Not to continue only talking about this...

...But I would be interested to hear Credibility's take on thisthis post by Mark Schmitt over at TPM Cafe.

I think the question he raises is, if those ensnared in this scandal are trying to frame it as simply a problem of lobbying, then what are they trying to move the discussion away from?

- Glitter

My Life As A Media Apologist

While I agree with Credibility's overall point that:

What really needs to occur at some sort of meaningful level--in the media and among American citizens--is a discussion of democracy today, of the public interest and of how, why and where the big bucks are spent in Washington.

But I feel like she isn't backing up her point, citing no specific examples, that:

very clearly, media attention in the case has been focused on him as an exception to the rules, rather than the example on which to base some sort of wider analysis of lobbying in America today.

I don't doubt that there have been many news stories that missed the larger connections of what Abramoff represents; However, once the news cycle moved from the scandal breaking to lawmakers and the public's reactions, the tone of the coverage has picked up on the "this is a lobbying problem in general" meme. The Abramoff scandal is certainly still unfolding, with new dimensions being added nearly every day.

For instance, in the NY Times today, Todd S. Purham writes:

But the problem is broader than Mr. Abramoff, Mr. DeLay or even the inherent potential for abuse in one-party rule of all three branches of government. It also has to do with the astounding growth of the lobbying industry, a growth that has tracked the growth of the federal government itself. The rise of government regulation - first in the New Deal and then in the 1960's and 70's - spawned a parallel rise in the private sector's efforts to master the new system. Between the early 1970's and the mid-1980's, the number of trade associations doubled; in the first half of the 1980's alone, the number of registered lobbyists quadrupled, according to The Washington Monthly.

Many bloggers have been focusing on the problems of lobbying too, including here,here, here and here

It's even been discussed on TV! By Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews nonetheless! Here.

I couldn't agree more that we, meaning citizens in general, need to really think about and discuss what we mean when we say democracy, especially in the context of ours being a country that goes to war under the banner of exporting democracy. If we lose sight of democracy at home, we can't really steward it abroad.

Sidenote: Discussion of Democracy could definitely come up regarding Bush, The NSA, and warrantless domestic wiretaps, especially given the Administration's arguments about executive power

Wining, Dining and Knee-jerking

I think Brother Glitter misunderstood the point of my most recent posting. The posting was in no way meant to understate the role of Abramoff's Republican sympathies, but rather to point out the fact that, very clearly, media attention in the case has been focused on him as an exception to the rules, rather than the example on which to base some sort of wider analysis of lobbying in America today. For many in the mediocre-at-best press--which is what most Americans read, watch or hear--it has been much simpler to just dwell on Abramoff, which is the problem I see.

In the news that most folks get, there is only Abramoff coverage and nothing more. But the Abramoff case can and should cause concern down on K Street.

It [the Abramoff plea] has people shaking in their boots a little," said Celia Viggo Wexler, the vice president for advocacy at Common Cause. "What he did goes beyond the pale, and not what a typical lobbyist would do. But there are plenty of lobbyists wining and dining out there.

Let it not go unsaid that though the Abramoff scandel is overwhelmingly tied to Republicans, it does not leave unscathed people like Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Democrats should be tough in the pursuit of justice in this case, but at the same time, should be careful not to cast any blame that cannot be in turn cast back at them.

The lobbyist and Indian tribes contributed $2.9 million to Republicans and $1.5 million to Democrats in the past five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

What I'm arguing here, Glitter and the world at large, is that though we should be particularly attentive to the Republican underpinnings of said scandel, this is simply not enough. What really needs to occur at some sort of meaningful level--in the media and among American citizens--is a discussion of democracy today, of the public interest and of how, why and where the big bucks are spent in Washington. To paint the picture two dimensionally is, well, sorta flat.

--Credibility

Ahh, but this is where we disagree

I would like to respectfully disagree with Madam Credibility on a point or two about Abramoff and lobbying.

While in many ways she is correct in pointing out that the Abramoff scandal is indicative of many of the problems of the nexus of lobbyists and politicians, I would argue that there are ideological underpinings to this scandal as well.

