Lobbyists Pretend Not To Be Lobbyists

Lobbyists Pretend Not To Be Lobbyists

K Street NW street sign with DC flag and "EVACUATION ROUTE" markings, at the northwest corner of Farragut Square. 12 February 2011. By Ben Schumin (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
K Street NW street sign with DC flag and “EVACUATION ROUTE” markings, at the northwest corner of Farragut Square. 12 February 2011. By Ben Schumin (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

(Almost) Nobody loves a lobbyist.

Corporate lobbyists, who cluster around K Street in Washington, D.C. are approximately as popular as the bubonic plague among Americans. That is, except for the miniscule minority of people who send them to Washington to buy off politicians with potential campaign contributions.

Ok, that might be a little polemic, but you get the picture. In 2011, a Gallup poll found that seven in ten Americans thought that lobbyists had too much influence.

Yes, lobbyists as a group have a huge popularity deficit. And the profession has taken notice of that.

Just put a new label on it, and we’re good to go!

Case in point: In what can only be called a clever public relations maneuver, the umbrella organization of lobbyists in the US is changing its name due to the unpopular image of the profession, as Politico reports.

The American League of Lobbyists will vote to adopt a new name, the Association of Government Relations Professionals.

‘Government relations professionals’ sounds less like ‘lobbyists,’ at least it does not contain the word ‘lobbyist.’ But the general business of this group of professionals in Washington will hardly change because it has a brand new shiny label attached to it.

Will people fall for it? That remains to be seen. But it is quite obvious that after Citizens United (2010) and with the upcoming McCutcheon Supreme Court case on the horizon, corporations and wealthy individuals are working harder than ever to subvert American democracy by funding (re-)election campaigns or sponsoring primary challengers to politicians not working (enough) in their favor.

The Atlantic Compares US And German Electoral Politics In Light Of The 2013 German Elections

The Atlantic Compares US And German Electoral Politics In Light Of The 2013 German Elections

Germany’s 2013 federal elections are over, Angela Merkel will get a third term as chancellor, and there will probably a “grand coalition” between her Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. “No experiments” seems to have been be the mindset of large swathes of the German electorate. There was no “hope” and “change” as in the 2008 Obama campaign in the US, although many, including myself, would argue that there has been less change and more continuity from the Bush administration in many ways.

The Atlantic has a fascinating article by Olga Khazan titled “Why Germany’s Politics Are Much Saner, Cheaper, and Nicer Than Ours.” The piece compares electoral politics in the US and Germany. It is largely sympathetic towards how elections are conducted in Germany.

Whether American electoral politics are better or worse than Germany’s is, of course, a matter of opinion. But here are some interesting findings from the article that put elections in both countries into perspective:

Some notable facts about elections in Germany:

No aggressive negative campaigns, few ads:

  • Attack ads are a rarity on German TV.

Here in Leipzig, I saw several campaign posters that featured negative messages. Nonetheless, these were relatively mild compared to your typical negative ad in the US. You would not see something portraying the other party’s candidate as sympathizing with terrorists, freeing dangerous criminals, or wanting to kill your grandmother.

  • There is one 90-second ad per party per election. Ads are aired on the public TV channels and the frequency depends on the last election’s number of votes. In comparison, Obama and Romney each spent over $ 400 million on TV ads, primarily negative ads, during the 2012 campaign season.

Lower cost and shorter duration of elections:

  • The campaign of Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), including all parliamentary races, cost 20 to 30 million euros combined. From an American perspective, that is a real bargain. Buying a Campaigning for a US Senate seat costs about $ 10.5 million (per seat!). Obama’s 2012 reelection alone cost $ 700 million—and that is without funds from PACs, a legal construct unknown in Germany.
  • However, there are no legal limits on campaign donations by individuals and corporations in Germany.
  • Elections in Germany officially last just six weeks. That is almost nothing, compared to two years of campaigning in the US, where there are party primaries.

Less Big Data, TV, and ideological purity of parties

  • Up to a third of German voters are undecided until shortly before the election.
  • There is no microtargeting of voters as in recent big-data-driven US campaigns. This probably has to do with German citizens’ history-based  (think Gestapo, Stasi) uneasiness about extensive data collection.
  • The first US-style TV debate between the candidates of the big parties in Germany happened in 2002. As the German parliamentary system is no winner-take-all system, the reluctance of polarization between two candidates of two parties seems understandable.
  • Among the big German parties, Merkel’s CDU and the Social Democrats (SPD) (“Volksparteien”), there is no lock-step adherence to certain policy positions [except maybe for the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism], as is arguably the case in the US with the social wedge issues of the Culture War. Part of Chancellor Merkel’s success has been “stealing” issues from the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party, most notably the decision to do a 180-degrees-turnaround on nuclear energy after the Fukushima catastrophy in Japan.
  • In the German parliamentary system, there are several relevant “third parties,” as they would be called in the US.

Among these are the libertarian Free Democratic Party (FDP)—even though they missed the 5 percent barrier for entering the Bundestag for the first time in sixty-four years in 2013, the Green Party, and the Left Party (Die LINKE). Within the German party landscape, Khazan holds, fringe political forces cannot capture political parties, as is arguably the case with the American GOP, under the influence of the Christian Right and Tea Party libertarians.

As the article argues, the German parliamentary system “seems to encourage consensus” rather than extreme polarization.

The reason for a broad support of this “pragmatism” among the German electorate, Khazan continues, is a weariness about extreme partisan politics in light of a history that included authoritarian monarchy, Nazism, and Communism during the Cold War in the GDR.

Please check out Olga Khazan’s article. It is really worth reading.