Lobbying and Hypocrisy

After (rightfully) harping on the corruption of Republicans and their ties to Jack Abramoff and other shady lobbyists, Democratic leaders in Congress faltered when it came time to take action on their anti-lobbyist rhetoric. Reform of the corrupt lobbying system in Washington was central to the campaign promises offered by Democrats, and doubtless helped them win majorities in the Senate and House. While they have followed through on some of the points in their "100 Hours" plan for reform, they have suddenly become less enthusiastic about increasing transparency in lobbying -- no doubt largely because they now stand to gain much more from corrupt lobbyists as the majority party.

Conservative pundits are merrily pointing out the hypocrisy of this, while liberals are trying their best to ignore the failure. What neither side seems to have realized, however, is that such corruption is nothing more than a natural extension of the way government works. Special interests will always have disproportionate influence in government, and politicians will always exploit their positions of power for personal gain. This has nothing to do with Republicans vs. Democrats, since there is not a party in the world that would refrain from such actions.

The reason such corruption is inevitable is because it is not categorically different from the "legal" and "ethical" things that politicians do every day. If a congressman receives massive campaign donations from an industry and then backs legislation that is favorable to that industry, this is supposedly "ethical". Yet it is "unethical" if that same congressman allows that same industry to pick up his travel expenses, or if he benefits in other ways from his relationship with the industry. The point is that none of this is really ethical -- no matter what fancy language you use to dress up these actions, they amount to nothing more and nothing less than wealthy interests buying legislative power and influence. Politicians make money and expand their own power by catering to special interests (as represented by lobbyists), while wealthy and well-connected institutions and industries gain obscene benefits from the government at the expense of taxpayers.

The only principled alternative to the corrupt lobbyist influence in Washington is to take politicians out of the business of granting favors to their favored interests. This can only be accomplished by letting free markets work and limiting government from intruding in the private sector in unnecessary ways. This means ending harmful corporate welfare programs, unnecessary subsidies, and wasteful pork legislation by strictly limiting the role of the state in the private sector.

While liberals would no doubt claim that such a removal of government influence would lead to out-of-control corporations, the truth is that, without the ability to mold government policy to their ends, corporations would be quite effectively limited. They would no longer be able to exploit corrupt politicians to turn $100,000 in campaign contributions into $100 million in (taxpayer-funded) subsidies, as they do now on a regular basis. Removing the state from the private sector would keep corrupt politicians and corporations from picking the pockets of hard-working taxpayers, and would go a long way to creating a more free and equitable society.