Congress approved the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The result, as Vastine puts it, is a "bureaucratic labyrinth" that has expanded to include virtually every aspect of the sprawling federal government, from the 179-member National Petroleum Council, which closely advises the Department of Energy, to the influential Defense Policy Board, which wielded enormous clout in the decision to go to war in Iraq.
According to the most recent estimates from the General Services Administration, 52 government agencies use 915 advisory committees organized under the law, with a total membership of more than 60,000. Other estimates put the figure at about 1,000 panels. Federal officials say they do not know how many panel members are lobbyists.
Most committee members receive no pay for their participation. They often are urged to take part by companies, trade groups or advocacy organizations that hope to sway government decisions to their advantage. While their operations vary, the panels tend to hold open meetings and issue reports and recommendations, and they often wield significant influence with policymakers because of their expertise in arcane subjects, from nuclear plant safety to wild burro management.
Administration lawyers determined that they couldn't ban lobbyists from advisory committees directly because most of the panels are overseen by individual agencies rather than the White House; so Eisen encouraged -- rather than ordered -- the prohibition. Nonetheless, administration officials said, most Cabinet secretaries have implemented the recommendation, usually by barring renewals or new appointments for lobbyists.
Lobbyists up in arms
The reaction from the lobbying community has been swift and overwhelmingly negative. Some of the loudest criticism has come from the Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs), a collection of more than a dozen panels that provide policy advice and technical assistance to the Commerce Department and the U.S. Trade Representative. The ITACs, whose roughly 400 members include at least 130 lobbyists, officials say, have taken the lead in attacking the White House policy as misguided and harmful to U.S. business interests; a letter to Obama from committee chairs last month included executives from Boeing, IBM, Harley-Davidson and International Paper.
"This action will severely undermine the utility of the advisory committee process," the letter read. ". . . The characteristics that make many Advisors valuable to the Administration [are] the same characteristics that are being used to artificially disqualify them from participation in the Committee system."
The panel on automotive equipment and capital goods, for example, stands to lose at least seven of its two dozen members, including lobbyists for the National Association of Manufacturers and the auto supplier Delphi, when the committee is reconstituted early next year. Critics note that the removals come as domestic automakers struggle to survive and the Obama administration attempts to jump-start trade talks with South Korea and other nations.
"At least for a year and maybe longer, I think we will completely neuter the voice of American business in these negotiations," said panel Chairman Brian T. Petty, senior vice president for government affairs at the International Association of Drilling Contractors. "You are clearing out some of the most competent people."
One lobbyist, William C. Lane, has served on that panel for 20 years while working as the chief Washington representative for Caterpillar, the equipment manufacturer.
"We tend to focus on issues of competitiveness and opening up markets, which is good for everybody," Lane said of the advisory committee. "It's good for communities; it's good for our suppliers."
'New voices'
Administration officials remain sanguine, saying the criticism is overblown and arguing that top corporate officers are free to sit on advisory panels as long as they aren't lobbyists. Eisen, in a response letter to the ITAC leaders last month, wrote that "arguments that only lobbyists can bring requisite experience to provide wise counsel . . . are unconvincing on their face."
"If the result of this new approach is that business owners join the conversation in D.C. about issues affecting them, that's fine," Eisen said in an interview. "It's healthy to move away from the professional advocates for the special interests and let some new voices be heard."
And though lobbyists are unhappy, some good-government advocates say the policy is sound.
"You may lose a lot of expertise, but these people are also paid to have a point of view; they have an agenda," said Mary Boyle, a vice president at Common Cause. "We support what the administration is doing to get deep-seated special interests out of the business of running our government, so this seems like a step in the right direction."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112602362_pf.html
Thoughts?
I agree with the policy, lobbyists have too much influence over our govt. I just hope he sticks to it and doesn't go making too many exceptions.
Church of The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves)
Quote:
And though lobbyists are unhappy, some good-government advocates say the policy is sound.
"You may lose a lot of expertise, but these people are also paid to have a point of view; they have an agenda," said Mary Boyle, a vice president at Common Cause. "We support what the administration is doing to get deep-seated special interests out of the business of running our government, so this seems like a step in the right direction."
A STEP in the right direction, yes. Now, if the current administration would ban campaign donations by lobbyists...
Quoting 07upsydaisy:
Quoting:
It's taken me years to learn what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is," said Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board. "It's a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists."
I think this move on Obama's part is an example of him trying to silence any disagreement to HIS agenda. Why would he try to cut out any information to help make sound decisions? Even if it's information he doesn't want to hear, it may still be important.
If Bush had tried to put this one over during his time in office, the howling would have been heard to planet Eris.
This kind of thing is destroying our democracy. An example of silencing dissention is below.
If Dubya had banned Lobbyists I would have applauded him and I could not stand the man.
Lobbyists are paid by special interests and while they might be knowledgeable on their speciality they have an agenda and it's rarely the best interest of the people.
I can't imagine lobbyists are the only ones with the knowledge and/or expertise to contribute to these panels.
I don't see how this is silencing dissent, just keeping people who are paid to support an industry from overtly influencing the panels.
Church of The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves)
A step in the right direction.....
Join us on
Current Events & Hot Topics
Group Mod
Quoting Friday:
Quoting 07upsydaisy:
Quoting:
It's taken me years to learn what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is," said Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board. "It's a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists."
