The Herald has been doing good work on the lobbyist connection. Yesterday Kim Atkins published how much money each Gov candidate has received from registered lobbyists so far. Today, Dave Wedge reports that a junket to Russia that includes three Senators (Murray, Pacheco, and Rosenberg) and two lobbyists is threatening to foul up the schedule for the legislature to come back into session to pass a needed bond bill. Russia, for God’s sake! What possible business could Mass. legislators plausibly have in Russia? (It’s allegedly a “humanitarian and tourism” mission. Uh huh.) And gosh, I wonder what the lobbyists will be chatting about with the senators during the long flights over and back? (Incidentally, the two lobbyists in the story, ex-senators Henri Rauschenbach and Robert Bernstein, have both donated to Tom Reilly, and Rauschenbach donated to Kerry Healey as well. Bernstein has donated to Senators Murray and Rosenberg; Rauschenbach donated to Rosenberg.)
I was frankly surprised by the mixed reaction in the comments to yesterday’s post on this subject, in which I suggested that maybe candidates should stop taking money from these guys – many seemed untroubled by the candidates’ generally, and Deval Patrick’s specifically, receipt of a considerable pile of cash from them. Some lobbyists, it was said, lobby for good causes.
Of course they do. So what? They can still lobby all they want – among other things, lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity. But why should any candidate – and specifically Deval Patrick, Mr. Not-Politics-As-Usual – play along with the money-for-access game? Surely, if the positions advanced by the lobbyists have merit, they will succeed on their own terms without the added grease of campaign cash. Furthermore, while some of the lobbyists who donated to Patrick (and others) are of the “virtuous lefty cause” variety, many others are of the “Beacon Hill Lobbyist, Inc.” variety.
This ought to be a no-brainer. It’s good PR – voters don’t like and don’t trust lobbyists, and I’d think a “no lobbyist money” pledge would have a lot of appeal, since you get to repeat it at every campaign stop and bash your opponents who haven’t done similarly. It’s good government – any candidate who hasn’t taken lobbyist money can credibly say, once in office, that he or she isn’t trading access for cash, and is just evaluating ideas on their merits. And it’s short money – lobbyists can only give $200 a year, while the rest of us can pony up $500 (the distinction strikes me as borderline unconstitutional, but AFAIK no one has challenged it). If a lobbyist wants to help get a particular candidate elected, let ’em head down to campaign HQ and stuff envelopes.
So Deval: as someone who plans to vote for you, I’d really like to see you swear off lobbyist money. You’d lose almost nothing, and you’d gain a lot – in addition to its being the right thing to do. If you’re serious about stamping out the Big Dig culture on Beacon Hill, here’s a great way to start.
And to the rest of the candidates (except Christy Mihos, who to his credit has already done the right thing): why wouldn’t you do this? Again, short money, big PR bang, advances good government. What’s not to like?
Do Deval and even Reilly still have the money? At this point, it’s like water through a sluice. Do they have the cash lying around, or is in NESN’s bank account?
They can send checks in the appropriate amounts to every lobbyist that has donated to them. They’ve got plenty of cash on hand to do it.
should candidates swear off union-donatated money? Or all money from corporations? How about from NARAL? Because I’m still not seeing the difference you’re making between so-called “true” lobbyists who donate for access and these other groups that, sure enough, donate for access.
<
p>
Anyway, the biggest issues arise when there is a connection between a lobbyist’s money and the candidate/politician’s position on an issue. One can take a lobbyist’s money and actually vote against the lobbyist’s interests (happens all the time). It’s the quid-pro-quo that’s a problem, not the fact that lobbyists are giving money. And since it’s not a problem, why should candidates agree to swear off the money, since, if they were truly consistent, they would swear off all “lobbyist” money, including unions, etc. Then I suppose the only people who could run would be wealthy self-financiers.
why not? Corporations can’t give money at all, so not sure what your point is there. And I’m all for candidates swearing off PAC money – happens all the time (Mihos, in fact, has done exactly that). And while you’re right that quid pro quo is the big problem, there’s obviously no way of controlling for that in advance. Lobbyists donate now, in the hope that they’ll gain access and influence later. That’s what’s bad.
Yes, you know exactly what my point is with corporations, they donate through PACs. Using Mihos as an example is really off point, since clearly he is not a legit candidate. For real candidates, you either 1) take money from “lobbyists”, 2) have lots of personal funds, or 3) lose.
<
p>
“Lobbyists donate now, in the hope that they’ll gain access and influence later. That’s what’s bad.” Why is this bad, exactly? I still don’t see the difference between this situation and, say, unions, corporate PACs, or ANY other organization that donates money to campaigns. They try to get access, and what exactly is wrong with that?
