Lobbying has always been a word with strong connotations, and hasn’t been helped in recent years by heavily-scrutinized abuses such as those uncovered in the Jack Abramoff case. The abuses uncovered in that case are unconscionable and the parties involved deserved their fate. The Abramoff case also led to the most substantial set of lobbying and ethics reforms in decades, which now impose strict restrictions on gifts, meals and travel, and require more frequent, detailed disclosures from lobbyists on all contacts with legislators and their staffs. Again, these are reforms designed to prevent abuse and bolster public trust in government, and we support and abide by those rules in the strictest sense.

I am concerned, however, with the direction that the Obama administration appears headed with these latest restrictions on lobbyists that seek an audience with executive branch officials. In my current role representing the trade and professional association community as well as in my previous post with the American Diabetes Association, I see firsthand the value these organizations bring to the policymaking process. Ultimately, the insights and expertise they share with government officials help result in better, more effective policies in areas like trade, manufacturing, standard-setting, disease control and prevention, and more. The White House has heard unanimously from the chairs of all 16 industry trade advisory boards that help formulate the trade policy of the United States that their latest directive regarding lobbyists serving on advisory boards is misguided. The White House responded that it was unconvinced.

Regardless of how one feels about lobbying, it remains an absolutely essential piece of the American political system, and one that is constitutionally protected and heavily regulated under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. As the White House continues to incrementally cut off its contact with individuals and organizations registered to petition the government, one has to wonder how far their efforts will go.

The sheer size of the federal budget makes it simply unrealistic to expect that lobbyists are going to somehow go away any time soon. Whether Democrats or Republicans control either end of Pennsylvania Avenue there has always been just too much money being handed out in Washington to ignore. But the evolution of the pay-to-play system that dominates Washington has placed lobbyists at a crucial fulcrum point. The system for citizens to “redress their grievances” has over the last two decades become horribly out of balance. Bob Kaiser’s book “So Damn Much Money,” tracing the career of uber-lobbyist Gerald Cassidy, documents this sad shift in power and priorities. Regardless of party affiliation most citizens believe that the nation’s capital is swamp in both the geographical and metaphorical sense. The Obama Administration understands that using “lobbyists” as the bogeyman for Washington’s ills resonates with most Americans. The moves made by the Administration to date, while by and large positive, amount to sending an easily digestible message to voters. But the changes are also small potatoes when it comes to really changing the way Washington works. The political capital the Administration is spending on taking on lobbyists is, in the bigger picture, fairly small. When they start really taking on the power structure – i.e., money – then we’ll know they are serious. The Obama campaign’s decision to forego contributions from lobbyists was largely cosmetic. Special-interest money continues to fill the coffers of both parties, and bundlers are still being rewarded with ambassadorships. In the meantime, with all the other issues this Administration is facing (health care reform, Afghanistan, economic meltdown, climate change), the moves they are making on lobbyists are appetizers so to speak. The real main course of reform has yet to be served. And it’s not clear at this moment when and if it ever will be.

Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution)

The topic before us is whether President Obama’s actions – restricting the hiring of lobbyists for administration positions, restricting lobbyist access on stimulus funding issues, and barring lobbyists from federal advisory committees – have reduced the influence of special interests in public policy. On many levels, the answer is a resounding “No!” What they have done, however, is directly infringe upon the speech rights of ethical registered lobbyists who are honorably petitioning their government, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

If the administration’s actions have had any impact, it is merely on the identity of those individuals exerting influence. It’s just a different set of players representing those same “special interests,” whatever that phrase means. Even more troubling, the only logical conclusion about the impact of the changes is that the wealthiest and the most powerful become more influential under the changes and, conversely, those without the substantial resources of the largest businesses now have their voices quelled and their influence diminished. Everyone deserves to have the opportunity to express his or her concerns to the national government. While some reasonable regulation may be appropriate, such regulations should at least bear a logical relationship to the public policy purpose sought to be achieved. The current restrictions don’t come close to meeting that standard.

The Obama administration restrictions on registered lobbyists rest on a false premise – that the entire universe of those who would improperly influence policy makers exists wholly within that class of people defined as “registered lobbyists.” The administration reasons that by diminishing the influence of all registered lobbyists, they consequently diminish the influence of all those dastardly people who would improperly influence government officials. Such reasoning is just plain wrong. There are lots of lobbyists who aren’t engaged in improper influence. I would even go so far as to suggest that the great majority of registered lobbyists are performing a legitimate and valuable service. Think of all those folks working hard for public interest organizations. What about those lobbyists who are able to give a voice to those small business owners who aren’t wealthy enough to maintain their own separate offices in Washington? And we all know there are hundreds of trade associations, hospitals, schools and other not for profit organizations who have a presence here in DC. They all have legitimate points of view and I’ll bet darn near all of them work to express them honestly and ethically. While a restriction on all registered lobbyists might put a damper on some registered lobbyists who engage in improper influence, it necessarily imposes a restriction on that great majority of registered lobbyists who are engaged in “proper” influence.

Another problem is that the restrictions don’t even attempt to limit the influence of all those outside the lobbyist class who may wish to do ill to the public trust. The term ‘registered lobbyist’ is just an arbitrary term. If you spend more than 20% of your time advocating before Congress or the executive branch or preparing to do so, you qualify as a lobbyist and must submit registration and disclosure documents to the House and Senate. The Obama administration has piggybacked on this statutory definition to describe who will be limited from communicating with officials or participating in the policy making process. Unfortunately, this definition doesn’t get to any Obama campaign contributor because the campaign refused to take donations from lobbyists. And it doesn’t get to the titans of business – mostly because those high rollers simply hire others to do their lobbying. I don’t want to cast aspersions on these business leaders and political donors because it’s just as likely that they’re pure at heart as are registered lobbyists. But the point is that some of them aren’t, and the Obama restrictions don’t even attempt to exclude them from the inner workings of government.

When Americans’ free speech rights are at stake, the government must be very careful to properly define the class of people whose lobbying activities should legitimately be restricted. How should we decide what influence is ‘improper’ and what influence is ‘proper’? There are a number of possibilities – but many professional societies look to some kind of test for conflict of interest. Most people would agree that family ties could present an irresolvable conflict of interest. Similarly, most recognize that a pecuniary interest – anything over some de minimus threshold – is a legitimate basis for exclusion. Such tests exist for lawyers, accountants, realtors, doctors, judges, and many others. Yet the Obama administration took the easy route and directly infringed upon the petition and speech rights of certain wholly ethical registered lobbyists who would have no measurable conflict of interest under any test currently in use in any profession in America today. All the while, the administration continues to allow itself to be subject to the unfettered influence of a cadre of donors and wealthy corporate leaders – people who are subject to no hiring restriction, no lobby access restriction, no barrier to advisory committee participation – even though their personal conflicts of interest would make those of us not named Abramoff blush.

We are left to wonder why the administration went for the easy gimmick. Certainly there were (and still are) many in the lobbying industry who eagerly wish to come up with a rational plan to make sure that all who wish to exert influence on the administration have an equal opportunity to do so. The answer, of course, lies in the second part of this week’s question. “Has lobbyist become a dirty word?” Without doubt, the answer is yes. There are nothing but political points to be gained by taking pot shots at lobbyists – and nothing but grief to be gained by doing the hard work needed to come up with a rational plan.

I used to think that the president’s zeal to reduce the influence of “special interests” was grounded in a desire to pander to the generally held view that lobbyists – especially business lobbyists – wield undue influence in Washington. It’s always been a popular position and demonstrates just how much work needs to be done if we really want to change the perception about lobbying. But since the election, the administration’s actions (and the justifications offered by Special Counsel Norm Eisen) make it clear this president truly believes it is his civic duty to restrict the participation of registered lobbyists in order to protect the public’s interest. It’s as if registered lobbyists are somehow free agents and not an extension of the competing voices that we’ve proudly held up as a sign of a strong, vibrant democracy. Sure, there are many steps that the lobbying profession can continue to take to help promote a better understanding of what it does; practicing the art of lobbying with integrity and leading by example is what most registered lobbyists do every day. Then it’s the responsibility of the elected officials to choose the policy that meets the test of what’s best in the public interest. This administration will best serve the American public if it joins with the lobbying community to strengthen the norms of transparency and integrity so that competing voices really can result in the strongest form of public policy.

The short answer to the blog question – have the anti-lobbyist provisions reduced the influence of special interests in public policy? – is both yes and no.

Yes, in that cutting off specific lines of access for lobbyists to the decision-making process and making lobbying a major hindrance for those considering future government employment undeniably has made lobbying harder. These are minor effects, however.

No, because the importance of lobbyists in Washington is in direct proportion to the size and micromanagement of the rest of the country’s affairs by the federal government and DC has never seen more spending and more micromanagement.

It used to be that companies wanted Washington to stay out of their way as they competed in the private sector. Now between the complexity of the tax code to reward and punish corporate behavior, the availability of federal funds in areas like energy, education, and security, and the regulatory beast involved with human resources, environmental, and international trade aspects of business, corporations have no choice to lobby. Their shareholders should insist that they do so as a matter of basic corporate competence.

Whether a message is delivered by a CEO (unregistered as a lobbyist) or somebody on his or her payroll is irrelevant – Washington is essentially a ex officio member of everybody’s board of directors.

A year ago, a friend of mine who was working to get Barack Obama elected somberly told me how much Washington was going to change when Obama was elected.

He's a lobbyist now. Well, not a registered lobbyist, of course. But his job is to try to influence the Administration's policies by reaching those he knows. You don't have to be a registered lobbyist to do that. Lobbying or advocacy or whatever you want to call it is about making your case as compelling as you can. Teamsters do it. GM does it (not as well as it used to, of course). And Mothers Against Drunk Driving does it as well.

