Michael Kieschnick, one of the most brilliant organizers and thinkers that I know at the higher levels of the progressive movement, has an important question on the surging market for Democratic lobbyists, former staffers leaving their positions of influence to make money working to influence policy on behalf of wealthy interests for as much as a million dollars a year. Kieschnick is stark; this kind of influence peddling is wrong. I agree, as it is also incredibly perverse in terms of incentives for decision-makers. And yet, these people are competing with corporate law partners, hedge fund managers, corporate titans, media pundits, or other top tier credentialled social stars as senior operators at the top of their game.
The problem is big and complex, because expecting virtuous moral self-deprivation isn't reasonable. Rahm Emanuel left the Clinton White House for a few years, made $20M as an investment banker using his earned contacts, and became a Congressman in 2002. There's nothing you can do with ethics legislation to prevent that kind of path to wealth and influence. The only real solutions involve a progressive tax code, open legislative processes, and public financing of elections.
Yesterday's headline in Roll Call, the insiderish newspaper focusing on Congress, caught my eye: "Surging Market for Democrats". I could not tell if this was about one of those simulated stock markets for presidential races or something else. Unfortunately, it was about the top dollars being offered to Democratic staffers to lobby on behalf of corporate interests.
"A headhunter telephoned the chief of staff to a prominent Democratic Senator recently and, recalls, the staffer, said to him "Look, a downtown firm is looking for a senior Democrat, the package is $600,000, and could be more. Do you want to talk to us?"
You can be sure that this "downtown firm" was not lobbying on behalf of stricter CAFE standards or paid family leave. While perhaps priceless in terms of the common good, those who advocate for them don't have surging profits to pay for top lobbyists.
Now I know that thousands of people work selflessly on Capitol Hill and I admire and respect them. But all too many are on a different track, waiting for that $600,000 phone call. They behave differently before the phone call, after the phone call and once they hit K Street. They reap the salaries, their corporate sponsors get a big payoff, and we all pay the price.
They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be labeled for what they are - sell outs - and not welcomed in progressive circles.
This is institutionalized on K Street, as this article in National Journal on 'super-donor' lobbyists shows.
For Van Scoyoc, donating politically is not a matter of personal ideology but one piece of a carefully thought out business plan that encourages firm-wide contributions to candidates on both sides of the aisle...
Direct contributions are only part of that equation. Van Scoyoc Associates, which takes up almost the entire sixth floor of the same Constitution Avenue office building that houses Kies's firm, boasts one of the most popular locations in town for hosting fundraising events, and lawmakers routinely take advantage of it. Van Scoyoc's spacious office also overlooks the Capitol, which is only 10 minutes away.
The fact that corruption is designed into DC business models is a bipartisan problem that we are in the process of fixing with more transparency, openness, specialized media outlets, and eventually, a populist framework for politics. Public financing is obviously important, but then, so is building a progressive tax code so that the professional lives of elites aren't organized around whether you are in a profession that manipulates financial regulations or propagandizes, or whether you are willing to tolerate a dramatically lower standard of living.
STATE BLOGS
