at aff

8/9/2019 at aff

1/9

AT AFF

AT: Abramoff Bad

1) What Abramoff did was illegal its not inherent to LobbyingCapital Eye Blog, September 15, 2009

Lack of enforcement, however, muddles full disclosure, as well as other lobbying rules, said Jim Thurber, head of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. Panelists pointed out that

The reforms the Abramoff scandal spurred were largely unnecessary -- what Abramoff did wasalready illegal. Instead of more rules, the government needed to enforce those laws that alreadyexisted.

2) Abramoff was a terrible lobbyistNick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and theCompetition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

According to Boggs,The media dubbed Jack Abramoff a Super Lobbyist. This characterization is incorrect andunfortunate. Unlike the vast majority of law abiding and ethical lobbyists, Abramoff deliveredvery little for his clients. Rather he was guilty of lying, cheating, and stealing from his clients.He was not a lobbyist, but rather a con artist who abused a system that on the whole functionspretty well. Jack Abramoff and others like him are lazy lobbyists, trying to buy influence rather than being willing to work hard on behalf of their clients. Goodlobbyists are not successful because they buy favors, they are successful because they know thesystem and provide expertise. Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., Remarks at the Patton Boggs LLP Post Election Forum (Nov. 9, 2006)
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

8/9/2019 at aff

2/9

AT AFF

A2T: Junkets/Company Paid For Trips

Company paid--for trips have dramatically declined

Congressional Quarterly Today, September 14, 2009, p. online

Lawmaker trips sponsored by outside groups have decreased by 56 percent since the ethics andlobbying overhaul law was enacted exactly two years ago, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of congressional travel. Morethan 2,300 former sponsors of lawmaker trips, including many corporations, government contractors and other groups that lobby, havestopped paying for such travel. Meanwhile, the average amount of money still spent on lawmaker-related travel by outside groups has dropped from $250,000 amonth to $110,000 a month. "This is a sign that the law is working as intended ... It takes most of the influence peddling out o f these trips," said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, one of the

watchdog groups that pushed for tougher ethics restrictions on lawmakers and lobbyists.

8/9/2019 at aff

3/9

AT AFF

AT: Lots of Lobbying Scandals

1) There are very few scandals relative to the total number of lobbyists

Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and theCompetition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

The cacophony of bad news drowns out the fact that the crooked lobbyists are deviant outliers who hardly represent thenorm. Each of these scandals is, in a sense, an extreme example which should remind us that thepublic policy process is usually above board and honest. In Washington, D.C. alone there are approximately 85,000 attorneys, a large number of whomengage, to varying degrees, in public policy. At this writing, there were 35,844 registered lobbyists [in DC].Exceedingly few of these men and women would even contemplate breaking an ethical rule ortolerate anyone who does. The public policy work of these professionals rarely is noted by the press, and when it is, it is not because they had an ethical lapse.Those headlined for breaking the rules were caught and punished, and they did not prevail inbending the law and policy their way. The bad guys not only violated public trust, but shortchanged those clients who were nave enough to try to buyoutcomes, because they did not, and in fact could not, deliver. The scandals we all read about were essentially political Ponzi schemes that collapsed,inevitably, under their own weight.

8/9/2019 at aff

4/9

AT AFF

AT: Lobbyists Just Buy Washington

1) (this can be made easily as an analytic) If Washington were easily bought,

lobbyists wouldnt be neededNick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an HonorableProfession: The Right to Petition and the Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

Consequently, there is a great deal of myth and misperception about what public policy advocacy entails and the important role it plays in the democratic process. The simpletruth is that our government cannot be bought. If it were that easyif all it took to prevail was to a buy afew steaks, sponsor a golf trip, or make campaign contributions then anyone could do it, andthere would be no reason to hire a professional lobbyist to argue your case before lawmakers or to help you navigate through theprocedural and political labyrinth. People working in Congress and the Executive Branch are honest and dedicated. They are also attuned to political constituencies. Even if they are tempted toignore ethics rules, those who ignore the public interest (and their political self- interest) do so at the peril of their careers. Public policy advocates are also, with few exceptions, diligent andhonest. Writing from the perspective of lawyer policy advocates who practice in law firms, this author has an even easier case to make than lobbyists who do not because lawyers thrive oncompliance with rules, and must adhere to their own professional standards and canons of ethics. Like the Kosher hot dog company, lawyer lobbyists must answer to a higher authority.

8/9/2019 at aff

5/9

AT AFF

AT: Lobbyists Lie

1) Lobbyists reputation will collapse if they do not provide full and accurate

informationNick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and theCompetition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

Third, part and parcel of persuasion on the merits is the advocates reputation and credibility. As explained by my colleague Darryl Nirenberg, who held several senior staff positions in the

United States Senate: [L]obbying is by necessity honorable, because a lobbyist is only as good as hisreputation. A reputation is built by being forthcoming and honest. If you dont provide the fullstory or all the information, not only will you not be trusted, but your reputation will reflect this.And then doing your job will become impossible.

2) Lobbyists who lie are ignored

Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and theCompetition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

Nirenbergs insight is confirmed on many fronts. Bryce Harlow, the unofficial dean of Washington corporate representation until his retirement in 1978, put it this way: The coin of lobbying,as of politics, is trust . . . truth telling and square dealing are of paramount importance in this profession. If [one] lies, misrepresents, or even lets a misapprehension stand uncorrectedor ifsomeone cuts his corners too slylyhe is... dead and gone, never to be resurrected or even mourned. Gross explains that to be a credible lobbyist in Washington, D.C., you have to providecredible, valuable information. You just dont go in there with a couple cigars and a glass of bourbon and schmooze. Thats not the way you get your reputation in this town. The Policy

Councils data confirm the point. In [a] its 2007 survey, which included 273 congressional staff personnel, eighty-six percent of respondents pointed to the importance of consistently providing reliableinformation when asked to identify the tactics of the best lobbyistsmaking credibility thesingle most important tactic. According to the survey, the most effective lobbyists are those whoprovide credible information in a concise fashion and who also present and address the opposingview.