And good for all of them. You see, one person's hero is another person's lobbyist. Most of the civic-oriented groups in Washington really only express outrage at lobbyists on behalf of those trying to make a buck. But how can you curtail one without the other? Are the Teamsters any different than the Chamber of Commerce?

The issue, from my vantage point, is not in the act of lobbying, but in its transparency. The White House listing people who visit is a good thing, how about putting it out within 24 hours? How about publishing a list of every meeting with a federal official? Let sunlight be the best disinfectant.

Obama's team were a bunch of idealists a year ago believing they would change the world. Then they were introduced to the world and realized it's a tricky place. It takes some getting used to realizing it's not as easy as it look from the outside.

And, yes, sadly there will always be cases of corruption. But that doesn't mean that lobbying is inherently a bad thing. That's like barring anyone from entering a bank to ask for a loan because every once in a while someone comes in to rob the safe.

Punish the wrongdoing, and let the rest do their perfectly legal job, like my "lobbyist" friend who a year ago told me how Obama was going to curb the power of lobbyists.

PS - Look forward to hearing about all the lobbyists who attend Holiday parties at the White House. And they won't even have to crash the party to get in.

Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether or not "lobbying" is a "dirty" word, here are some thoughts on a slightly different question: what do we even know about lobbying?

Not long after he took his oath of office, President Barack Obama vowed in a memorandum that administration would be transparent: "Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use."

So how transparent has the Obama Administration been about Washington's lobbying complex? There are some encouraging signs, like the White House's release of visitor logs (although really, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving for an update?).

However, the Treasury Department's new rules on lobbying over Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds leave much to be desired--namely that there is no provision for an online, searchable lobbying database of all disclosures required under the new rules, updated in real time. We're so far from that goal that a look at the TARP disclosure web page shows only two lobbyist contact disclosure forms to date, both from the American Bankers Association.

And back in the summer, there were press reports on how disclosure rules for stimulus lobbying also fell short, when the AP noted that agency officials had reported very few contacts with lobbyists for stimulus dollars.

In the age of the Internet, none of this should be that complicated. We are all used to getting information 24/7 on everything from the latest weather updates to crime statistics in our neighborhoods. We should have the same sort of access to information about who is lobbying whom about what in the nation's capitol. The Sunlight Foundation's vision of lobbying disclosure nirvana would be a central website, where lobbyists can file daily reports on their activities and the public can easily find what they report.

We have the technology. The question is more one of culture and enforcement, as there will always those who try to "game" the system by figuring out how to "deregister" and escape from disclosure (as both Gary Bass and Kenneth Gross noted).

Though well intentioned, some of the anti-lobbying policies of the Obama Administration have had unintended consequences. Among the most vexing problems created by the restrictions is the shrinking talent pool of experts for key Administration positions. Where once the call to public service was for the "best and the brightest" it has now been reduced to the "unregistered" and "waiver-worthy."

There are countless stories of this lobbyist or that lobbyist denied a position based on registration status despite their clear, unparalleled credentials and qualifications that would have benefited the nation as a whole had they been allowed to serve.

Let's not forget that petitioning your government is a constitutionally protected right, for special interests from children to credit card companies.

That being said, lobbying, like every other profession, has its bad actors. When it comes to lobbying rules and laws I'm all for more disclosure and transparency. There isn't much more unseemly to me that the lobbyist hired by a client in June to lobby a particular Senator or Member of Congress who a month later throws a fundraiser for those same policy makers. But what gets lost in the Administration's "war on lobbyists" is the fact that the oversight and enforcement system worked. Bad actors were caught, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. The same can't be said for other industries - think banking, Wall Street, etc.

Transparency is the best remedy. The American people should know who is working on their behalf and against their interests and who they are trying to influence in Washington - and at the state level - where policy is made. To that end, policies that would increase lobbying disclosure requirements, improve the user-friendliness of disclosure databases and campaign financing data, and generally shed a brighter light on who represents who would serve the public well.

There are perhaps no terms more widely used, nor more poorly understood in Washington than “special interest” and “lobbyist.”

Almost all “special interests” have lobbyists. Fortune 500 companies and small town teachers, policemen and firefighters have lobbyists. Doctors, lawyers, and shift workers from most manufacturing plants have lobbyists. For that matter, even the federal government has lobbyists, every agency has one and the White House does too.

And keep in mind, one person’s “just cause” is another person’s “special interest.” The role of government decision makers is to balance the widely varied interests of people from differing backgrounds and make decisions in the best interest of their communities, states and the country.

To the extent lobbyists can provide information that helps those decision makers make wise decisions and prevent unintended consequences, they provide a useful service to their clients, and to the country.

No doubt, there have been occasions where lobbyists had too much influence, when they were in the room drafting legislation, rather than providing input. That shouldn’t happen, and the current leadership of Congress has worked to make sure that it doesn’t happen.

During the campaign, President Obama seized on the frustrations of many voters that their voices weren’t being heard and promised reform. But while they may be well intended, those reforms have done very little to level the playing field in Washington.

Selected high-powered CEOs, whose interests may not represent Main Street, are still welcomed to make their case directly. Attorneys advocate to government decision makers on behalf of their clients while staying just below the threshold required for registration and disclosure that comes with being a registered lobbyist. And grasstops advocacy firms have been working to persuade Congress to take or avoid certain actions with little or no oversight or disclosure.

Meanwhile, many talented people, who have a willingness to serve and expertise to offer, are disqualified from service by the bright line decrees of the Obama Administration.

But the worst consequence of the new Obama Administration rules is that people now have a disincentive to register as lobbyists, and with that comes less transparency. As lobbyists, we are required by law to disclose our clients, how much we are being paid and exactly what we do and who we are talking to.

Public relations firms, grasstops firms, new media firms, political ad makers, attorneys, corporate CEOs and others all have a role in trying to shape public policy, yet none of them are required to make the disclosures that lobbyists must make.

If the Obama Administration wants to improve the system, and I know they do, it should move towards additional disclosure requirements for everyone who makes part of their living trying to influence public policy. Everyone who advocates for their client’s interests, regardless of the tool they use to do so, or who they are, should be required to live by the same disclosure that lobbyists abide by.

I'm not persuaded the new rules have had a significant impact one way or another. At the same time, I remain unpersuaded that the tantrums thrown by some in the government relations sector have proven all that productive either.

The point is, as a political device the attack on lobbying worked because there is a broad perception that the profession is corrupt, whether there's truth to that or not. Now, the administration is following through with rules that probably serve its political needs but do nothing to change that public perception.

Rules come and go with different administrations. The profession will not die on the vine with the current ones. It will, however, continue to suffer from the public perception that led to the rules in the first place unless practitioners take action to alter that circumstance.

Loved the "special interest" commnet. Aren't they all special?

In contrast to his sure touch on many other issues during the campaign, I never thought that Obama got lobbying and lobbyists right. His broadsides against them were simplistic and naive, and demonstrated a lack of insight into what his needs would be as he sought to govern. Hence, lots of rules and now exclusions from advisory committees. No one would want such committees to be composed just of lobbyists, but to deny them standing seems like a "cutting off your nose" maneuver.

In the end, much like political contributions, which flow around all obstacles to find their intended target, interested information will reach its destination. Speech and petition are protected rights, of course, and with stakes so high (from national security to health care to energy) messages will be delivered -- as they should be. Let's have strong disclosure and vigorous debate, but expertise and opinion should flow from interests to the governemnt, and vice-versa. A heavy hand in regulating these communications will move them out of sight (great term -- "subterranean") but not out of mind.

Ironically, by using the term "special interests," albeit in quotes, the question itself appears to buy into the underlying premise that a cabal exists that gathers in dark, smoke-filled rooms to determine the outcome of "issues of the day." Like many other dated caricatures through the ages, this one has mostly gone the way of the dodo as the internet, mandatory lobbying disclosure reporting, and campaign finance reforms of the last couple decades have created a much more open, transparent policymaking environment in Washington. Certainly, breaches of the public trust still happen, but they are uncovered, prosecuted, and punished as part of the normal course of activities these days (unfortunately reinforcing the public image of all lobbyists). The on-line world has opened up our democracy to far more regular engagement by everyday Americans. The internet's sunshine has had a far more beneficial impact on Washington's policymaking process than could any new law, regulation, or executive order.

The White House's concern that a segment or segments of society have had too great an influence over the outcome of policymaking is perhaps best addressed in our form of democracy through elections. If a party in power puts too heavy a thumb on the scale for its "special interests," the electorate, like clockwork, generally punishes them at the ballot box in the next election. The last Administration was viewed as being out of touch with the average American, leaning too heavily toward big business in its energy, environmental, and consumer protection policies. That resulted in a drubbing of the Republican party last November. Likewise, a Democratic Administration that leans too heavily towards labor, trial lawyers, the environmental community and other core Democratic "special interests" will be taken to task by the electorate as well. The trick to governing is finding the middle, the compromise that represents balanced policy. With a divided electorate and American's almost schizophrenic desire for government solutions but hatred of "big government," finding that moderate middle is an elusive quest these days. Finding that path without the competition of ideas that comes out of the advocacy/lobbying process: well, good luck.

To get to the questions at hand though: no, the actions of the White House have not reduced the influence of the business community (the "special interests" uncloaked), whether it be businesses involved in health care, energy, or financial services. Mostly what the White House's actions have done is to proverbially move activities from one side of the ledger to the other, pushing the balloon in here to have it jut out there. Take a look at the number of television or on-line pop-up ads on health care reform or climate change. Look at the "new media" advocacy tools so lately the cause célèbre on K Street as well as in campaigns, including the 2008 presidential election campaign. The universe of unregulated political advocacy activities continues to grow as technology evolves and no effort is made to regulate them. And lobbyists soldier on as well. Ironically, while the White House has made these reforms somewhat of a priority, advocacy on the Hill remains largely unchanged, as though the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue were on different planets. While the White House focuses on "rooting out of special interests," the Hill welcomes the technical, substantive expertise and information provided by professional advocates so that legislative policymakers can make the most informed decisions.

Lobbyists cannot serve on advisory committees, so other corporate citizens unhindered by being "registered" take their place, though with less knowledge and less to offer government officials relying on their expertise. Why is a corporate executive who is not registered to lobby less of a "special interest" than one who is? Does his or her point of view differ in some fundamental way? I have not served on an advisory committee, but my friends who have tell me it is the essence of public service: the committees take on big questions in a group of experts that is required by law to be balanced and the battle of differing perspectives and ideas provides a roadmap for the government staff who have asked the particular question being debated. The disqualification of registered lobbyists from Federal Advisory Committee Act committees and trade advisory committees appears to be the height of symbolism over substance. It conveys the spirit of reducing the influence of lobbyists without really achieving any such thing, as certainly many of the new non-registered committee members will no doubt end up being "staffed" by registered lobbyists.

Lobbyists cannot meet on stimulus funding initiatives. So, I prepare the client before the agency meetings and working with the Hill to have electeds weigh in with executive branch decisionmakers. I think the stimulus has prevented the loss of several million jobs and has produced hundreds of thousands more. Many of my clients have applied for stimulus funds and I have counseled them (I hope well) on their applications, who to meet with, and how to present their proposals. Neither my clients nor I have been adversely impacted by the bar on lobbyists attending meetings with executive branch officials on stimulus funding. Has it given the public any more confidence in the dolling out of these funds? Doubtful. Look at the polls. Suffice to say the jobs bill is going to be called the jobs bill, not stimulus 2.

Lobbyists cannot serve in the Administration. Except when they can because there have been "waivers," which sounds like exactly the kind of process the new environment was intended to do away with. That said, how ironic to put a class of people into legislative affairs jobs at agencies and the White House who have never served in the private or non-profit sector in those positions. In an Administration that has attracted perhaps the best and brightest class of appointees by almost any measure in most jobs, can we really stand back and claim they have not excluded many of the best and brightest legislative strategists by ruling out the class of lobbyists from legislative affairs jobs? It would seem the robust application of executive branch conflict of interest rules would have allowed lobbyists to serve without allowing them to impact policies where they had previously engaged in advocacy activities in the private sector (already illegal under existing ethics laws). In addition, legislative jobs in agencies (and the White House) tend to be process jobs....assistant secretaries for legislative affairs do not make the policy, they shape the communication of those policies to the Hill and gather intelligence that can help craft effective advocacy of those policies. Again, this prohibition appears to be about perceptions, not substance.

If the Administration wants to take on reforming the involvement of outside parties in the policymaking process beyond allowing the electorate to "throw the bums out" when the encroachment of "special interests" appears to be over the line, it should start by building on the success the internet has had in opening up the policymaking apparatus to the average American:

• Break out of the weary intricacies of notice and comment rulemaking through the advent of virtual policy town hall meetings on key regulatory policy issues;

• Post the calendars of Senate confirmed officials on the internet and post any materials presented in meetings with these officials on a virtual docket on the agency web site;

• Strengthen the whistleblower apparatus within agencies so that career officials and scientists cannot ever be ignored or bullied as they were alleged to have been at times in the last Administration; and,

• Broaden the definition of activities requiring registration under the lobbying disclosure act to include grass roots, media, and most especially new media activities that together form the vast majority of current advocacy expenditures.

None of the suggestions bulleted above would be popular inside the beltway and all present logistical as well as policy making problems. They would rewrite the deliberative process within agencies to open it up to the public in unprecedented ways, but would they chill frank deliberations as well? I do not have the answers. I do know that those who are serious about opening the process up ought to be asking these types of questions. Let's debate the substance, not crow about the symbols.

The hardest question for last: is lobbying a dirty word because of all this? No, lobbying is a dirty word because a small fraction of registered lobbyists have on occasion undertaken such despicable behaviors that lobbying today earns less respect from the public than selling used cars or hawking derivatives on Wall Street. The failure of lobbyists to establish tough, binding professional standards and enforce them, as lawyers do through state bar associations and doctors do through state boards, leaves us open to the demonizing and politicization of our day jobs. Ironically, at the heart of almost every lobbyist's career is a love for policymaking and the give-and-take of the advocacy process. Most days, the best part of my job is the ten minutes I spend in front of a young legislative assistant on the Hill, explaining a policy justification for a particular legislative provision. It tests my ability to communicate, the soundness of my ideas, and my understanding of the overarching policy making process. The greater the debate and the advocacy on core issues of the day like health care and climate change, the better our government's decisions and actions will be. The better I do my job, the better the legislation or rulemaking on which I am advocating will be when it becomes law. Every lobbyist knows this, as it is what makes us get out of bed every morning looking forward to work. Until we, not the government, can ensure the public of our soundness of purpose, and explain in sound bites the importance of the role we play, we will continue to be on the receiving end of critiques and reforms. Don't assume, "this too shall pass." The public flocks to our symbolic floggings as if to a championship sporting event. We can either deal with the problem or it will be dealt with by others. One way or another, change is coming.

