Should a corporation’s products and services be branded by party, it risks losing consumers on the other side of the partisan line. While most corporations are unwilling to take this risk, there are plenty of others that are. (Think Perry Homes or Prof. Loomis’ example of Koch Industries). The ability and appetite to spend is certainly there. For years, thousands of organizations were perfectly willing to fill the parties’ coffers with soft money direct from their corporate treasuries. From 1992-2002, organizations delivered more than $1 billion to the parties -- two thirds of all soft money funds, consistently favoring the GOP.

True, many soft money donors avoided, or tried to avoid, uncomfortable accusations of partisanship and influence buying -- offering explanations that they were “just supporting the democratic process.” Nobody bought that bill of goods then, and, anyway, that justification goes out the window if a corporation is seen attacking

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 negativ