I think this move on Obama's part is an example of him trying to silence any disagreement to HIS agenda. Why would he try to cut out any information to help make sound decisions? Even if it's information he doesn't want to hear, it may still be important.
If Bush had tried to put this one over during his time in office, the howling would have been heard to planet Eris.
This kind of thing is destroying our democracy. An example of silencing dissention is below.
If Dubya had banned Lobbyists I would have applauded him and I could not stand the man.
Lobbyists are paid by special interests and while they might be knowledgeable on their speciality they have an agenda and it's rarely the best interest of the people.
I can't imagine lobbyists are the only ones with the knowledge and/or expertise to contribute to these panels.
* A lot of them don't know pea turkey about anything but furthering the agenda of who they represent. Nor do they care.
I don't see how this is silencing dissent, just keeping people who are paid to support an industry from overtly influencing the panels.
Wow. I keep thinking I've seen the lowest of the low here at CM, and every day someone surprises me by sinking even lower.
Defending lobbyists? Really? Do you even understand how our government actually works? Lobbyists might know quite a bit about different industries, but that doesn't matter jackshit. They say what they are paid to say. They might know, for example, all kinds of things about agriculture. But they aren't going to use any of that knowledge. They're going to say that Monsanto is the best, only Monsanto can feed the country without people starving to death, blah blah blah. Their knowledge just makes them more effective liars.
Do you think the lobbyists are all conservative Republicans? Liberal groups have lobbyists, too, you know. This will get rid of all the lobbyists, not just the right wing ones. How does that mean that Obama is silencing dissent?
Quoting 07upsydaisy:
Quoting:
It's taken me years to learn what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is," said Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board. "It's a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists."
I think this move on Obama's part is an example of him trying to silence any disagreement to HIS agenda. Why would he try to cut out any information to help make sound decisions? Even if it's information he doesn't want to hear, it may still be important.
If Bush had tried to put this one over during his time in office, the howling would have been heard to planet Eris.
This kind of thing is destroying our democracy. An example of silencing dissention is below.
But Stern and ACORN and SEIU...they aren't considered by Obama to be the LOBBYISTS that they ARE...so it's ONLY an attempt, really, to get rid of the OTHER sides funding while HIS side has second chair next to him...who was that had the MOST WH visits so far? Oh...yeah, Andy Stern of SEIU power...
http://atr.org/seiu-president-andy-stern-visits-white-a4152#
Andy Stern who said in a televised interview that they would 'prefer' to use the power of persuasion, but that it that doesn't work, they are MORE THAN COMFORTABLE with using the PERSUASION OF POWER....now THAT is a LOBBY to fear because NOWHERE in that comment do you hear a person RESPECTING the IDEAL of REPRESENTATIVE GOV"T and the LIBERTIES and RIGHTS of FREEDOM from GOV"T control that we cherish or we USED to cherish in this country.
P
This is interesting and good news.
Heather
The Witchy Momma
Rise up this morning, smile at the rising sun; Three little birds, pitch by my doorstep; Singing sweet songs, a melody pure and true; Singing, this is my message to you-ou-ou; Singing Don't worry, about a thing; Cause every little thing is gonna be alright.
There seems to be an understanding here that lobbyists because they work for businesses are somehow ALL bad and trying to 'get things' that are 'bad' for the people...really? Staying in business and being able to do business in the least costly manner provides JOBS in this country. UNLIKE, the Unions, who these same people seem to support, who ONLY work -they say--for the workers..but that DRIVES UP costs on business and causes them to go overseas or to go bankrupt..huh, between the two, I think the former is the better of the two 'evils'...Are ANY OF you aware that OVER 50% of what lobbyists lobby on are TAX RELATED ISSUES???? The NEXT highest is REGULATORY issues...what about EITHER of those is NECESSARILY 'bad' for THE PEOPLE?
don't get me wrong..I don't like the 'access' that they have OVER the access of the 'average joe'...but I don't like the ACCESS of the Union and special interests either. And yet I NEVER hear ANYONE thinking that THEY are as MUCH a part of the problem as any other group that has SPECIAL access to lawmakers.
That we ALLOW the politicians to play these WEDGE issue games is what is so egregious.
nobody seems to see that.
P
Quoting norwegianwood:
There seems to be an understanding here that lobbyists because they work for businesses are somehow ALL bad and trying to 'get things' that are 'bad' for the people...really? Staying in business and being able to do business in the least costly manner provides JOBS in this country. UNLIKE, the Unions, who these same people seem to support, who ONLY work -they say--for the workers..but that DRIVES UP costs on business and causes them to go overseas or to go bankrupt..huh, between the two, I think the former is the better of the two 'evils'...Are ANY OF you aware that OVER 50% of what lobbyists lobby on are TAX RELATED ISSUES???? The NEXT highest is REGULATORY issues...what about EITHER of those is NECESSARILY 'bad' for THE PEOPLE?
don't get me wrong..I don't like the 'access' that they have OVER the access of the 'average joe'...but I don't like the ACCESS of the Union and special interests either. And yet I NEVER hear ANYONE thinking that THEY are as MUCH a part of the problem as any other group that has SPECIAL access to lawmakers.
That we ALLOW the politicians to play these WEDGE issue games is what is so egregious.
nobody seems to see that.
P
I don't care for over zealous unions either, but can you provide proof that lobbyists are needed in order for these uber large corporations to "stay in business"?
Why More Women Say They Are Willing to Pay for Sex
- Friday
on Nov. 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM