Pubdate: Thu, 23 Feb 2006
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A15
Copyright: 2006 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: James Copple
Note: James Copple is a senior policy analyst at the Pacific 
Institute for Research and Evaluation.

HIRED GUNS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD

As we were watching a story on the evening news about the extravagance
and excesses of lobbyists, my son asked me, "Aren't you a lobbyist?"
Yes, I said. "You must not be very good at it," he said.

By some modern standards, maybe not. I don't own an airplane. I've
never played golf at St. Andrews. The most I ever paid for a suit was
$450, and I got married in it. I don't have an office on K Street,
although sometimes I hold meetings at a Starbucks on K Street. I don't
buy lavish dinners for members of Congress on behalf of my clients. In
fact, I have nothing of value to offer a member of Congress except an
occasional $15 plaque and an invaluable cause.

What I do as a lobbyist is petition Congress on behalf of nonprofit
institutions to protect lives and health, particularly of young
people, through the prevention of alcohol and drug abuse, tobacco use
and other public health threats. In pursuit of my cause, I will
cajole, wheedle, plead, beg and even reason with members of Congress
and their staffs for earmarks or any other kind of funding. If
lobbyists like me are blocked by current reform efforts, then those we
try to help will suffer.

Some say earmarks are the problem, because they circumvent the
traditional appropriations process, which is tied to specific
authorizations. Funding, they say, should be appropriated strictly by
need, merit and the best interests of society. Indeed -- and if it
were, I wouldn't need earmarks and my clients wouldn't need me. But
that's not been my experience, and I've been around federal, state and
local governments for three decades. Sometimes government funding is
based on need and merit; often it's not.

The criticism of earmarks as back-door dollars for pet projects fails
to recognize the changing role of government in public services. Since
the Reagan administration, the downsizing of government has meant that
a lot of prevention services, human services, health services and many
other services are outsourced. Earmarks have grown in direct
correlation to the downsizing of government. Today most program
innovation and content expertise is found outside of government.

Outside experts now petition government for support. Many work for
private companies that reap billions from the federal government
through contracts, earmarks and any other means that high-priced
lobbyists can find. But much of this outside expertise resides at
nonprofits working to improve the health and safety of communities.
These organizations struggle to survive, constantly seeking ways to
guarantee funding in order to provide continuity of service. These are
the people I work for, and if I can get them earmarks to provide
consistent, successful programs that are proven to benefit public
health and well-being, I'll sleep well at night.

There are many cause-based lobbyists like me, standing with cell
phones pressed to our ears on Washington street corners, working to
catch a handful of budgetary decimal dust for nonprofit programs that
alleviate human suffering and troubles such as underage drinking, drug
abuse, teen pregnancy, homelessness, dropping out of school and fraud
against the elderly. Most of us believe that the institution of
lobbying needs reform, particularly the practices of gift-giving and
campaign donations. Instead of getting rid of earmarks, though,
Congress should require that earmarks have clear planning goals,
cost-benefit analyses, evaluations, annual reports to Congress, time
limits and a solid rationale for being connected to existing
authorizations. I could guarantee that for every dollar I request.

There's enormous pressure right now in Washington to rein in
lobbyists. Unfortunately, that may happen at the peril of serious
reform and could jeopardize valuable programs and services in the
process. Eliminating earmarks and requiring all new funding to be tied
to departmental authorizations would only expand the government and
shrink the resources available to nonprofits that have taken over the
mission of building a healthy and safe civil society. Government
cannot replicate what these organizations achieve.

Yes, get rid of the skybox-and-junket lobbying, but do it without
stifling the work of lobbyists for the public good. I'm not Jack
Abramoff and don't deserve his disrepute. My clients don't try to buy
members of Congress or enrich themselves, and they don't deserve
reprisals against earmarks.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake