The exposure of abramov's lobbying corruption case in 2005 triggered a new round of concern about the reform of lobbying system in the United States. In American history, in order to regulate lobbying activities more effectively, lobbying-related legislation has been reformed many times. However, due to many factors, especially the contradiction of American political system itself, the reform of lobbying system has never been able to fundamentally eliminate corruption, which also doomed the limitations of lobbying legal norms. ?
/kloc-abramov, who started his lobbying career more than 0/0 years ago, has become a well-connected "lobbying crocodile" on the famous K Street in Washington by virtue of his close relationship with the Senate and the House of Representatives. His greatest job was to lobby Congress for casinos run by American Indian tribes, and he made tens of millions of dollars in profits. However, it was the exposure of this lobbying business that ruined his reputation. He was not only forced to admit his three felonies, but also implicated more than 20 congressmen and aides, including Tom Delay, leader of the US House of Representatives, Nye, chairman of the party's executive committee, and even the shadow of President Bush. This rare government scandal for many years has once again aroused serious concern from all walks of life in the United States about lobbying corruption, and attracted the attention of many countries in the world.
? 1. The development and problems of American lobbying industry?
Lobbying is a very common phenomenon in American political life. According to the definition of "owner", the lobbyist's job is to provide customers with information about the current bill or the bill to be voted by Congress, and to seek amendments to the terms of the bill for the benefit of customers. Since Congress is traditionally the expression body of public opinion, lobbyists mainly cooperate with members of Congress and their assistants, especially influential members of Congress and heads of some subcommittees. Professional lobbyists have a fixed place of business in Washington, familiar with the operation mode of Congress, have close ties with many members of Congress, and are good at making full use of the space provided by law. They also serve more than 800 political action committees and nearly 70 parliamentary election committees, providing financial assistance to politicians. Their customers are mainly domestic interest groups and foreign governments and enterprises. According to the statistics of independent monitoring organizations, there are currently about 35,000 lobbyists in Washington, with an average of 60 lobbyists around a congressman. Every year, the per capita expenditure on parliamentarians has reached $5 million, and the annual output value of Washington lobbying industry has exceeded $3 billion. The lobbying business on Capitol Hill is so prosperous mainly due to the following factors:
First, the clear provisions of the US Constitution.
? The First Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall not make laws to deprive people of their right to peaceful assembly and petition the government. Therefore, there is a clear legal basis for voters to express their opinions directly in Congress and influence their voting behavior. ?
Second, the inevitable result of populist politics.
After realizing that the role of political intervention through elections is very limited, the American people think that the most effective way to express their wishes is to organize and form a special group, which seems to have become a law from opponents of the existing system to participants. The broad public opinion base of lobbying activities leads to the inevitable self-replication of interest group politics. ?
Third, the active promotion of interest groups.
Interest groups can gain huge profits by lobbying Congress. All kinds of interest groups with different resources want to give full play to their advantages in Congress to get more benefits, so their enthusiasm for lobbying is very high. ?
Fourth, the legislative needs of Congress itself.
Members of Congress elected by each state are not familiar with many legislative fields. The information provided by lobbyists not only helps members to understand the interests and needs of related fields, but also the more complex the classes and groups they represent, the more objective the corresponding laws will be. This has promoted the need and even dependence of Congress on lobbyists. ?
Fifth, the consequences of the expansion of government power.
After Roosevelt's New Deal, the American government began to take a government policy of actively intervening in social operation, which means that the public's personal life is influenced by more factors other than themselves, which makes them have to pay more attention to the distribution of social resources and the gains and losses of their own interests, and the main way is to exert influence through lobbying when the government makes decisions. ?
The root of the problems caused by lobbying activities is not lobbying itself, but the unbalanced advantages gained by various interest groups represented by lobbyists through improper means in political operation, which greatly damages the political order of equality and fair competition. Lobbying corruption is an inherent chronic disease in the American political system, which Washington noticed in his resignation speech in the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China. Lobbying has become a derogatory term in Washington since 1930s. The motto of Sam Ward, the "king of lobbying" in this period, is that "the way to get the approval of members of parliament is through his stomach". Although there have been many targeted measures since then, the problem of lobbying corruption has not disappeared with the progress of society, and even some amazing corruption cases have appeared in recent years. ?
Second, the historical evolution and characteristics of American lobbying system reform?
In American history, there have been three major lobbying system reforms. The following introduces the lobbying legislation of the United States Congress according to the objects and contents of the restrictions on lobbying legislation.
1. Legislation to Restrict Foreign Lobbying Activities-Law on Registration of Foreign Agents (1938)?
1938, in order to strengthen the control of Germany, Italy and other countries on American social propaganda activities, Congress passed the Law on the Registration of Foreign Agents. This law does not oppose foreign interest groups lobbying in the United States through agents, but aims to ensure the openness of these activities and prevent them from excessively interfering with the decision-making of the US government.
2. Legislation restricting domestic lobbying activities-1946 "Federal Lobbying Management Act"
? The core of the law is the principle of openness, which was drafted in a hurry. The meaning is vague, and it was criticized as soon as it was passed. The loopholes in this law include: (1) proportional requirement: lobbying must be its "main purpose" before registration. Many lobbyists claim that lobbying is not their main business and evade registration. (2) Sources of funds: You only need to register "collecting, raising or accepting" funds for lobbying. Lobbying companies often argue that they lobby at their own expense to avoid registration. (3) Lobbying targets: lobbying for parliamentary assistants and professional assistants of committees, and lobbying for administrative departments and courts are not within the scope of the bill. (4) Lobbying nature: Some organizations argue that they only contacted the National Assembly to explain the situation and did not ask members, so they cannot be regarded as lobbying activities according to law. (5) Lobbying supervision: The law has not formulated or authorized any organization to conduct investigations or require lobbying organizations to make registration reports, or force them to abide by laws and regulations. Because of these loopholes, according to the conservative estimation of "The Same Cause" organization, only 10% of the lobbying organizations concerned with energy issues are registered in Congress, and the actual lobbying expenses submitted are only 1%. This reflects the limited effectiveness of the law. ?
After Watergate, Congress tried to make major changes to this law to restore people's confidence in the government. Although the new federal lobbying disclosure bill was passed in the Senate, it also caused fierce opposition from a large number of interest groups. At the same time, the broad differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate proposals have never been reconciled, leading to the final abortion of the new bill. ?
3. Legislation on lobbying procedures-the open lobbying law and the open lobbying technology law?
After a long period of deliberation, the US Congress finally abolished the Federal Lobbying Administration Act which existed for half a century in 1995, and established the Lobbying Publicity Act to replace it. There are 24 articles in this law, and the main changes include: (1) changing the object of adjustment from "identification" to "activity identification", eliminating the loopholes caused by "multiple roles" and stipulating that anyone who spends more than 20% of his paid time engaged in "activities affecting policies" must be registered as a "lobbyist". (2) Define any efforts with lobbying nature or supporting such contacts as lobbying activities, and even ask lobbyists to ask whether they are within the scope of the travel statement when contacting officials, and officials shall not conceal their refusal to answer. (3) Strengthen registration management measures. (4) The hospitality standard is defined, which stipulates that lobbyists can entertain members of parliament for the convenience of work, and the one-time expenditure should be less than $50, and all expenditures within one year should not exceed 100. (5) Determine the avoidance period. Former members of parliament, their assistants and all civil servants are not allowed to lobby Congress within one year after leaving office. (6) Introduce relevant penalties, and stipulate that the Congressional Secretariat has the responsibility to check whether the contents of the report are true or not, and notify the prosecutors of the SAR if there are any problems. If proved guilty, the party concerned will be fined up to $50,000.