To put it plainly, this scandal is more representative of the ways lobbying has developed since the Republicans took control of the House than it is of all lobbying in general. I don't mean to say that Credibility is wrong in pointing out that lobbying practices across the board have inherent problems, as they surely do, I mean it to say that this particular case flows back to a uniquely Republican vision of lobbying, namely, the K Street Project.

As Nick Confessore puts it in his great primer on the project:

In the past, those people were about as likely to be Democrats as Republicans, a practice that ensured K Street firms would have clout no matter which party was in power. But beginning with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and accelerating in 2001, when George W. Bush became president, the GOP has made a determined effort to undermine the bipartisan complexion of K Street. And Santorum's Tuesday meetings are a crucial part of that effort. Every week, the lobbyists present pass around a list of the jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum's responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican--a senator's chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated. After Santorum settles on a candidate, the lobbyists present make sure it is known whom the Republican leadership favors. "The underlying theme was [to] place Republicans in key positions on K Street. Everybody taking part was a Republican and understood that that was the purpose of what we were doing," says Rod Chandler, a retired congressman and lobbyist who has participated in the Santorum meetings. "It's been a very successful effort."

As Kevin Drum points out, Thomas B. Edsall has further information on the Project in a Washington Post article.

Reporters Janet Hook and Mary Curtius make this connection in their LA Times article about the Abramoff scandals:

The corruption investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff shows the significant political risk that Republican leaders took when they adopted what had once seemed a brilliant strategy for dominating Washington: turning the K Street lobbying corridor into a cog of the GOP political machine.

Abramoff thrived in the political climate fostered by GOP leaders, including Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who have methodically tried to tighten the links between the party in Congress and business lobbyists, through what has become known as the "K Street Project."

GOP leaders, seeking to harness the financial and political support of K Street, urged lobbyists to support their conservative agenda, give heavily to Republican politicians and hire Republicans for top trade association jobs. Abramoff obliged on every front, and his tentacles of influence reached deep into the upper echelons of Congress and the Bush administration.

Also, Abramoff is and has been for a long time, a loyal Republican. As Paul Waldman of Media Matters points out in an article on Tom Paine:

Abramoff wasn't some kind of loose cannon; he was nurtured in the heart of the Republican establishment. A veteran of the College Republicans, friends (or co-conspirators, depending on the outcome of the investigation) with the likes of Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed and Tom DeLay, Abramoff stands not as an aberration within Republican Washington, but its very embodiment.

Also, Abramoff's personal campaign contributions have all been to Republicans. Though it is true that some of his client's money has been funnelled to Democrats as well.

So, while I agree that the current Scandal Du Jour in Washington is reflective of problems with lobbying in general, I think it points with greater strength to the corrupt infrastructure that the GOP has set up in Washington. No doubt that reform efforts should focus on lobbying in general, but it is also important to note that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. Even if a few Dems get some of the taint of it, it's the Republicans who are stewing in it.

- Glitter

Abramoff Plane Comes in for a Landing

Abramoff back in the news and an interesting history of the man in a recent Mother Jones. The article touches on (for good reason) not only the big pockets he was stuffing, but the wider implications of the relationship between lobbyists and politicians in this country. It is an issue that crosses partisan and ideological bounds, and many lobbyists themselves are willing to step over those bounds in the interest of, well, interests. Says Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington:

"I don't think Abramoff ever stood for anything. I think Abramoff just stands for greed. I think Abramoff is a terrible human being and should get anything coming his way."

What's missing from the dialogue in network news and most major publications, however, is any sort of context to the Abramoff case. He, of course, is not alone, and this is far from an isolated case involving a few isolated politicians. Though the news paints him as an exceptionally conspicuous player, he's just one who got caught. Far more troubling should be the countless other violations of lobbying laws that occur down on K Street, or perhaps even the millions of dollars spent legally by lobbying firms every day.

A comprehensive examination of lobbying in the US today can be found on at the Lobby Watch database.

--Credibility