The George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management hosted a forum Tuesday looking at the Obama administration's lobbying rules. White House ethics adviser Norman Eisen defended the restrictions. And one panel discussed crafting appropriate government policies for lobbying. Panelists, from left to right, were: Melanie Sloan, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Leo Wise, Office of Congressional Ethics; Moderator Steven Roberts, GW's SMPA; Ron Christie, Christie Strategies; and Ellen Miller, Sunlight Foundation. Video highlights and a write-up of the event follows.
At a forum at George Washington University Tuesday, White House ethics adviser Norman Eisen touted the "open-door" policies of the White House and said that restrictions the administration has placed on lobbyists have been created in the interest of striving for merit-based decision-making.
"What we have attempted to do in defining the public interest is to embark on a ... compact with the American people that we will not be subjected to the influences ... that have waylaid good policy, but really will attempt to be guided by that point on the horizon that represents the best thing for the country," said Eisen, who was a partner at law firm Zuckerman Spaeder and co-founded watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington before joining the administration.
Eisen said that the administration recognizes that there are challenges in figuring out how to create a transparent and effective policy-making environment, but is gathering "evidence" on the impact of ethics rules by meeting with lobbyists to hear their opinions.
"One of the striking things that does not come across [in the media] is the level of agreement that lobbyists and others have with us with respect to the stimulus lobbying rules," Eisen said.
But Ron Christie of Christie Strategies said he worries that the administration is "building the airplane as they're flying it" in crafting rules for lobbyists and criticized the prohibition of certain verbal communications concerning the Recovery Act.
Christie, who worked in the Bush administration as a domestic policy adviser, said that when he was in the White House, he "relished the opportunity to speak to lobbyists because they could help me look for different sources of information, to synthesize information more cleanly and clearly, and perhaps point me in a different direction. And to suggest that all lobbyist communications via the phone or in person ... is somehow nefarious or not merit-based, I take exception to that."
While he said he understands that the Obama administration is trying to address the appearance that lobbyists are corrupt, restricting oral communication is a "cynical approach and in the end the public is not best served."
There is no flat ban on lobbyist communications, Eisen said, but "there is a requirement that lobbyist communications about particular applications, applicants, or projects be put in writing. The rationale, is that we wanted every American ... to be able to evaluate those proposals on their merits."
Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation finds this attitude encouraging and appreciates the administration's commitment to transparency. "I suspect that the reason that they ban [oral communications] is because it happens one-on-one in someone's office and it's really hard to capture every nuance of that conversation."
Miller offered this suggestion instead: "They could put up a lobbyist cam in every office. There would be a lot of people really glued to that."
"What we're looking for is real transparency and I suspect that [the administration] probably struggled with this," Miller said. And they have "narrowly put this restriction on lobbying for stimulus funds, so there's not a broad brush for this as the moment."
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Under the Influence does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
Responded on May 7, 2009 2:09 PM
Bara Vaida
I received this email from a non-profit lobbyist who did not want their name or organization to be made public:
This is to follow-up on your non-profit article. The problem isn't that the Ex. Order is a bad idea, but rather that no one in the WH seems to be able to read/understand it. The Order says - no lobbying the executive branch for two years except for ... getting a waiver or if your lobbying activity was de minimus. So what did they do but apply it to the guy who worked for Raytheon and skip over those who lobbied for things as varied as Darfur, SCHIP or green jobs, issues which match the Obama agenda.
The idea to exempt non-profits from the Order is useful but really doesn't solve the core of the problem, i.e., that the Pres. Personnel folks don't seem to be able to understand what the Order actually says. Most certainly, it is proof that political people should be in charge of the decision-making rather than academics since at a minimum, Personnel should understand just how much talent they are wasting, and in some cases, embarrassing ...
Read More
I received this email from a non-profit lobbyist who did not want their name or organization to be made public:
This is to follow-up on your non-profit article. The problem isn't that the
Ex. Order is a bad idea, but rather that no one in the WH seems to be able
to read/understand it. The Order says - no lobbying the executive branch
for two years except for ... getting a waiver or if your lobbying activity
was de minimus. So what did they do but apply it to the guy who worked for
Raytheon and skip over those who lobbied for things as varied as
Darfur, SCHIP or green jobs, issues which match the Obama agenda.
The idea to exempt non-profits from the Order is useful but really doesn't
solve the core of the problem, i.e., that the Pres. Personnel folks don't
seem to be able to understand what the Order actually says. Most certainly,
it is proof that political people should be in charge of the decision-making
rather than academics since at a minimum, Personnel should understand just
how much talent they are wasting, and in some cases, embarrassing , as well
as sadly destroying careers of people who are friends of the Obama Administration.
My fear is this is hurting Obama in ways we haven't even seen yet, and all of us must make sure he succeeds because if
he fails, our country will also fail.
I think the better ask would be for the Order's waiver procedure to be used
whenever the person who lobbied worked on an issue that matches the Obama
Agenda, and for the Order's two year prohibition to be applied only to the
Executive Branch rather than to the House and Congress as they have been
doing. Of course, this means that the waiver process should be used liberally rather than only for the Raytheon kinds of folks.
I might add that for all c3's and all c4's to automatically be exempted, would result in
many right-wing conservative organizations getting their noses into the tent, and
then - as above, the Personnel folks would actually have to learn how to
read and understand what they read – using judgment, to be sure that the people they choose
are committed to the Obama Agenda, as could be done right now, if they
wanted actually would read the Order and the accompanying advisory.
One related problem has to do with the Administration's choices for job
recruiting firms - one managed the K Street Project for the Republicans and another
was used by Bush 1 to find jobs for his outgoing appointees. This is not
good either.
And my last point is that there seems to be agencies where the appointees
(who did not lobby) have absolutely no background in what the agency
actually does, but yes, they have lovely PHD's on their records. If those
folks had lobbying experience they would at least have understood which
parts of government do what.
Collapse