What K Street Does All Day

And what it doesn’t do.

National Journal
Michael Catalini, Brian Resnick and Brian Mcgill
See more stories about...
Michael Catalini Brian Resnick Brian McGill
July 11, 2014, 1 a.m.

How do lob­by­ists spend their time? Not ex­actly the way their bosses would like them to.

Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s stra­tegic-re­search team asked 95 heads of gov­ern­ment-af­fairs of­fices how they wanted their or­gan­iz­a­tion or di­vi­sion to be al­loc­at­ing its hours—and then asked them to as­sess how the time was ac­tu­ally be­ing spent.

What the team found was that or­gan­iz­a­tions were spend­ing more time than their lead­ers con­sidered ideal on “in­ward fa­cing” and ad­min­is­trat­ive activ­it­ies, such as event plan­ning and cli­ent man­age­ment, and less time on “out­ward fa­cing” and stra­tegic activ­it­ies, such as policy-po­s­i­tion de­vel­op­ment and “¦ ac­tu­al lob­by­ing. On av­er­age, those sur­veyed said their of­fices spend 22.4 per­cent of their time in a giv­en day on lob­by­ing. They’d like them to spend 28.2 per­cent.

Over­all, nearly half of those polled said their of­fices were do­ing less dir­ect lob­by­ing than they wanted them to, and lar­ger firms or di­vi­sions—those with six or more em­ploy­ees—didn’t fare much bet­ter than smal­ler ones: Of those that said they were un­der­in­vest­ing in lob­by­ing, the lar­ger of­fices saw a 9-per­cent­age-point gap between real­ity and their ideal, while smal­ler ones re­por­ted an 11.2-point gap. Those gaps come at a cost: The av­er­age 10-per­son shop is los­ing the equi­val­ent of one full-time lob­by­ing staff mem­ber to work that its top ex­ec­ut­ive con­siders less than crit­ic­al.

So why the time-man­age­ment dis­con­nect? Some lob­by­ists ar­gue that there really isn’t one—that bosses have wrong­headed ex­pect­a­tions about how a shop should spend its days.

One area on which heads of gov­ern­ment-af­fairs of­fices thought em­ploy­ees were spend­ing too much time was trade-as­so­ci­ation, mem­ber, and cli­ent man­age­ment. But the lob­by­ists we spoke to say that’s not a dis­trac­tion—it is a cru­cial part of the job. Some folks spend a lot of time on the Hill, one former auto­mobile lob­by­ist says; oth­ers spend “huge blocks of time” on con­fer­ence calls, re­port­ing to cor­por­ate cli­ents. “If all you have is shoe-leath­er lob­by­ists … that won’t work,” she says. “Cli­ents are very de­mand­ing.” One lob­by­ist whose port­fo­lio in­cludes edu­ca­tion policy agrees. “A lot of your time as a lob­by­ist is ser­vi­cing the needs of people who call you,” he says.

And that’s as it should be, says one health care lob­by­ist: “If any­thing, I think we need to do a bet­ter job of reach­ing out to our mem­ber­ship and hav­ing sub­stant­ive con­ver­sa­tions. We can send out as many emails as we want, but if you’re not hav­ing sub­stant­ive, in­ter­act­ive con­ver­sa­tions, we can’t ef­fect­ively rep­res­ent them or get their buy-in.”

The cur­rent health care land­scape also re­quires lob­by­ists to un­der­stand policy at a dif­fer­ent level, she says: “You can’t ef­fect­ively rep­res­ent your mem­bers un­less you know what’s hap­pen­ing on the ground.” Nor can you bring much to your re­la­tion­ships on the Hill if you’re not well-in­formed. “I think a lot of people can get in the door by name alone—people will be po­lite and ac­cept meet­ings—but in or­der to have a good chance to in­flu­ence policy, or even to be ef­fect­ively heard, one needs to un­der­stand that policy to have a cred­ible voice.”

And speak­ing of man­aging re­la­tion­ships on the Hill, does that count as “lob­by­ing”? Even some lob­by­ists them­selves aren’t en­tirely sure. “If you’re an en­ergy com­pany and you haven’t spent a whole bunch of time get­ting to know John Din­gell, you’ve com­mit­ted mal­prac­tice,” says one to­bacco lob­by­ist. “You want to have some re­la­tion­ship with every sen­at­or, every­one from the South­ern del­eg­a­tion. Is that lob­by­ing? You’re not ne­ces­sar­ily talk­ing about bill A or bill B.” And if you’re in the Wash­ing­ton of­fice of a big com­pany, you’ve got to spend some time main­tain­ing your re­la­tion­ships with Hill staffers. “Every time you go in, you don’t want to be ask­ing for something,” he says.

If the heads of of­fice are in­clud­ing re­la­tion­ship-build­ing in their defin­i­tion of lob­by­ing, then the as­pired-to num­bers “might be right,” he al­lows. But “just say­ing, “˜I want my guy to lobby more,’ is ig­nor­ant without know­ing the con­text of each in­di­vidu­al per­son.” He says he thinks the gap mainly re­flects the av­er­age head of of­fice’s view that “my people should be work­ing harder.” He adds, “That does tell you something, which I’ve known for a lot of years: Most lob­by­ists are “¦ lazy un­less you put the spurs to them.”

The ear­marks ban has cer­tainly af­fected the way K Street does busi­ness, but the to­bacco lob­by­ist says its im­pact has been over­blown. “If you hon­estly think that I haven’t figured out a way around the ear­mark ban, you are not giv­ing me suf­fi­cient cred­it,” he says.

But the way Con­gress op­er­ates—or doesn’t—def­in­itely in­flu­ences how lob­by­ists spend their time. “Con­gress is only in town a couple of days a week,” says the lob­by­ist who works on edu­ca­tion policy, adding that it can be “very hard to ac­cess them.” The health care lob­by­ist says that the op­por­tun­it­ies to lobby dir­ectly—the mo­ments in time, the points of ac­cess—simply di­min­ish the less act­ive Con­gress is. And in its first year, the 113th Con­gress passed few­er sub­stant­ive bills than any Con­gress in the past 20 years, ac­cord­ing to the Pew Re­search Cen­ter.

In oth­er words, it’s not al­ways simple to find some­body to lobby, or something to lobby on these days. Which leads to more anxious cli­ents, which leads to more cli­ent man­age­ment, which leads to more K Streeters spend­ing less time on the Hill.

For more from Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s stra­tegic re­search team, go to our Present­a­tion Cen­ter.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
19 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
20 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
21 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×