As a Deval supporter, I’m legitimately concerned about how much more money a) Chris Gabrieli has to spend than he does, and b) how much mroe money Kerry Healey has to spend than he does. Even assuming Deval gets past 9/19, there’s no guarantee he’s not going to be buried under a pile of cash and advertising that Kerry Healey is sure to throw his way.
<
p>
There’s too much at stake here. I’d rather see Deval take as much money as he can from lobbyists, win the election and govern well, than not take any money, lose, and become just another liberal “if only” candidate, while Kerry Healey fights for the right wing agenda on Beacon Hill.
Taking a few extra bucks from lobbyists cannot possibly make up for Kerry Healey’s (or Chris Gabrieli’s, for that matter) bank account. Remember, Patrick’s only taken $24K so far. He could easily make that up out of his own pocket if he wanted to. Why not give it back, shut off the spigot, and call his opponents out every chance he gets? Again, since lobbyists can only give $200, it’s really short money.
You’re really off-base on this one, David.
<
p>
Why should Patrick give back money from these supposedly evil “lobbyists” when he is trying to compete with Gabs’ and Healey’s self-financing? This goes back to the point I’ve been making all along — if you’re not able to self-finance like Healey/Gabs, then “lobbbyists” (including unions, NARAL, etc.) MUST make up the difference.
<
p>
The fact is that Patrick is under no more obligation to give up the $24K than the other thousands he’s received (and every other candidate has recieved) from organizations/individuals that want to gain access later on.
<
p>
Believe it or not, the vast majority of people and organizations do not donate out of the generous bottoms of their hearts. They do so to influence policy. This requires access.
are you expecting “access” based on your contributions to whoever you’re supporting?
but I assume you aren’t arguing that the ONLY legit donations are those from individuals that give for strictly ideological/partisan reasons.
<
p>
Because, as I’m sure you know, a huge chuck of donations are given by organizations, who don’t donate from the bottom of their hearts. They donate for access, even the ones that are typically associated with particular parties (unions, religious groups, etc.).
<
p>
And I don’t see the problem with that.
if Riley Bechtel, or whoever is currently running Modern Continental, wanted to donate $500 to Patrick, should he take it? If so, OK, you’re being consistent, but I really question whether that’s such a great idea either politically or on the merits. And if not, where do you draw the line?
that by bringing up Bechtel, you are presenting the most difficult possible case, and only because the obvious problems with that specific organization right now.
<
p>
But nobody complains when a candidate takes a $500 contribution from a union. Or a physician’s organization. Or lawyers. I would venture to say that, yes, it IS a good idea politcally to take money from such “lobbying” organizations since without money, it is very difficult to win.
<
p>
In short, would I draw the line at Bechtel. Maybe, only because that $500 might not be worth the expected overblown media attention. But that’s about it. When it comes to yuor everyday donator, I’d gladly take the money. So would any campaign with a chance to win.
<
p>
Strange as it often seems, Republicans are people too.
<
p>
“Return the lobbyist money” is a great sound bite, but is it really a solution? I prefer to track and regulate how these groups attempt to buy influence rather than go back to some vaguer ways of influence. The greatest principle of democracy is that it directs self-interest in a way that does not threaten the integrity of the system. Banning lobbying forces that self-interest outside the system, and could undermine it even more.
<
p>
We can stand on principle and shut the entire system down, or open it all the way up. What’s wrong with some smart regulation in between, with low dollar amounts?
no one’s talking about banning lobbying (it’s constitutionally protected, among other things). Nor do I particularly have a problem with elected officials listening to what lobbyists have to say – issues are complicated, and no politician can possibly be an expert on all of them. What I don’t like is the notion that a politician’s decisions on those issues might be swayed based on campaign contributions rather than on the merits. Easiest way to avoid even the appearance of that happening: don’t take their money. It’s not that much money anyway.
But why should any candidate – and specifically Deval Patrick, Mr. Not-Politics-As-Usual – play along with the money-for-access game?
<
p>
What makes you think that they are playing along with the money-for-access game? Does giving money buy access? Does giving more money buy more access? How do you know that in the case of Reilly, Gabs, Patrick, Healey, et al that money is in fact buying access?
Remember, most of these guys don’t just donate to one candidate. They cover their bases and hit ’em all.
methodology was. If she only got the money donated directly by the lobbyists, she’s missed the juiciest part of the story. To err, if I’m a lobbyist for Exxon and I’ve given $500 Healey, but the friends and family of Exxon executive have given a combined $25,000, has Healey received $500 for access or $25,000.
<
p>
it’s tough to trace those lines. but they are there, blurry though they be.
that it was specifically lobbyists – she’d have talked about execs etc. if that’s what she meant, and she’s posted elsewhere about donations coming in from people who work for Big Dig contractors and the like.