"Lobbyist" is not necessarily a four letter word
Almost all media and almost all in normal conversation throw around the word "lobbyist" as if they are describing some con artist or near criminal that has a main goal of subverting the government. That description aptly depicts some lobbyists, especially those back slapping ex-lawmakers who ask their former pals for favors or hold out better jobs and paydays in exchange for support for some change in or new legislation.
That's only part of the picture. Many lobbyists are simply gatekeepers to the intelligence of their organizations. My example, based on a financial background, is the publicity about modifications to the well intentioned but heavily flawed Dodd/Frank bill. It is a certainty that this example could apply to issues in many other industries.
Recent polls have at times showed a 9% approval rating of Congress by the American people. It could hardly be lower now and could be somewhat higher, not important. The important question is how many members of Congress, especially in the House, could actually explain in coherent terms what a derivative is and what its redeeming values are if they are sensibly regulated and not abused. How many members of Congress could explain how legitimate mortgage or other securitizations are structured and how valuable they are if not allowed to be abused.
A good guess would be less than 50%, and that is probably optimistic, maybe wildly so. The majority rely on staff members who are chosen based as much on their political savvy as their knowledge, and they are often charged with the task of coming up with research that supports their bosses opinions. I should note that some of the congressional staffers are brilliant hard workers but it is highly likely that few have worked in the real guts of capital markets financial services. So what we have is voting members of Congress many of whom have little understanding of the issues that are being advised by their staffs that have been chosen for their political agenda and willingness to deliver research that is tainted, sometimes despite their intelligence.
As I said, many lobbyists are gatekeepers who valet their experts to Washington to try to better explain the issues to these research staffs, and sometimes even to the lawmakers themselves. You get my point.
One short example and this rant will end. President Obama recently berated the banks for not lending enough to those who needed mortgages or to small businesses with start up or expansion needs. At the same time, Dodd/Frank proposals could limit the securitization markets so severely that banks would need to hold much of their "new" lending on their balance sheets. Obama administration regulators are strict and inflexible on capital levels, and international capital level requirements are rising. There is now even talk about requiring so called "too big to fail banks" to have much higher capital levels than smaller banks. Many banks are lending and would want to lend more, but with uncertain capital rules they have limited capacity and must choose only the most creditworthy borrowers and may not even be able to accomodate all of them.
Does Obama even understand this dilemma. Does he even care and just want to score political points?
The constructive lobbyists, those called here the educators, can and do serve a valuable purpose. The back slappers, steak house supporters, most ex-congressmen who exploit old relationships, and those who imply payback in the future should be run out of town. They do not represent what the many "constructive" lobbyists are working to accomplish.
This of course is just a post that is contrary to easy popular opinion, so dismiss it if you choose. It's right though. To repeat, many "lobbyists" serve a valuable role as educators of a highly obstinate and at times ignorant Congress.
That's only part of the picture. Many lobbyists are simply gatekeepers to the intelligence of their organizations. My example, based on a financial background, is the publicity about modifications to the well intentioned but heavily flawed Dodd/Frank bill. It is a certainty that this example could apply to issues in many other industries.
Recent polls have at times showed a 9% approval rating of Congress by the American people. It could hardly be lower now and could be somewhat higher, not important. The important question is how many members of Congress, especially in the House, could actually explain in coherent terms what a derivative is and what its redeeming values are if they are sensibly regulated and not abused. How many members of Congress could explain how legitimate mortgage or other securitizations are structured and how valuable they are if not allowed to be abused.
A good guess would be less than 50%, and that is probably optimistic, maybe wildly so. The majority rely on staff members who are chosen based as much on their political savvy as their knowledge, and they are often charged with the task of coming up with research that supports their bosses opinions. I should note that some of the congressional staffers are brilliant hard workers but it is highly likely that few have worked in the real guts of capital markets financial services. So what we have is voting members of Congress many of whom have little understanding of the issues that are being advised by their staffs that have been chosen for their political agenda and willingness to deliver research that is tainted, sometimes despite their intelligence.
As I said, many lobbyists are gatekeepers who valet their experts to Washington to try to better explain the issues to these research staffs, and sometimes even to the lawmakers themselves. You get my point.
One short example and this rant will end. President Obama recently berated the banks for not lending enough to those who needed mortgages or to small businesses with start up or expansion needs. At the same time, Dodd/Frank proposals could limit the securitization markets so severely that banks would need to hold much of their "new" lending on their balance sheets. Obama administration regulators are strict and inflexible on capital levels, and international capital level requirements are rising. There is now even talk about requiring so called "too big to fail banks" to have much higher capital levels than smaller banks. Many banks are lending and would want to lend more, but with uncertain capital rules they have limited capacity and must choose only the most creditworthy borrowers and may not even be able to accomodate all of them.
Does Obama even understand this dilemma. Does he even care and just want to score political points?
The constructive lobbyists, those called here the educators, can and do serve a valuable purpose. The back slappers, steak house supporters, most ex-congressmen who exploit old relationships, and those who imply payback in the future should be run out of town. They do not represent what the many "constructive" lobbyists are working to accomplish.
This of course is just a post that is contrary to easy popular opinion, so dismiss it if you choose. It's right though. To repeat, many "lobbyists" serve a valuable role as educators of a highly obstinate and at times ignorant Congress.
posted by John Borden at 3:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home