After the implementation of the new law, the number of registered lobbyists immediately increased significantly. The number of registered lobbyists in 1998 increased by 2 1% compared with the previous year, while the number of registered lobbyists in 1999 increased by 37%. But the loopholes left by the new law are still obvious. Law firms, which are usually the main force of lobbying activities in the United States, often do not need to register because lobbying work accounts for less than 20% of the total workload in half a year; The lobbying of religious groups is not subject to any compulsory restrictions of registration and declaration; Concealing lobbying income and expenditure can still evade the declaration procedure; As long as they claim to be related to official activities, parliamentarians and spouses can still accept the "benefits" provided by lobbyists; The Secretariat of Congress, which is responsible for verification according to law, has not been supplemented in terms of preparation and funds because it needs to assume new responsibilities.
Three years later, Congress passed the Lobbying Open Technology Amendment Act, which amended some technical issues. But the more obvious feature of this law is the restriction on lobbying supervision. It is clearly pointed out that the supervision of the secretariat cannot be interpreted as prohibiting or interfering with the people's right to petition, express their personal opinions and form associations guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, nor can it be interpreted as prohibiting or authorizing the court to prohibit individuals or groups from engaging in lobbying activities or contacting officials. Whether individuals or groups abide by the provisions of this chapter cannot be interpreted as giving the secretariats of the Senate and the House of Representatives the right to inspect and investigate, but their actual power is only to "inspect or inquire when necessary". The limited power and manpower of the competent registration authority further restricts the normative role of the new law. ?
After the abramov scandal was exposed in 2005, the Congress soon introduced several new reform drafts. At the beginning of 2006, the House of Representatives passed a legal reform to prohibit former lobbyists from lobbying in the House of Representatives building. In addition, if the spouse of a former member of parliament is a lobbyist, the spouse is also bound by the new regulations. * * * The reform legislation supported by Republican Senator John McCain and others requires that the details of any kind of donations provided by lobbyists to politicians must be made public, and at the same time, the time limit for former members to lobby their colleagues is extended to two years, and the frequency of reporting activities by lobbyists is shortened from six months to three months. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has also proposed a series of reform measures, such as limiting gifts to souvenirs such as baseball caps or T-shirts, prohibiting lobbyists from inviting members to dinner or arranging free trips for them, and prohibiting lobbyists who have served as members from entering the meeting halls and gyms of the House of Representatives. For those who violate the regulations or even seriously violate the criminal law, their members' pensions shall be confiscated. But so far, Congress has not passed a formal legal text. ?
Third, the characteristics of previous lobbying reforms?
? Judging from the several reforms that have been completed in the American lobbying system, there are some obvious characteristics:
1, new legislation is often triggered by scandals.
It is not difficult to find that almost every legislative climax is caused by corruption and scandals in Congress in recent years, which is characterized by a strong passive response. Accident politics often happens in America. Only when things are imminent and all walks of life are suffering can we reach a compromise on some issues. This patchwork approach will not only lead to many defects in the new law, but also fail to quickly deal with the emerging loopholes such as "legal corruption". ?
? ? 2. The reform goal is obviously self-limited.
Although the details of the new law are becoming more and more comprehensive and detailed, the goal has always focused on the openness of lobbying and the limitation of the amount involved. That is to say, it is still legal for members to accept the "benefits" that meet the requirements under certain conditions, which urges the parties to change their focus from how to abide by the law to how to tap the potential of these conditions, and continue lobbying activities with different means but unchanged nature through different interpretations of the rules. For example, after limiting the lobbyist's single consumption to $50, the price of many stadium boxes plummeted to $49.9; Buy a lot of his books at a high price and don't give gifts to parliamentarians; It is not allowed to invite members to dinner in person, but to hold a banquet to invite everyone to dinner; Even in the past 14 years, many registered "deceased" donors can still donate more than 1.3 million dollars to politicians. ?
