This past Friday, lobbyists told the White House ethics chief that the ban forbidding administration officials from meeting lobbyists to discuss the stimulus plan violated their free speech. This ban is part of the March 20 White House memorandum. Lobbyists claim their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon as anyone that is not a registered lobbyist is allowed to discuss the plan with the officials. This is clearly specific discrimination of lobbyist views. Like content discrimination, the government singled out which views would not be allowed to be expressed.
Technically, lobbyists can still communicate with the officials, but they must not discuss specifically the stimulus plan and any contact they have with the officials must be documented in writing with the date and time and issues discussed. Lobbyists, according to this memorandum, shouldn't technically be talking to officials, and if they happen to they better not mention the stimulus plan and what they think of it.
One of Obama's campaign promises was to limit lobbyist influence in order to "restore faith in government." White House representative Ben LaBolt stated that, "The goal is full transparency." Ironically, shouts are now being heard that the government is taking away citizens' rights.
While this ruling clearly does single out one classification of people, it is from the perspective that it is for the public interest to reassure non-lobbyist citizens that stimulus decisions are not being made for the highest bidder. However, anyone that is not registered as a lobbyist can discuss whatever they wish with officials, still allowing for possible interference. It does seem kind of sad that, in order to prove to others that the government will not be swayed for reasons other than public interest, the government has to ban communication altogether as if the officials are not steadfast enough to stick to moral decision-making. Then again morality and politics haven't seemed to be synonymous for quite a while...
One could fail to see that lobbyist's are being inexplicably silenced. They can say whatever they wish in writing as long as they agree that it will be publicly accessible and lobbyists do have a history of bribery to influence legislation. Lobbyists generally have a negative reputation, as seen by the restrictions already placed on them such as the requirement to report activity within Maryland jurisdiction by the Maryland Senate. The reports concern events and gifts funded by registered lobbyists. However, oral speech is being strictly limited and monitored and the First Amendment has been repeatedly explained as a risk but one required for a free market of ideas. Prior restraint rings through the air as issues relevant to public interest are being silenced and more so if a lobbyist fears their opinion may touch too close to the line dividing "general Recovery act policy issues" and the issues concerning "particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding."
Further discrimination is addressed by the New York Times Article The Good Lobbyist published the day before lobbyists cornered the ethics chief. The Obama policy allows for occasional waivers. So, if an official does feel like discussing the stimulus plan orally with a lobbyist, this could be unrightfully allowed if Obama agrees with what this specific lobbyist has to say. While William Lynn, a lobbyist, was chosen for deputy secretary of defense, Tom Malinowski is refused the position for the administration's global human rights chief because of his being a registered lobbyist. Rightly stated by this article, it is a good thing that lobbyist relations are being limited, but such an incomplete ban is unconstitutional. The government has given itself the power to silence all but those they agree with.
The traditional job of lobbyists is to represent others when debating public policy. By silencing this group, those of self-interest have a greater opportunity to influence the decision-making process, an opinion expressed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Additionally, silencing lobbyists then silences all the people that they represent. Clearly this is in violation of the First Amendment rights of more than just the lobbyists. More negative influence on administrative decisions seems inevitable.
Great post. :) I just browsed the memo that you linked to. It seems like the intended spirit of this memo was that in order to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption, agents of the administration had to take special steps when dealing with lobbyists so that they would appear more "transparent."
ReplyDeleteI found it amusing when I saw how it was worded that the stimulus plan would improve access to health care but would NOT "fund projects for special interests." What if expanding health care WAS your special interest?
You are absolutely right that this is viewpoint discrimination, and it is ridiculous to think that prohibiting intelligent discussion of certain topics by penalty of termination will bring about wiser, more informed officials. Perhaps special interest groups took up a cause because they feel they have something worth fighting for? Maybe what they have to say is ACTUALLY worth listening to and worth consideration for funding?
I understand the motivation to put a policy in place saying "don't do anything that will make us look corrupt." But aren't there already policies in place to combat corruption? If not, then they should be invented and they should be GENERALLY APPLICABLE. Yes, I know it's administration policy and not legislation, but it doesn't matter, this is a silly way of going about doing things.
Unfortunately, technically, although the effect is to stifle the lobbyists' access, the wording is stifling the actions of employees of the administration. They're on the government's payroll, they can be forced to follow whatever stupid restrictions the gov wants to pass. The EFFECT, I agree, is really sketchy.
I loved your opening sentence that included “the press (whoever that may be...).” The press is certainly difficult, if not impossible, to define.
ReplyDeleteI did not know anything about a ban forbidding administration officials from meeting lobbyists to discuss the stimulus plan. At first glance, it does seem like a violation of free speech and maybe even content or viewpoint discrimination. Anyone who is not a registered lobbyist is allowed to discuss the plan with the officials. However, the issue goes back to the question of whether someone can choose to give up their rights. Can a person choose to give up part of their free speech rights by becoming a registering lobbyist? I do not know how a person goes about becoming a registered lobbyist, but I think the ban would be more constitutional if lobbyists had to consent to it in order to register. They would then be choosing to give something up. That then brings up the question of what happens to lobbyists who were already registered when the ban went into place.
You said that anyone who “is not registered as a lobbyist can discuss whatever they wish with officials, still allowing for possible interference.” However, this interference is less likely to be money-related. Some “interference” is necessary in order for administration officials to know what the public’s views are and to then make decisions for the public’s interest. The government is not “ban[ning] communication altogether” as you claimed—just communication that is likely to cause money-related interference. A neoliberal would see this as being in the interest of the public, but a libertarian would rather take the risk that comes with a marketplace of ideas.
As for the policy allowing for occasional waivers, I just that would be an example of the government "taking a view."