After serving as the scourge of the 2008 presidential campaign, it's hardly surprising that lobbying continues to be a dirty word. But the sole and simple rejection of registered (read: "bad") lobbyists may undercut the hope of getting a cold, clear look at how lobbying is actually conducted and whether it's comprehensively reported. Of course, improving LDA disclosure and enforcement efforts - to say nothing of getting more industry buy-in on disclosure, would be worthy goals on their own. The "all bad" attitude definitely directs all focus away from the potentially larger problem of unregistered lobbying activity. Still, on the whole, the administration's efforts will likely have a net-positive effect on curtailing the clout and reach of special interests in DC.

First, regarding lobbyists working in the administration: If the White House wants someone that is deeply allied with a particular company or industry (such as William Lynn of Raytheon), it will waive the rules and hire them anyway. (And, of course, there are those who view this negatively because it precludes qualified people who work in the public interest realm--i.e., the "good lobbyists"--from serving in the White House. Many will say this is an issue of appearance more than substance. But the administration should get high marks for coming out early (as in, the first day) with a demonstration of its desire to make good on a major and oft-repeated commitment made from the campaign trail.

Regarding restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials about stimulus projects: There is so little transparency about who White House officials were meeting with in the first place, that it is hard to gauge how this changes things. Is it having a huge impact? I imagine that some executive branch officials will say it has, that their phones have stopped ringing and they couldn't be happier to be left alone. But this isn't empirical evidence, just anecdotal, and we don't even have much (if any) of that.

But the advisory board issue is a big one. Given that up to one-third of government advisory boards are reported to be staffed by lobbyists, banning their service will have an immediate and dramatic impact. For the same reasons, it is being seen as a serious slap at (and possibly threat to) lobbyists and has fomented some of the strongest protests of any of these measures. In fact, the 16 Industry Trade Advisory Committee chairmen signing a letter of protest to Eisen, have gone so far as to say that this may drive many more lobbyists "under the radar" by deregistering, ironically decreasing transparency in direct opposition to the president's stated goals. They wrote, "Because the policy focuses on registered lobbyists, it actually incentivizes individuals who desire to remain on the committee...to recalculate or reconfigure their time so that they can de-register and remain compliant under the LDA."

The implication there is a troubling one: Are lobbyists being encouraged to "just deregister," rearrange their calendars a bit, but continue to function in much the same way as before? Of course no one is saying anyone would willfully violate the rules, but does anyone really believe that lobbyists will jettison work or clients so that they can fall below the minimum requirements for disclosure? (Again, hired guns trip the registration threshold when they spend at least 20 percent of their time contacting covered officials or doing work in support of such contacts and they a) are hired to make multiple contacts for a client or b) do, in fact, make a second lobbying contact, whichever comes first.)

What's worse, statements like this seem to offer people the political cover, justification and encouragement (if not the idea itself) to act on their umbrage and intentionally skirt disclosure laws in response to this measure.

Which brings us to a far more basic issue: What if lobbyists did "deregister" (i.e., report terminating formal client registrations) in significant numbers? Our data has shown a marked increase in such terminations in just the 2nd quarter alone. Do we have any idea whether the "honor system" of disclosing lobbying activity is actually working? I'm not saying there's an obvious or easily implemented alternative, but it's still worth pondering what might really be going and whether the disclosure system is adequate. How prevalent is lobbying without registering? Is this a joke that only K Street is in on? Of course, complicating this is the anecdotal evidence that, while some lobbyists and firms would seek to fly under the radar, others actually prefer disclosure as marketing and proof positive of their activity on behalf of clients or their membership. Is there a coalition of the willing to take a look at this?

Our ability to judge the affect of special interests on policy is only as good as the information available to us. Let's start there--refocusing the dialogue on improving transparency--so that, when a clearer picture develops, we can then get some consensus on the next steps down the road toward change.

Since coming to office, the Obama administration has made a clear statement on their determination to reduce the culture of influence which has become so pervasive in Washington. The objection by some has been that by limiting lobbyist participation on advisory boards, from shaping stimulus spending, and from serving in the executive branch—the administration is losing years of accumulated expertise. My response to this is that you may lose some expertise, however the fact of the matter is that lobbyists are paid to have a point of view; they have an agenda. The administration’s intent is to get deep-seated special interests out of the business of running our government, so removing a constituency with a fiduciary interest behind their opinions is a step in the right direction.

It is hard to determine whether the passage of the executive orders or the advisory board ban on lobbyists has really impacted business-as-usual culture in DC, nor do I think that without legislative reform of the money culture by campaign finance changes can we ever really succeed in reducing influence.

