PSoTD

I have to admit, it's a little surprising that Current, the blog for the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, actually has a publicly visible, although also publicly unofficial, take on the political furor about the state legislator pay raise.

That take, on the other hand, is not a surprise:

So a lot of people have asked me why I haven’t discussed the pay raise issue. Since “I don’t want to,” doesn’t seem to satisfy, let me try this…

Rule #1 of any communication/advocacy effort is to STAY ON MESSAGE. Our members are concerned about the economy and the Commonwealth’s competitiveness for jobs. So, to embroil ourselves in the public furor over the pay raise only distracts from the Chamber’s Agenda for Jobs.

Secondly, The Chamber has not heard an outcry from our membership over the pay raise. Rather, the outcry has been over the lack of movement on our Agenda for Jobs. Therefore, see above for Rule #1.

There's more. But the short answer is, We can't piss off the folks we are trying to lobby.

This position isn't any different from any other organization that lobbies the Pennsylvania General Assembly for advantages. There's no way that the grassroots efforts that are pushing on the General Assembly to rescind the pay raise can look for any useful participation from the "players" in Harrisburg.

Then: From The Washington Lobbyists, by Lester W. Milbrath; Rand McNally, 1963

RECRUITMENT OF LOBBYISTS

The average person probably never considers making a career of lobbying. Colleges and professional schools do not prepare students specifically for this position. If a youngster announced that he would like to be a lobbyist, his parents would probably vigorously discourage him. Public disapproval of lobbyists and lobbying is so strong that most present practitioners admit to being lobbyists only reluctantly and qualifiedly.

Today: From CNN:

Six-figure jobs: Lobbying

A survey conducted by the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) in 1998 – the latest information the ALL has — found that 65 percent of respondents, who mostly held senior-level positions, made over $100,000.

To get a six-figure salary you either need to have a well-known name in politics – it's not unheard of for politicians to become lobbyists once they leave office – or you need to put in at least five to 10 years working your way up the ladder.

No degree is required. Most lobbyists, however, have at least a college degree and many have graduate degrees, typically in law.

And there is now a two-week course on professional lobbying and political influence offered by the Public Affairs and Advocacy Institute at American University.

So how many universities now offer a degree or special study in lobbying?

George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management offers a concentration in lobbying.

Where else?

And who is monitoring what they're teaching?

Interesting topic matter of a book published in 2002 by Gaines M. Foster entitled:

Moral Reconstruction: Christian Lobbyists and the Federal Legislation of Morality, 1865-1920

It just goes to show that the federal government has been subject to religious lobbying for a long, long time.

And not much about it has changed...

The Christian lobby that formed in the late nineteenth century campaigned to expand the moral powers of the federal government and to establish the religious authority of the state. Some of the lobbyists believed the power of the government rested in God, but most sought only to force government to respect God's law and thereby prove itself worthy to exercise its powers. During the Civil War, the National Association to Amend the Constitution first lobbied to have an acknowledgment of God, Christ, and the authority of the Bible incorporated into the preamble to the Constitution. That crusade for what came to be called the Christian amendment continued after the war, because its proponents believed the nation owed allegiance to God. But they also thought the amendment would demonstrate the religious authority of the state and provide an unassailable constitutional basis for the federal legislation of morality.

...

The legislation of personal morality remained the primary goal of the reformers who made up the Christian lobby. Anthony Comstock lobbied for tougher federal laws against obscenity, birth control, and abortion in the early 1870s. Soon thereafter, his friend Joseph Cook, a Boston-based minister who earned his living on the lecture circuit, campaigned for laws against polygamy, Sabbath breaking, and other behavior he considered sinful. Henry Blair, a Republican senator from New Hampshire, first introduced a prohibition amendment in Congress in the 1870s and worked for a broad array of moral legislation, even after he left Congress. Blair became an ally and friend of Frances Willard, who, along with Comstock, was perhaps the best known of the Christian lobbyists. Far less well-known but important nonetheless was Wilbur J. Crafts, who founded the International Reform Bureau, proclaimed himself a Christian lobbyist, and opened an office on Capitol Hill in 1895.

...

The Christian lobbyists sometimes singled out immigrants and workers for special concern, which suggests that class interests helped fuel their fears, a factor historians have frequently cited in explaining postbellum moral reform. Several scholars portray reformers as members of the middle class who used standards of moral behavior to define themselves in opposition to both the upper and the working classes.

Because there's always a strong potential for conflict of interest.

Lobbyist challenged on voting machines

Salt Lake County leaders continue to unleash a litany of complaints about the $10 million load of fancy electronic voting machines they must use by next year.

Problem is, the county's own powerful lobbying firm, The Tetris Group, helped do the deal.

Turns out, Tetris doubles as a lobbyist for Diebold Election Systems, whose touch-screen voting machines the firm helped prod the state to buy.

Tetris' role is not a legal violation. But the relationship is raising questions of a possible conflict, particularly given the cost.

County Mayor Peter Corroon and Clerk Sherrie Swensen cite sticker shock and the furious pace of the plan as a problem.

"It's just so new and it hasn't been tested," Swensen says. "I'm a little frustrated that we're being forced to make it before that technology has been perfected."

County taxpayers' tab: at least $5 million more than what the federal government or state will cover, according to Corroon.

Conversely, Tetris associates Dan Hartman, Blaze Wharton and Paul Rogers will profit "hand over fist," says Deputy District Attorney Gavin Anderson.

I'll have more to say about this next week, but I heartily recommend taking a look at The Center for Public Integrity's Hired Guns: A Comprehensive Look at Lobbying in the 50 States. One high lowlight:

Eight states did not provide an overall total for 2004 spending, and lobbyists in two of them—Nevada and Pennsylvania—were not required by law to even register. In Nevada, lobbyists only register during the months the legislature is in session, which occurs in odd-numbered years. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court struck down a lobbyist disclosure law in 2002, holding that it was an unconstitutional regulation of the practice of law.

Also, a couple other interesting posts about this report are available...

The Bootleg Blogger:

With this kind of money being spent it's hard to fathom that my legistlators really represent my community. We elect them, but six figure or higher donations will inevitably redirect the loyalties of most politicians.

MoJo Blog:

One to note, however, is that not all "special interests" should be painted with the same broad brush, as CPI tends to do. Corporations will try to buy influence—tax breaks, subsidies, loosened workplace restrictions—and labor unions will push right back and try to stop them. Both are "special interests," yes, but it's pretty clear that they're not the same.