In the wake of the scandal, congressmen on both sides of the aisle have decided to discuss superficial reforms to cure this problem. Both parties have agreed to ban former congressmen from working out in the House gym because this practice had previously given congressmen-turned-lobbyists special access to congressional members and their staff that no one else could attain.
Furthermore, the Republicans purged Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) from their leadership team due to his own ethical problems. Seeking reform, they chose Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) to replace DeLay, bypassing acting majority leader Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
However, while Boehner doesn't have the ties to DeLay and the GOP leadership that Blunt does, he certainly can't be seen as a reformer. In fact, Boehner actually received a censure in 1995 for handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor while congressmen were listening to arguments on tobacco subsidies.
The real reformer in the race for majority leader, John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), received about half as many votes as Boehner in the first round of balloting. Shadegg, a small government conservative, had not only called for drastic reform, but also wanted an end to pork-barrel projects that benefitted certain congressional districts and bloated the overall budget. In comparison, Boehner has already offered us a glimpse into his agenda by coming out in opposition to the call for a ban on lobbying trips made by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). He has instead offered that congressmen disclose gifts that they receive from lobbyists. Boehner is certainly not looking to dramatically alter the current relationship between lobbyists and congressmen.
For their part, the Democrats have not done much better. Instead of addressing the real problems of the existing relationship between lobbyists and congressmen, they seek rather to blame Republicans for instituting "a culture of corruption." While it is undoubtedly true that the Abramoff scandal encompasses many more Republicans than Democrats, the Democrats aren't exactly clean either. According to the Center for Public Integrity, 88 Democrats along with 195 Republicans accepted political contributions from Abramoff's tribal clients.
However, Democrats have also suggested banning private trips and gifts from lobbyists. While the Democratic proposals are good first steps, they really don't attack the heart of the problem. Even without lavish gifts, congressmen will still be influenced and indebted to lobbyists through contributions to congressional campaigns. If congressmen rely on lobbyists to get elected, it is obvious that congressmen will be likely to try and repay the favor. To completely solve the problem of lobbyists' relationship with Congress, then, we need to engage in campaign finance reform.
Despite the McCain-Feingold bill, there is still far too much money involved in running for politics. The skyrocketing cost of running a political campaign allows for special interests to exert undue influence on the political process. The enormous sums of money required to run for office also prevents challengers from mounting any real opposition to incumbents. The existence of these "safe seats" allows incumbent candidates to transfer money to other candidates in tough races and deters overall accountability to constituents.
Moreover, while the McCain-Feingold bill succeeded in banning soft money, it was undermined by a loophole and an attached amendment that raised hard money limits.
Under the current law, individuals are allowed to donate $2,000 in hard money as opposed to $1,000 previously. Until the cap is lowered to a rate that average citizens can contribute to, the influence of wealthy individuals will continue to hold sway. The loophole in the ban on soft money is that corporations can be considered persons. Consequently, corporations are allowed to make hard money contributions in order to continue to influence the political process.
Another defect of the McCain-Feingold bill is that it fails to address the expensive radio and television advertisements necessary for winning an election. Since these political advertisements cost so much money, the candidate who has the most money gets the most public exposure and usually wins. To offset this disparity, there should be free radio and television advertising available to both candidates giving them equal time.
If reforms can be passed to prevent lobbyists from controlling legislators through donations, such as the institution of a low, hard cap on monetary donations, lobbyists would have to return to convincing legislators of their issues solely on the merit of their arguments. This means that congressmen will be less receptive to lobbyists and more responsible to their constituents. After all, American government is supposed to be for the people, not the corporations.
Sidman can be reached at mrsidman@amherst.edu