Let’s Change How Washington Does Business

The lobbying scandals that have roiled Washington in the past year have amply demonstrated just how uneven the lobbying field is. Nonprofit groups that don’t have money or connections often lose out to business leaders and other wealthy people who can buy access to lawmakers. As a result, citizen groups often have far less ability to influence public policy than the nation’s business leaders.

Now that lobbyists and lawmakers are facing jail time and crushing financial penalties for their overly cozy relationships, it is possible that Congress will get serious about cleaning up the system and reducing the influence of big money. That would make an enormous difference to nonprofit groups trying to advance their missions, but so far very few organizations have spoken out about the need for change. What’s more, some nonprofit groups are opposing the relatively minor efforts now in the works to clean up the process.

Stemming the flood of money that passes hands and influences politics in Washington will be no easy task. At least $2.4-billion was spent on 2004 federal elections, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, an independent campaign-finance Web site. Lobbying expenditures jumped 34 percent from 2000 to 2004, from $1.6-billion to $2.1-billion, and that represents just the amount spent by lobbyists themselves, not the sums spent on efforts to stimulate grass-roots lobbying. Over the same time, the money that private interests paid for travel by members of Congress rose by 38 percent, from $2.5-million to $3.5-million.

Those figures ignore the gifts and the behind-the-scene deals that are now a common part of the influence-peddling system, including the donations that flow from corporations and wealthy donors to charities established or controlled by members of Congress or their senior staff members.

The connections are astonishing: Companies that run political fund-raising campaigns for an elected official get contracts from the charity; employees and family members of the elected official are put on the charity’s payroll; and charitable resources are directed to politically connected activities, such as paying for elected officials and others to take lavish trips.

Even when those charities do important and good work, questions of propriety often arise when members of Congress or their relatives control charitable organizations.

The DeLay Foundation for Children, started by the former House majority leader Tom DeLay and his wife, Christine, raised millions of dollars, including many gifts from people who were hoping to gain political sway with an influential member of Congress. Access to power was so critical to the foundation’s fund raising that when Mr. DeLay was forced to resign his leadership post over ethics questions, his wife told the columnist George F. Will that she was dismayed by the loss of the position “because it helps me to raise money for those kids,” referring to the foster-care program run by the DeLay Foundation.

The influence of money in politics is a major frustration for many nonprofit groups.

In focus groups that my organization, OMB Watch, conducted across the country, nonprofit leaders talked spontaneously and emotionally about how the “pay to play” system is stifling their advocacy voice, and said that charities are at a disadvantage because they are legally prohibited from making campaign contributions.

In every part of the country, nonprofit leaders said they felt the system was tilted against them in favor of powerful special interests. They bemoaned well-heeled lobbyists and the large sums of money that businesses spend trying to stimulate grass-roots support or opposition to policies pending in Congress, while nonprofit groups have only small sums available to rally other points of view.

Congress has begun discussing changes that would help make sure that nonprofit groups and businesses are playing by similar rules.

Fortunately, none of the bills being debated would restrict direct or grass-roots lobbying by any organization, including nonprofit groups. Congressional leaders recognize that lobbying is a First Amendment right that must be preserved and cherished.

But lawmakers do want to encourage lobbyists to disclose more about their supporters and their financing so that the public has a better understanding of who is paying for advocacy campaigns and which members of Congress are the targets. Most of the bills try to capture the big spenders, not everyone who conducts a lobbying campaign.

One big change being proposed is disclosure of grass-roots lobbying, which would uncover artificial grass-roots or “Astroturf” lobbying financed by powerful industries and their affiliated organizations. While charities already file reports on their grass-roots lobbying with the Internal Revenue Service, neither industry nor its lobbyists currently do so. Unscrupulous interests are thus able to misrepresent themselves to both the public and elected officials.

Here is how it works. An industry group, such as tobacco or pharmaceutical companies, gives money to a lobbying company. The lobbying company then gives some of the money to a nonprofit group, and does the work needed to generate phone calls, letters, and e-mail messages to Congress. Sometimes the lobbyists skip the step of using a legitimate nonprofit group and create coalitions that have innocuous names designed to sound like groups that do good works.

The lobbying company can be paid for every letter or call that is made to lawmakers, so it has an incentive to generate more and more.

You may have gotten one of those automated or live, tightly scripted phone calls that promised to quickly connect you to a member of Congress to complain about or support a bill. You were told that a particular bill would hurt or help people like you, but you weren’t told what companies were paying for the phone call. In fact, nothing about the money used to orchestrate such campaigns has to be disclosed.

Whether it is a tobacco company hiring a public-relations firm to mobilize editorial boards or a “seniors” organization financed by the drug industry to bankroll ads against the Medicare prescription-drug bill, such groups are currently spending millions to influence policies that affect our country and our lives, but little is known about them. Don’t you want to know about them? I sure do.

A bill now pending in the Senate would change this situation, requiring companies and other organizations to report how much they are spending on grass-roots lobbying and where that money is going.

Even though the disclosure requirements are aimed at large, well-bankrolled campaigns — an effort to kill them is gaining momentum.

For example, a coalition of conservative groups called Lobbysense has sent a letter to Congress opposing efforts to force more disclosure about the money behind grass-roots lobbying campaigns.

The American Civil Liberties Union also recently sent a letter protesting the grass-roots lobbying provision. Other liberal nonprofit groups, particularly those with political advocacy arms, may now have to disclose more information, so they are not happy with the proposals.

In the face of opposition from groups on both sides of the political spectrum, the fate of those requirements is uncertain.

Expanding disclosure rules is not a panacea. Special interests will always have more money to pay protesters or help finance campaigns, especially as nonprofit resources for advocacy become tighter. But requiring greater disclosure is likely to make it easier for many nonprofit groups to fight their opponents.

So why have nonprofit leaders who complain about the influence of special-interest money not seized the opportunity and advocated for these proposed changes?

Maybe it is that the legislation, until now, has moved with great speed and charities are confused about what has been proposed. Maybe because the proposals would impose nearly no new burden on charities, nonprofit groups have not paid much attention. It could also be that charities are overwhelmed by other priorities, not the least of which is the fight against budget cuts that so immediately threaten their work. Whatever the reason, now is a time when the nonprofit voice can have a significant and lasting influence.

If nonprofit groups do not advocate for greater disclosure now, the forces opposing change could prevail. As a result, charities would continue to face stiffer disclosure rules than businesses and other types of organizations. The role of unseen money will continue to shape our nation’s policy decisions, and nonprofit groups will continue to gripe about the unfairness of the system.

While pressing for greater disclosure is important, nonprofit groups should also take advantage of the changing mood in Washington and press for an end to the system that allows charities to be used as conduits for politicians.

Congress should prohibit politicians, their spouses, and their employees from receiving money from charities they create; individuals and companies that have ties to the lawmaker’s political-action committee should not benefit from the charities either. Additionally, those charities should not pay for a politician to travel to or from political fund-raising events, even if the trip will also involve some charitable work.

Greater disclosure, and stiffer rules on charities started by politicians, should be the beginning of a serious effort to get rid of a public-policy system that is biased in favor of money and friendships. It must be complemented with stronger efforts to enforce campaign-finance laws and other changes, such as allowing lawmakers to earmark money for special projects — often those supported by lobbyists who help steer campaign gifts to members of Congress.

That nonprofit groups have already started opposing these relatively small-scale changes is not a good sign. Charities are supposed to protect the public interest, and should thus support measures that would expose special interests that purport to speak for the people.

Gary D. Bass is executive director of OMB Watch, a government-watchdog organization in Washington.