3) Lobbyists have an incentive not to lieDorie Apollonio, Bruce E. Cain, and Lee Drutmanmm, political science professor, pharmacy professor, PHdCandidate in Political Science, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Fall, 2008, Access and Lobbying: LookingBeyond the Corruption Paradigm, p. 30

In general, political scientists who study the role of information in lobbying seem mostly sanguine about the consequences. They find that lobbyists cannot afford tomisrepresent evidence because they know that their reputation for honesty is their most preciousasset. As a result, lobbyists often act as "information service bureaus" for policymakers, servingin effect as an extension of research staff. And even if lobbyists do at times exaggerate theirclaims, policymakers and staff are generally capable of filtering attempts to deceive them.
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

8/9/2019 at aff

6/9

AT AFF

AT: Lobbyists Buy Support With Gifts

Giving gifts can actually hurt you because politicians want to avoid perceptions of

improprietyNick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right toPetition and the Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

The dirty little secret is that money buys you less than it would appear and less than many politicians wouldlead you to believe. Candidates are caught in an excruciating dilemma, in which they must convey to contributors that theircontributions are worthwhile, yet refrain from acting or exercising their official duties because of contributions.Indeed, often members of Congress will bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of aconflict or quid pro quo. Thus, contributions can become the gift that keeps on taking. It costsyou when you give, and it costs you when an official will not take up your cause in order to

avoid even the appearance of being influenced by money.
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdfhttp://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

8/9/2019 at aff

7/9

AT AFF

AT: Campaign Contributions Are Bribery/Affect voting

No evidence that campaign contributions buy legislative votes

Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and the

Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

A variety of popular economic theories view politics as a market where lawmakers sell policy outcomes in exchange for campaign contributions.Though there arevarious models in the literature, the basic assumptions predict something like quid quo pro bribery. See generally Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman,Special Interest Politics (2001); Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, Protection for Sale, 84 Am. Econ. Rev. 833 (1994).empirical studies, however, have notbeen able to establish any consistent correlation between campaign contributions and politicaloutcomes. See generally.After examining almost forty scholarly articles attempting to find the correlation between money and politics between 1976 and 2002, Ansolabehere et al.conclude that "overall, PAC contributions show relatively few effects on voting behavior. In three outof four instances, campaign contributions had no statistically significant effects on legislation orhad the "wrong' sign - suggesting that more contributions lead to less support." Similarly, Baumgartner and Leechnote that "the unavoidable conclusion is that PACs and direct lobbying sometimes strongly influence Congressional voting, sometimes have marginal influence, and sometimes fail to exert

influence."

8/9/2019 at aff

8/9

AT AFF

AT Health care

Both Sides Of The Health Care Debate Were Loaded With Lobbyists.

Seelye in 2010, Katherine Q. Seelye [Political Reporter]. Pro or Con, Lobbying Thrived. NewYork TimesPrescriptions Blog. January 30, 2010.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/pro

or

con

lobbying

thrived/. AccessedFebruary 1, 2010.

Clearly, lobbying has been a major factor in the fate of the health care overhaul, which suddenlyslid from the top of the presidents domestic agenda last year to an alsoran in a new year inwhich he wants to focus on producing jobs. Whether anything will pass is now in doubt. Butwhat the president did not mention in his address was that many of those lobbyists actuallyworked to support his health care overhaul, not oppose it. Health care and insurance lobbyistsspent more than $648 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, whichtracks the influence of money on elections and policy. That figure is not final; the center has notbeen able to process about 20 percent of the yearend lobbying reports. But even the incomplete

tally shows that the money spent last year on health care dwarfs the amount spent on any othersingle issue in a single year. Its the most money ever spent by a business sector for federallobbying, said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center. The lobbying reports do not breakdown whether an interest group works for or against an issue. But Mr. Obama, who wants anoverhaul to provide insurance to almost everyone and curtail abuses by the health insuranceindustry, had some powerful interests on his side. The 800pound gorilla in favor of an overhaulwas the pharmaceutical industry, which struck a deal with the White House that would protect itsprofits for years to come. Drug companies spent more than $245 million on lobbying last year(Pfizer, for example, chipped in $22 million) more than any other single industry has everspent on lobbying on behalf of any issue, and by far the most that any group spent last year onhealth care. To put that figure in perspective, it is about $90 million more than the oil and gas

industry spent on lobbying last year. In addition to the $648 million that all sides spent lobbyingon health care, they also poured $210 million into television advertising, according to EvanTracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks televisioncommercials. The television spending on health care also set a record for a single issue in asingle calendar year, Mr. Tracey said.

8/9/2019 at aff

9/9

AT AFF

AT Earmarks

1) Earmark concerns should be minor.

Mann in 2009, Thomas E. Mann [Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings

Institution]. "Put Earmarks in Perspective."Politico. March 6, 2009.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19673.html. Accessed February 2, 2010.

Earmarks constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget [and mostly] In most cases, they dont add to federalexpenditures but merely allow Congress to direct a small fraction of program funding that would otherwise beallocated by formula or grant competition. Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending and budget deficits.While earmark reform and reduction is a worthy cause, it is a relatively minor [cause] one. It would do nothing to slow the rate offederal spending or improve our longterm budget outlook. Moreover, hyperbolic attacks on earmarks do a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention andenergy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face in the months and years ahead.

at aff

Documents

Transcript of at aff