Are lobbyists really the problem?

I think it’s fair to say that there currently exists a widespread disappointment with Congress. I get it. And I’m especially disappointed since I share a party affiliation with the majority.

But with only two parties representing the melting pot of America and its rich overlapping cultural textures, there will always be various people and people groups disappointed with congressional outcomes. Such is life in a democracy. But is the process by which outcomes are made fair? Or is the integrity of our democracy at risk? For many, the answer to these questions increasingly is “No”.

When people argue that the “system is corrupt,” they often refer to lobbyists. I take issue with this and not because I admire the profession; rather, it’s because the argument can only be made from a position of naivety, and its impact is to delegitimize an outcome simply because it runs counter to an individual’s preferences.

Our culture has become quite vindictive of late, spewing loads of righteous indignation on this topic. For example, if our elected officials do something we don’t like, they obviously “caved to special interests” or are “in the pocket of lobbyists and corporations.” Sure, this has been true in some instances, but the guilty parties were held accountable. Maybe some have slipped through the cracks, but there’s no way for anyone removed from the situation to make a sensible call as to whether that’s true.

I suppose our human nature prods us to create villains though, so we blame the proverbial lobbyist or special interest. Scapegoating, in this way, doesn’t do us any favors but further entrenches policy goals into morality litmus tests, creating a right versus wrong mentality. In these instances, we should resist making moral determinations about proceedings we are not privy to.

Lobbyists are not the problem. Yes, I understand that God cursed the serpent too, but lobbyists don’t vote. Elected officials are the ones who vote. So if you don’t like the way they do it, elect someone else.

Think about it practically: Elected officials only have two options when voting – yea or nay. And, believe it or not, enough lobbyists have been hired to argue both sides of every issue. So no matter which way an elected official votes, the losing side can and almost always does argue that he or she caved to special interests without having a clue what actual deliberations went into the vote.

That aside, let’s say a lobbyist did convince an elected official to take a particular side. Why is that bad? Should we not win or lose policy battles on the premise of ideas? We should be grappling constantly with what is right and good. Lobbyists are simply a mouthpiece for those across the country wanting to convey their views on issues that are important to them. It’s democracy in action. Not everyone can leave work and travel to Washington in hopes to bend the ear of their congressman. But any organization or company can hire a lobbyist to take an argument to Congress on their behalf.

I realize my position assumes zero corruption. It’s true, I’m not a cynic. I acknowledge that wrongdoing occurs though, but we must rely on the laws that exist to weed out bad actors. Rarely do conspiracy theories solve a suspicion and strengthen democracy.

I would plea with anyone who, like me, finds themselves disappointed with congressional outcomes to resist blunt criticism of the mystical lobbyist, special interest, or corrupt system and instead articulate disappointment more carefully and on the grounds of sound policy concerns. Let’s be good losers and trust in people a bit more. If existing laws are insufficient, let’s fix them. But let’s not succumb to toxic cynicism that pits Americans against Americans.