3. Reform is only a compromise on a new basis.
Every time the reform plan of lobbying system is put forward, there are obvious defects, which are interpreted as the deliberate compromise of legislators is more reasonable than their unintentional negligence. Because every reform will involve the interests of many vested interests, the typical reaction of Congress to scandals is to "punish the bad guys and start small reforms". At best, it is only a targeted partial rather than a comprehensive policy adjustment. The intensity of reform just follows the pressure brought by the scandal. After all kinds of conflicts of interest are reconciled, no one will pay attention to justice and integrity. This reform not only left loopholes for continuing corruption, but also brought some negative effects because of sticking to superficial articles. For example, it is stipulated that lobbyists' funding is limited to fund-raising activities, which also limits the activities of parliamentarians to go abroad for inspection and cultural exchanges.
? ? After the limelight, the forces against reform always prevail.
At the beginning of each lobbying reform, the momentum is vigorous, but with the gradual departure of the scandal mark, the voices of various reform opponents will gradually increase. These organizations have strong financial resources, centralized organization, single goal and skilled operation. They not only constantly squeezed the reformist space in public opinion, but also carried out more pragmatic and effective operations through secret contact with parliamentarians. On the other hand, the supporters of the reform are mainly some non-profit organizations and some media. Not only do they have little money and little influence, but their action plan is not entirely based on restricting lobbying, and their overall pressure ability is obviously not as good as the former. ?
? ? 5. The connotation of reform is unbalanced.
It can be seen from the provisions of the previous lobbying bill reform that the key regulatory object is always the lobbyist, while the provisions on the equally important role of parliamentarians in lobbying activities are obviously few and weak. Even after the introduction of relevant compulsory punishment, it is completely aimed at lobbying organizations. It seems that only the briber is responsible for the scandal, not the briber. Although there are related bills in Congress specifically aimed at the ethics of parliamentarians, the laws specifically regulating lobbying activities obviously lack the regulation of lobbyists, which is an important incentive for corruption. ?
6. Incompleteness of media exposure.
Almost all political scandals in the United States are exposed by the media, but the operating rules of the media itself also have drawbacks. The characteristics of grasping the new and the strange often make it impossible to concentrate for a long time after the scandal broke out, and the relationship with the government sometimes makes it forced to compromise, especially in the absence of party politics. It seems unrealistic to rely on the power of the media itself to promote reform. After the abramov case, some American scholars pointed out: "Only when the (American) media continue to pay attention to this matter can this reform really achieve results." But it seems a bit overwhelming. ?
4. What are the limitations of lobbying system reform?
Looking back on the course of lobbying corruption in the United States Congress, we can find that there are many reasons for the reform dilemma. Generally speaking, there are mainly the following types:
1. Lobbying reform is strongly checked and balanced by the American political system?
Congressional lobbying is not just a farce of bourgeois monopoly. First of all, lobbying embodies the people's democratic concept and spirit. When people get their own special interests, they use the way of organization and lobbying. This spontaneous participation in democracy from the grassroots is an important supplement to representative democracy. Secondly, lobbying is also a social practice that embodies the principle of equality in the United States. In theory, every citizen has the right to express his opinion to the ruler, although in reality it will be restricted by many factors including money and status. Third, lobbying avoids the emergence of radical behavior by peacefully dissolving political energy within the system. Fourth, the existence of interest groups and the development of lobbying activities have become an indispensable structural element in the American political system. ?
2. The resistance to lobbying for reform greatly exceeds the motivation?
The driving force of lobbying reform mainly comes from public opinion supervision, but the group power behind its resistance is greater, resulting in weak reform. Resistance mainly comes from three aspects.
First of all, at the congressional level: lobbying companies can provide real and reliable decision-making suggestions for parliamentarians; Help draft bills; Serving in the Parliamentary Election Committee and the Political Action Committee; As a campaign consultant for members of parliament; Help raise campaign funds and so on. As a result of these contacts, the relationship between parliamentarians and lobbying organizations is no longer a simple money relationship, but a multi-faceted political demand of the former and even dependence on the latter, which makes lobbyists play an important role in the legislative process.
