Posted by Frank James at 5:01 pm CST
A small item in The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire caused a serious double-take. It reported that Washington lobbyists were helping the Congressmen in the race for House Majority Leader.
This was intriguing. With the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal yet swirling around the capital and talk of lobbying reform all the rage, it suggested members of Congress still didn't get it.
Given all the controversy over the impact of lobbyists on the legislative process, how could lawmakers allow them to help determine who would replace Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in that important post? In the midst of the lobbying scandal, were lobbyists really meeting with or making calls to Republican House members and making the case for this or that of K St.'s favored candidates.
It turns out that's not what's going on, at least so say staffers in the offices of representatives Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and John Boehner (R-Ohio), the two leading contenders to replace DeLay. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) is also in the race but is the dark horse.
"No lobbyist has been asked to play any specific role," said Don Seymour Jr., Boehner's press secretary. "In fact, most have been asked not to be involved.
"We've been getting emails and calls from people all across town ever since the race began," Seymour continued. "In just about every case we've turned them down. That's not to say some haven't taken it upon themselves to do things and that they might be helpful without us asking them to do so but we've discouraged it."
"That's not to say there's been no communication with lobbyists during the race.," Seymour said. "There has been. But even those who are personal friends with John have been told point blank John has to win this on his own."
Both Boehner and Blunt's staffers say their bosses are relying on their paid staff as well as House members who have already pledged their allegiance to one or the other.
"Congressman Blunt is running his race for majority leader on his own with the help of a few staffers and is not in any way working with people on the outside to garner support," said Jessica Boulanger, a Blunt spokeswoman. "I can only assure you that he's speaking to directly to members and making his case to colleagues."
One lobbyist, speaking not for attribution, said "I would not be calling a member. It's just not something any lobbyist who has a half a brain should be doing."
Of course, there's the potential for negative fallout if the candidate the lobbyist supported loses, she said.
But she also thought such a move risked turning lawmakers off. "Members votes are pretty dang sacred," she said. "I think they would probably resent anybody but the candidate themselves asking for their support."





Comments
Is it that Congress doesn't get it yet, or that we don't get it yet?
1999:"[Hastert] is being exceedingly active, even more than Newt," said Jack Abramoff, government affairs counselor for the firm Preston Gates, who has helped raise money for Gingrich and Hastert and has noticed donors' eagerness to meet the new speaker and his aides."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/hastert031099.htm
2001: "Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group said Tuesday it has filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department against House Republican Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and the National Republican Campaign Committee on charges of "selling meetings" with Bush administration officials for huge contributions by donors.
Judicial Watch also plans to file complaints with the House Ethics Committee against DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) accusing them of violating House ethics rules on the same charges."
http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200104/POL20010410c.html
2003: "House Republican leaders concealed from the chamber's ethics leaders the now-approved rules changes that allow charities to give lawmakers free vacations and make it easier for lobbyists to send food to congressional offices."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/08/politics/main535631.shtml
2003: "The speaker is dismayed and disappointed that the gaming industry continues to place their bets on the wrong team [the Democrats]."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-10-Fri-2003/business/22339947.html
2006: "Over the past several months, I have spoken with many members about the need for such reforms. . . . Now is the time for action."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/08/AR2006010800686.html
Give us a break.
Posted by: Carolyn | January 23, 2006 9:16 PM
The surprise, the shock, the horror--there are lobbyists in Washington! And they talk to Congressmen!
Lobbyists have been around since the dawn of time and the dawn of government. The fact is, just about every "interest group" has a lobbyist in D.C. trying to influence legislation, Including newspapers. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, media-related companies spent $111.3 million on lobbying DC between 1996 and 2000. There were 284 registered media-related lobbyists, and one of the prime sponsors of Congressional junkets was the "Newspaper Association of America". Can we hope that a Tribune reporter will someday turn his/her gaze to the lobbying the Tribune does, and on the lobbying reporters associations do?
Posted by: Bruce | January 25, 2006 9:25 AM