However, the passage of these orders do seem to be a move in the right direction, and hopefully will lead to the President’s continued support of additional, stronger reform to reduce money’s influence in our system, such as of improving and reforming our congressional and presidential public financing systems.

America's system of government is designed to encourage "special interests" to be involved in public policy. Some people conveniently forget this point. Just as freedom of speech allows competing opinions to be heard, the freedom to petition government allows competing policies to be heard. That's the whole idea.

Problems arise when various factions, as the Founding Fathers called them, gain disproportionate influence. To combat this influence, we have laws to prevent bribery, extortion, conflicts of interest, and other illicit behaviors. We also have regulations laying out rules for campaign contributions and lobbying so that these activities are more fair and transparent. In addition, in the last 15 years the Internet has leveled the playing field further by enabling anyone with a computer and a cause to launch an advocacy campaign.

So, my first disagreement is with the notion that we need to reduce the influence of special interests. Trying to do so is to assume that special interests are inherently evil and have nothing to contribute to the public policy-making process. If you're going to reinvent our healthcare system, for example, wouldn't it be a good idea to find out what doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers and the major users of heathcare think about the changes?

The interesting thing is that the general public said during the campaign that it wanted the president to reign in the special interests, yet the vast majority of Americans support groups with political agendas. They may belong to AARP, the Sierra Club, the NRA, Amnesty International, the American Farm Bureau Federation - or a combination of these and other organizations. (I'm guessing that that most people view themselves as active citizens and their ideological opponents as special interests.)

That's why I believe the White House has overestimated the public's appetite for efforts to restrict lobbying - and it's why the new policies have remained such an "Inside the Beltway" issue.

Fortunately, the White House restrictions on lobbying haven't substantially weakened special interests - or even not-so-special interests. Instead, they have (1) prevented qualified candidates from working for the administration, (2) made it more cumbersome to meet with officials about Recovery Act projects designed to create jobs and (3) kept some of the nation's most knowledgeable experts on trade and commerce from helping the government craft better policy.

In addition, the restrictions will likely reduce transparency by encouraging part-time lobbyists to prove they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which requires them to register if they spend 20 percent of their time lobbying. We shouldn't be surprised to find out that those with the ability to deregister are taking advantage of the opportunity.

Actions by the White House have helped to demonize lobbyists - that is for certain. But it's not as if lobbyists previously ranked up there with nurses, firefighters and high school teachers on anyone's scale of popularity. In fact, a Gallup poll conducted in November 2008 placed lobbyists at the bottom of the heap in its annual Honesty and Ethics survey. (Watch out, telemarketers, we're right behind you!)

Needless to say, it's up to the lobbying community to earn the public's trust. Companies and non-profits are tightening ethics policies for lobbyists, investing in better legal training and gradually becoming more transparent about their political activities. If all of these steps can prevent scandals and increase public understanding of the value of advocacy, then there's a chance that lobbying will become a more highly regarded profession. Without these steps, it won't happen.

I don't think, despite what has been reported, that the situation for lobbyists is as dire as the reality. On a series of issues, ranging from healthcare reform to energy policy to proposed financial re-regulations, lobbyists and their clients have and will continue to be part of the process. No question that some of the restrictions are an inconvenience but I don't think they will ultimately threaten anyone's livelihood.

As for lobbyist being a 'dirty word', it goes with the territory -- right alongside politician, PR flack and journalist.

I have seen no indication that these rules have reduced the influence of lobbyists. It has driven people from the lobbyists rolls fueling more subterranean activity. Most of the activity that the administration is trying to curb does not even meet the definition of lobbying. The restrictions have interfered with attempts to influence administration officials who are largely non covered by the lobby rules. Plus, people are working overtime to figure out how to deregister, such as changing methods of reporting to the IRS method, which virtually eliminates the disclosure of executive branch lobbying.

Of course the term lobbying has become a dirty word. Lobbyists are not at the top of anyone's popularity list under the best of circumstances, but the attempt to demonize serves no purpose. Ostensibly the purpose is to get political points with the American people but, no one really believes lobbyists have lost their influence in Washington these misguided policies are depriving the administration of some real talent. The administration should put its efforts into improving the lobby disclosure law, which has many gaps in it, rather than drive lobbyists away from disclosure.

In the period since the Jack Abramoff scandal, the word “lobbyist” has become synonymous with “special interest.” There is an image of Gucci Gulch lobbyists making money hand over fist and buying access to our elected leaders. The perception is that the lobbyist serves as the hired gun to promote the corporate self-interest of his or her client, not the interests of the general public.

While there is some truth to this picture, there is another story to tell. Nonprofit advocates and lobbyists have been involved in nearly every major public policy accomplishment in the country – from civil rights to environmental protection to Medicare. These are not abstract issues. Tens of thousands of lives have been saved by passing laws that improve car safety and reduce drunk driving. Hunger and disease for millions of children have been reduced by passing laws that advance public health as well as food and nutrition programs. In other words, nonprofit, public interest lobbying is an honorable tradition, a peon to our American heritage, the First Amendment, and free speech.

