Auction House

Politics | With earmarks exploding in number, the relationships between lobbyists and politicians grow increasingly cozy

Issue: "Iraq and terrorism," Nov. 11, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Journalists filling the District Court's Room 14 in Washington last month were in a jovial mood while waiting for the arrival of U.S. Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio). Two joked about how Ney had denied allegations of influence peddling for a year before breaking down. Now they chuckled, "Oh, yeah, he's disgraced." Ney, despite puffy eyes from a month of treatment for alcoholism, looked like a man untroubled by conscience.

After Ney's swearing-in, Judge Ellen Huvelle read through the details of the offenses. Had he accepted campaign contributions, meals, game tickets, trips, and gambling chips (worth tens of thousands of dollars) in exchange for amending legislation, inserting statements in the Congressional Record, and pushing a multimillion-dollar wireless contract with the House of Representatives, all on behalf of convicted ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients? Did he then try to cover it up? "Yes, your honor," Ney said calmly after each. How did he plead? "I plead guilty, your honor." He will be sentenced Jan. 19. Prosecutors have asked for a 27-month sentence.

Ney's sentencing is the latest in a series of lobbying scandals that have rocked Washington in the past year. The headline-makers are explicit "quid pro quo" agreements of the type to which Ney confessed, but the Capitol's political environment encourages subtler exchanges of favors and access, money and influence.

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

Critics call it a "culture of corruption," but David Dean, president of the Dallas-based lobby firm Dean International, Inc., argues that lobbying has a legitimate and necessary role in government. He says that the vast majority of lobbyists are honest, rule-abiding people exercising a constitutional right to petition elected legislators on behalf of themselves or their clients. People like Abramoff, Ney, and Rep. William Jefferson (the Louisiana Democrat videotaped taking $100,000 in bribe money from an FBI informant; authorities later found $90,000 in marked bills hidden in his freezer) are now the exception, he says.

That's true in terms of money obviously changing hands, since few lobbyists now fork over dollar-stuffed envelopes; instead, they "build relationships" with members of Congress and their staffs. That way, according to one lobbyist for a financial services trade association to whom WORLD granted anonymity so that her job would not be jeopardized, "in the clutch you can get your phone calls returned." She insists the job can be done ethically but admits it's like walking an ethical tightrope: "At some point, the Abramoffs of the world started off doing what I'm doing. Where did they cross over?"

"Building relationships," for most lobbyists, means taking staffers or legislators to lunch occasionally (the congressional gift limit for staffers and members, including dining, is $50 per year in any specific relationship) and socializing in the evenings. But don't minimize the importance of money: Even though the most any individual lobbyist can contribute to a single candidate is $5,000 in the primary and another $5,000 in the general election, lobbyists with good connections can generate major dollars by organizing fundraisers and inviting fellow lobbyists. In 2003 and 2004 Ney raised $1.44 million, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, with over $800,000 coming from political action committees (PACs) that lobbying groups often set up to funnel contributions to preferred candidates.

Ney and California congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (now serving eight years for helping to steer $70 million in classified federal contracts to favored defense contractors) did much of their payoff work through "earmarks." Those are the provisions members of Congress insert anonymously into federal legislation to direct tax dollars to specific projects or contracts, bypassing scrutiny in the regular legislative or budgetary review process. Many have little to do with the purpose of the legislation in which they appear.

Some lobbyists focus primarily on social issues, and where little money is at stake significant corruption seems unlikely. But the number of big-bucks earmarks has exploded in the last 25 years, generating huge payoffs for lobbyists and their clients. The 1982 Highway Reauthorization Bill, explains Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation, had 10 earmarks. The 1987 bill had 152; President Ronald Reagan vetoed it and received on Capitol Hill a standing ovation from the lawmakers who sent it to him. The $286 billion transportation bill in 2005, which President George Bush declined to veto, included 6,371 earmarks with a total value of $24 billion.

The total number of federal earmarks almost quadrupled between 1994 and 2005-reaching about 16,000 last year, out of 35,000 submitted by lawmakers-according to the Congressional Research Service. Which earmarks make it into law depends on the political status of the requesting lawmaker, the nature of the earmark, and other political factors. House and Senate leaders consider which members of their own party need a campaign boost back home, and sometimes use earmarks to persuade opponents to support particular bills.


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Troubling ties

    Under the Clinton State Department, influence from big money…