Despite the rich history of venality associated with influence peddling in Washington, there has always been more to lobbying than corruption. Americans can wax indignant at perceived abuses or at a system they consider crooked, but they also believe, often fervently, in the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances," a right forcefully guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution* and in the English common law from which the Constitution grew. To petition for the redress of grievances -- to make a formal complaint about a perceived injustice committed by king or governors, and demand action to correct it -- is often to do something that can fairly be described as lobbying. Of course lobbying can be corrupt, nefarious, even disgusting -- Jack Abramoff demonstrated all of that. But lobbying can also express one of Americans' fundamental rights.
The lobbying profession elicits conflicting responses because it symbolizes a deep conflict of American values. Lobbying is corrupt and deplorable, as the Supreme Court declared in Trist v. Child, until one's own ox is gored or threatened, at which point, let the lobbying begin! So chief justices for years have lobbied Congress for higher judicial salaries -- never for their personal benefit, naturally, but to serve the national interest. As William H. Rehnquist, then the chief justice, put it in 2002, "Inadequate judicial pay undermines the strength of our judiciary."
There is no evading this very American moral conundrum -- a classic dilemma for a society and culture that loves to romanticize its history and avoid facing up to the gulf that so often separates its mythology from the truth. In the matter of lobbying, Americans seem doomed to accept what often feel like contradictory propositions. So, for example, Americans tend to believe that people should not be getting rich by influencing government decisions after contributing money to the people who make them. But many of America's noblest institutions, among them the Red Cross, the United Way, the Kiwanis clubs, and the March of Dimes, pay handsome fees to Washington lobbyists to help them influence government decisions. If Americans enjoy an inalienable right to petition their government, are they not also entitled to some help from an expert who might actually know how the government works, and how its decisions might be influenced?
As a matter of historical fact, Americans have "lobbied" their governments for more than four hundred years, from the earliest days of the Virginia colony. Historians interpret this as evidence that a strong democratic impulse was operating in America long before independence or the founding of the modern republic. Seeking benefits, protection, or just a fair shake from the authorities of the day is an American reflex long taken for granted.
The historical record is compelling. Englishmen began sending petitions to king and Parliament in the thirteenth century, when Edward I invited citizens' formal requests and complaints every time he called a session of Parliament. Over the subsequent three centuries, as Parliament became more democratic and included an increasing number of elected members, the right to petition the authorities evolved into a pillar of the unwritten English constitution.
English settlers began to colonize North America early in the seventeenth century. The royal charters creating the earliest colonies specifically guaranteed that the rights of emigrating Englishmen would be preserved in the new world. By then these explicitly included the right to petition the authorities to redress grievances, and the new colonists quickly took advantage. The records of the initial settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, show that a petition (seeking "Reformatyon" of "certayne [unspecified] preposterous proceedings and inconvenyent Courses") was presented to the governing council of the brand-new colony on June 6, 1607, just two weeks after the first colonists had landed. Four days later the petition was considered and the "Reformatyon" it sought was approved.
When the Virginia colony convened its first representative assembly in 1619, an early item of business was a petition from the residents of the town of Argall asking for relief from certain financial obligations they had incurred. The assembly endorsed the suggestion.
By the end of the seventeenth century the procedure was an important part of governance of the colony. For example, the 1696 assembly considered petitions requesting a change in the town of Accomack's court days, a reduction in the fees set by the clerks of the courts, a ban on Sunday horseracing, specific road improvements, and new bridges. In that session, the assembly passed fourteen laws, nine of them responses to citizens' petitions. Petitions were actually more democratic than the elections of that era, because only propertied white men could vote, while anyone, including a slave, could sign or originate a petition.
In the 1700s petitions became an important means of communication between governed and governors. The authorities relied on them to learn public desires and opinions. Citizens could present them personally, or hire an agent or attorney to take the petition to the assembly. Such agents may have been the first American lobbyists. After independence, the House of Burgesses established committees to investigate and consider citizens' petitions more systematically.
Many of Virginia's petitioners sought economic benefits, including direct state support for their enterprises or tax relief and other subsidies to protect entire industries, like iron production. During the Revolutionary War, John Ballendine and John Reveley petitioned the commonwealth for a loan of 5,000 [pounds] to help them build a big iron mine and blast furnace on the banks of the James River. Because iron was needed for cannon, shot, and military utensils, they got the money and built the furnace. The project was a failure, never produced much iron, and devoured the state's 5,000 [pounds]. The petitioners never repaid the loan.
On the other hand, petitions from citizens of Virginia prodded their legislators to enact numerous measures that encouraged the economic development of the commonwealth. Petitions led to regulations on the inspection of tobacco and grain exports that improved the quality of Virginia's products and, thereby, their sales. Petitions led to the state charter of an important bank in Alexandria, and to the creation of the first insurance companies. These no doubt benefited individual entrepreneurs, but they helped Virginia develop a thriving economy at the same time. In precisely the same way, building the transcontinental railroads may have corrupted politics and lined the pockets of undeserving schemers, but the country benefited hugely from the railroads themselves.
Ethical ambiguity is the inevitable accompaniment to organized lobbying. The lobbyist is paid, often handsomely, to make something happen that might not have happened without his efforts. The worst of these transactions can be utterly venal, but how should we evaluate the best of them? Was the country well served by the creation, at taxpayers' expense, of a top-flight nutrition research center at Tufts? By the construction of new buildings for two of its best training academies for diplomats?
Cassidy and Schlossberg cast themselves on the side of the angels, helping deserving colleges and universities with the creative use of politics and government money. Happily for them, the work paid well.
* "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Excerpted from So Damn Much Money by Robert G. Kaiser Copyright 2009 by Robert G. Kaiser. Excerpted by permission of Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Join the Discussion