The Lobby Lobby

With so many government-private turf battles going on right now it's difficult to choose one to write about. Carmakers who've made cars for years on a nonprofit basis are busily defending their right to continue to do so; bankers and lenders decry the end of the republic because new regulation of incentive pay may mean they can't continue to hire the kind of whip-smart talent that drove them bankrupt; and lobbyists are crying foul because the illicit and unethical excesses they allowed to prevail in their "industry" have led to efforts to regulate what they failed to monitor.  

Well, the lobbyists win the lottery today because their reported comments seem the most inane.  Here they are, with the predictable exaggerated claims (is it really a First Amendment issue? It's ludicrous even to suggest it.  Are the limitations truly "totalitarian"? I don't think so!)   Our lachrymose lobbyists further complain that others can discuss what they cannot - but those others (elected officials, corporate executives) are answerable to their constituencies, while lobbyists are not.   

Finally, it's long been a watchword of the commonsense crowd that when somebody tells you they want to save you some money, you'd better hold on tight to your wallet. So when lobbyists suggest they are really concerned about their future competitors (e.g., the new rules will make it harder for "new entrants" to get into the business), or only want to help the government speed up processing of stimulative spending, it's time to get suspicious.  Wouldn't it be nice if people in any profession would occasionally be honest about their real motives, rather than assuming we're stupid?  

Three weeks ago, I wrote a bit about lobbyists; what I see in today's news doesn't change anything.  My only concern about the new limitations is that they seem complex and - like the tax law - will inevitably be a source of confusion.  It would be preferable to try to draw clear lines that won't require a platoon of lawyers for interpretation.

Comments

[Ray Lombardi]

Like your comments in Para 1. Why should anyone object to changing unprofitable behavior? Could there be some more money to be made? By those at the top and in the know?

[Morning fog]

Thanks for your comment, Ray.

I suppose as you suggest there may be benefits to just staying in the game regardless of profit. It seems to me that stock prices these days more often track publicity than actual performance, especially when investors haven't realized that a business that's too big to fail -- is failing.