Summary: March 23, 2001

Forum Day 5: Choice #2: Rein in Lobbyists and Politicians.

Having focused for two days on Choice #1, forum participants turned their attention to Choice #2. This choice maintains that campaign finance reform would just divert more special interest money to lobbying and contends that lobbying is where money has its most corrupting influence on politics. It therefore calls for reforms such: restrictions on lobbyists' employment, gifts, private meetings with politicians, and for expanding the use of recall votes and ballot measures (voter initiatives and referenda). As with Choice #1, the forum moderator asked participants to look at Choice #2 "from a wide range of perspectives" and to share what they find in this choice that addresses their concerns, but also what aspects of this choice they find worrisome.

Since this first day of deliberation about Choice #2 was a Friday, and the second day of deliberation would not be until Monday, some postings continued over the weekend. By late Sunday (Eastern Time) 114 of the over 200 registered forum participants had contributed at least one posting since the beginning of the forum.

Although there was some continued discussion about Choice #1, most of the conversation focused on lobbyists, ballot measures and voter recall of elected officials. Some of the dilemmas or "tensions" that emerged repeatedly were:

• Although money has corrupted some parts of the system such as lobbying, ballot initiatives, and referenda, these were well intentioned to begin with and can continue to play useful roles-participants don't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater"
• There is a conviction that strengthening the democratic nature of politics and increasing public engagement is to be desired, but there is also concern that too easily by-passing representative government can (and does) have undesirable and unintended consequences
• Reversing public apathy and disengagement might "naturally" counterbalance the bad effects of money on politics, but there is also a recognition that the system is complex, "veiled in procedure", and that being well-informed and engaged can be a "massive job"

Some things about Choice #2 that participants found appealing:

• Some restrictions on lobbyists' involvement with gifts, private meetings, and directly drafting legislation-could be beneficial
• Longer waiting periods between leaving elected office and becoming a paid lobbyist might be a good idea
• Reducing the money in lobbying would help to keep lobbyists from "shoving in line in front" of ordinary citizens who also want to be heard
• The type of direct-democracy afforded by ballot measures (initiatives and referenda) would produce better results if citizens could deliberate together and be well informed before voting
• Ballot measures were well-intentioned to begin with and can work as a "two-by-four between the eyes" to remind politicians that they are "our servants and not our masters"
• Recall of elected officials should be available but used cautiously

At the same time participants worried that:

• Lobbyists may not be the real problem; but the intrusion of money into lobbying is
• Lobbying is an important and time-honored way for groups and individuals to inform and persuade elected officials-we shouldn't be too restrictive
• Professional lobbyists work full time to stay knowledgeable-too much restriction would deny elected officials of this expertise
• Ballot measures are too often co-opted by "sham grassroots" organizations that are really wealthy special interest groups
• The people who vote on ballot measures are too few and too uninformed to ensure the best outcome for the public
• Ballot measures by-pass representative government, leaving no one accountable for the results
• Recall votes may make it too easy to "fire" a good legislator over a single issue or justifiable change of position
• Overuse of recall votes could have a "destabilizing effect on government" as seen in other countries
• When money is restricted in one area (campaign finance reform or lobbying) it just shifts to the other

Some participants identified trade-offs that might be made:

• Giving influence to lobbyists in order to benefit from their knowledge and experience
• Tolerating special interest lobbying in order to maintain personal right to lobby
• Giving up some direct-democracy in return for more stability of the system
• Investing personal time and energy in order to be heard and be publicly engaged
• Letting legislators "make mistakes and change in response to new information" so they can get better at their jobs

The intent of each day's summary is to capture the essence of the conversation. It is for the benefit of participants and for others who may be observing the forum, or may be interested in the topic, or in the process. Comments on the summaries, as well as on any aspect of the forum, are as always, more than welcome.

Patty Dineen
Online Forum Reporter, March 25, 2001