One reason why the role of professional lobbyists has been controversial is due to scandals which have revealed mass corruption in the profession. Many have vocalised concerns over favours been used by lobbyists to build relationships with congressmen and bribe them to do their will in congress. This has been controversial as it creates an elitist system where less wealthy pressure groups are competing with those with million dollars a year to spend on lobbying. Likewise, often the voices of those that are actually being represented are lost under the noise of the big business men who have their own agendas. Between 2008 and 2010 large companies spent 476 million dollars on lobbying and in return saved 11 Billion in tax and so we see that there are financial benefits that drive these lobbyists not just their obligation to representation. The Jack Abramoff scandal in 2005 cast light upon this issue and angered many Americans as the lobbyists vastly ripped off their client charging Native American tribes 85 million in fees and then secretly splitting the profits themselves. Abramoff admitted in an interview to hiring people with their only job to book concert and sports tickets in the best seats to be used to bribe congressmen. We see then that lobbyists prove controversial through their corruption of the system and the way that many have been seen to bribe and offer favours in return for votes or support for legislation, often for their own profit and not in reality to help their clients. Arguably however, it would be unfair to taint all lobbyists with the same brush. Groups such as RESULTS use methods such as educational reports and letters to influence congressmen instead of bribes and favours. Arguably, groups such as these are less controversial.
Another reason why professional lobbyists are controversial is due to the revolving door. Many ex congressmen have been seen to become lobbyists after their terms end. This is controversial as it means many lobbyists already have firm relationships with other congressmen who they have worked with previously, and can arguably use their inside knowledge to an unfair advantage. Arguably it reduces not only the public trust in lobbyists but of Senates and members of the house as it leads them to speculate as to what deals and favours are being pulled in behind closed doors. A Gallup poll actually showed that only 6% of Americans trust lobbyists, a statistic below the majority of listed professions including nurses, lawyers and even car dealers. John Boehner for example, former speaker of the house is now employed by Squire Patton Boggs lobbying firm and Miller Jeff B by McDermott, Will & Emery. These were among 12 members of the 114* congress who have joined the lobbying industry out of the 19 who have already found new employment. Many have found these new appointments controversial but arguably, their expertise is extremely valuable to these firms and clients and does not merit the controversy it receives. Indeed, ex-Senators are required to take a 2 year ‘cooling off’ period so as to stop lobbyists using valuable information to blackmail and bribe congressmen.
Finally, lobbying has been deemed controversial due to the huge concentration of power in the business elite. Pharmaceutical companies for example, such as PHARMA are the highest paying industry for lobbying spending an estimated 2.5 billion in a decade. In fact, in 2003 thus companies were so influential they were practically able to write some legislation themselves, preventing federal government from seeking bids for the manufacture of drugs and medical devices. As a result, American pharmaceutical companies could charge whatever they liked for Medicare and Medicaid and government would have little choice other than to pay. Nine out of 10 members of the House of Representatives and all but three of the US’s 100 senators have taken campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies seeking to affect legislation on everything from the cost of drugs to how new medicines are approved. We see then that like these pharmaceutical companies, groups with mass funding and donations can spend more on lobbying and can easily manipulate the system. Less established groups, or groups with fewer donations like patient advocacy groups in this case then are at an unfair advantage and are unable to compete and represent their members on a level playing field. Consequently, the elitism that can occur in the lobbying industry has again made the profession controversial as minority or less wealthy groups in society do not have the same influence in congress as they arguably should.