The Obama administration paints all lobbyists with the same brush, creating unnecessary disincentives to lobby, particularly in the nonprofit sector. The Obama administration would be better served by attacking the corrupting influence of money rather than focusing on lobbyists.

For example, while the administration has restricted the role of federally registered lobbyists in seeking Recovery Act money, there are no restrictions on state lobbyists or on those who employ the lobbyist from trying to seek Recovery Act money. Indeed, it appears those who won Recovery Act contracts also spent millions lobbying the government. Phil Mattera of Good Jobs First details some specifics at the Dirt Diggers Digest.

Our own analysis, done in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, found a sharp increase – 1,418 – in the second quarter of this year in federally registered lobbyists filing notice that they are no longer lobbyists. This is a marked increase compared to any reporting period during all of 2008 and 2009. While there could be many reasons for this, it cannot be divorced from the Obama administration’s actions. Many worry that these same people are now listed as “advisors” and other euphemisms while still lobbying without disclosure.

The bottom line is that while federally registered lobbyists may be restricted from certain activities, the influence peddling still goes on. The perception, if not reality, still exists: those with money have access and clout. That should be the focus of discussion.

The policies of the Obama Administration are not the only reason that "lobbying" has become a dirty word but the focus on lobbying regulation suggests that there is something corrupting in the profession. This comes from someone who has consistently supported (and still supports) Barack Obama. However, unfortunately this negative perception of lobbying has become public policy. The result is that the flow of information is narrowed and all but eliminated. The question becomes what information is the Administration basing its decisions on? Dismissing or not even considering the views of the private sector, particularly when some of the most creative and motivated thinkers reside there, doesn't make sense.

Lobbying has indeed become a dirty word. While those of us in the legal (and used car dealer) communities might welcome the company of lobbyists and Wall Street bankers into our pantheon of the "Most Undesirables", White House efforts to limit its own access to valuable information from a single source is simply bad policy. It might make for good political rhetoric, but it does nothing to improve the quality of the decision-making emanating from the executive branch.

There is no doubt that lobbyists seeking to communicate with executive branch officials or serving on government advisory boards are doing so from the perspective of the interests of the clients they represent. There is also no doubt that most lobbyists are highly skilled, knowledgeable, and effective communicators of their clients' interests. Those are not reasons for any government to impose artificial restrictions on the ability of lobbyists to communicate with government. These are reasons for government to ensure that it is being thoughtful before acting. It is the job of government, not the private sector, and certainly not lobbyists, to assimilate all of the available information and data surrounding a particular issue before adopting the policy position or regulation best suited for the governed. It is especially the job of government, not individual lobbyists, to ensure that the needs of those not represented by skilled lobbyists are accounted for.

Think of it like a criminal or civil trial. Everyone understands that each party is represented by a skilled advocate whose sole objective, consistent with the rules of evidence, is to ensure that its position is presented and perceived in the best possible light relative to all other positions. No one position is cast aside at trial because their advocate is too effective or because one side's lawyer only highlights information beneficial to her client. Rather, the understanding is that if the ultimate decision-maker receives biased and thoughtfully articulated input from all sides, the ultimate decision-maker will have access to all of the relevant information necessary to reach an informed, unbiased decision.

Here, the Obama Administration appears to have repeatedly reached the conclusion that lobbyists are apparently "too effective" at their role of advocating for their clients' interests relative to the needs of other legitimate government interests. Rather than seek to impose some internal controls on the mechanisms of government decision-making to ensure that government ultimately adopts positions best suited to the governed, this administration has elected to impose impediments to its own access to information from a single class of individuals skilled at providing that information. That might make for good politics on the campaign trail, but it makes for lousy public policy.

During his campaign, candidate Barack Obama decided to make villains out of those in Washington who petition their government on behalf of their clients. Lobbyists are easy targets, because they make more money than the average American and they reside in Washington, which is generally a despised place in the USA. Obama said that lobbyists wouldn't unduly influence his Administration, and that he would take on the special interests. He said that he wouldn't collect money from those hated lobbyists and that he wouldn't listen to their pleas on behalf of their clients.

Almost nothing he has said that he would do has worked out. He collects lots and lots of money from lobbyists, usually on behalf of his allies on the Hill. He allows lobbyists come to the White House pretty much all the time. Andy Stern, a lobbyist who actually works on behalf of government expansion, has practically lived at the White House. Other well-known Democratic lobbyists, according to White House records, have also spent considerable time working the White House on whatever issue they are currently working.

He has declared war, for example, on the biggest business advocate, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Of course, if he had openly declared war on Republican lobbyists, it would have destroyed the Obama post-partisan myth. But nobody is buying that myth anymore anyway. So, the President should just come clean. He should say that if you are a Republican or if you advocate for the free-market, don't bother to talk to me. I am not going to listen. That would give the American people a better sense of where this President is really coming from.