Secondly, interest groups are unwilling to give up this transaction with high cost-benefit ratio. Take lobbying the number one pharmaceutical industry as an example. In 2005, their annual lobbying expenditure reached $325 million, but they can benefit from the related bill of $654.38+03.9 billion passed by the Bush administration.
Third, lobbying organizations are unwilling to give up this lucrative industry. Abramov's lobbying companies get 80 million commission from Indians, but less than110 is used to lobby Congress, which is a win-win situation. ?
Lobbying corruption has never been the main topic of public concern?
Although public opinion was in uproar when the scandal was exposed, its incidence rate was very low after all, and the reform of lobbying system has been stagnant in the absence of long-term firm attention from public opinion and strong grassroots support. ?
4. Party struggle restricts the reform plan?
Every reform of the lobbying system will almost cause controversy between the two parties in Congress. The reasons are as follows: First, the reality is different. After one side is dominant, it will inevitably seek to expand its influence among lobbyists and turn lobbying activities into tools to attack opponents. Third, the impact of reform is different. For example, the Democratic Party is unwilling to restrict donations from the Political Action Committee, while the Republican Party advocates lifting restrictions on donations from political parties and individuals. The new lobbying bill must be accepted by both parties before it can be passed, which obviously increases the difficulty of in-depth reform, resulting in the actual effect of reform based on internal exchange and compromise is bound to be limited. ?
5. Separation of the Senate and the House of Representatives?
The Senate and the House of Representatives have always been divided on the issue of lobbying and donation reform, which is determined by the different status and political conditions of the members of the two houses. Senator's power is relatively concentrated, and his work is heavier. He is more in contact with lobbyists through his staff, but not very close to lobbyists. In addition, he is well-known and has a greater chance of facing challenges from his opponents, so he is unwilling to be too passive in lobbying for reform. With relatively few tasks, delegates have more opportunities to have direct contact with lobbyists. In addition, their re-election is relatively stable and their responsibilities are more dispersed. Generally speaking, they prefer relatively broad lobbying rules. 1976 the abortion of lobbying for reform stems from the difficulty in reconciling the differences between the two sides, and the current reform still faces this problem. On the issue of campaign donations, members of the two houses are in different situations. Therefore, the reform proposal of 1993 Senate failed to be approved by the House of Representatives. Later, when the Senate advocated banning soft currency, the reform ran aground again because of disagreement with the House of Representatives. ?
6. Is lobbying corruption harmful to society?
? After the abramov case was exposed, Congress always reacted quickly, and the exposed members were punished quickly. Corruption never posed a threat to vital national issues. In the long run, the national interests of the United States are still dominant in decision-making. After all, members of Congress are not only influenced by lobbyists, but also checked and balanced by voters, administrative departments, media, academia and non-governmental organizations, and the final policy formation is also restricted by the president. Therefore, the actual harm of lobbying corruption is limited, and the urgency of lobbying system reform is insufficient. ?
7. What are the practical difficulties?
So far, the fundamental principle of lobbying reform is openness and transparency. Although sunshine is the best disinfectant, the effect of thorough transparency will go far beyond the simple lobbying system reform itself, which will inevitably affect all aspects of the daily operation of Congress, and may lead to excessive social intervention, excessive burden on Congress, reduced efficiency and secret leakage. This contradiction is difficult to reconcile. ?
Therefore, despite the continuous introduction of new laws and regulations and a series of institutional reforms, it is still difficult for the United States, which ranks in the top ten in the world, to get rid of the intrusion of large-scale lobbying corruption scandals. In the final analysis, the problem is how to strike a balance between safeguarding the civil rights granted by the Constitution and arbitrarily using such rights to lead to corruption. The contradiction of American political system itself determines that lobbying reform has insurmountable limitations. Therefore, the focus of lobbying reform today can only be on filling loopholes, increasing transparency, strengthening supervision and severe sanctions, which can further reduce the harm of corruption, but it cannot fundamentally eradicate its breeding ground.