Love a Lobbyist

Paul Brown '86 is prepared for the funny looks at family reunions. After nearly a decade working for former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, Brown made the switch in 2001 from crazy hours and little pay to lobbying, a profession that he acknowledges sometimes gets a bad rap in Washington.

And at family gatherings. "They may look at me askew at first when I tell them what I'm doing for a living, but they know me and they're comfortable with who I am," he says.

The truth, Brown asserts, is that lobbyists are an essential and growing part of Washington politics, even in the face of tighter restrictions that have emerged in response to corruption scandals. Almost every industry and interest group, including churches and colleges, seeks out representation in the capital, he notes, because none can afford to ignore the regulatory and funding decisions that affect their future.

"You can't take lobbyists out of it and I don't think anyone ever will," says Brown. The question in Washington, he says, is not whether lobbyists should participate in the process but what their role should be. And that question has become more fraught, especially in the aftermath of the 2005-06 scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a host of public officials and businessmen with whom he dealt.*

From his days working in the Senate as an underpaid staffer, Brown can remember when dinners were often bought and sent in by outsiders and no one batted an eye. It was appreciated by workers on tight budgets. But gift restrictions passed by Congress in the 1990s curtailed what Brown calls the more "unrestrained Bacchanalian networking."

The most recent round of restrictions, instituted by the Obama administration, initially limited lobbyists' ability to meet with administration officials about stimulus and bank bail-out funding. Brown, who volunteered for Obama's campaign, says he understands why the restrictions were put in place—to assure the public that the funding was being allocated fairly—but the limitations on interactions, since loosened somewhat, caused some consternation in the lobbying community.

"There really is a balance to be struck between public confidence in government and the right to petition government so that policymakers understand the implications of what they're doing," says Brown. "Hopefully, we can help them strike that balance."

Gift rules can entail interpretations that border on silly, he feels. He cites the phrase "widely attended reception," which figured in some regulations a few years ago, leading to a "picayune distinction" between a sit-down meal and a reception where guests stand. Pondering what was in-bounds and what was forbidden, lobbyists found themselves thinking: "Presence of toothpicks in the food, then it's OK, and if there aren't chairs, then it's OK."

Everyone muddled through.

After two decades of working in D.C., Brown thinks some of the perceptions about lobbyists miss a key point: members of Congress do think for themselves.

"One of the myths that is perpetrated is that lobbyists have undue influence," he says, "but members of Congress act in their own enlightened self-interest. If you're a good lobbyist, you'll act in line with that self-interest [and the interest of] their constituents."

Lunches are still taken, drinks still grabbed, but ethical restrictions dictate that lobbyists and members of Congress, as well as their staffers, go Dutch. As a result, the locations chosen for confabs are more downscale than they used to be. "You have to find a place a Congressional staffer can afford to go," Brown says.

And that's really the only aspect of the tightened rules that truly stings. Brown notes the irony. "The gift ban restrictions have come at a time when the restaurant choices in Washington have gotten significantly better."

*Kenyon connection: The Abramoff scandal led to the resignation of Congressman Bob Ney, whose Ohio district included Gambier. Kenyon alumnus Zack Space '83 won the seat in 2006 and was re-elected in 2008.

Back to Top