From Hill to Hill: Fear, Loathing, and Lobbyists
April 4, 2008
In the current election cycle, the role of lobbyists in Congress is shaping up to be important in the electoral fortunes of both the Democratic and Republican parties. While some may decry lobbyists’ disproportionate influence in the political and legislative process, no Beltway insiders believe that their power will diminish in the near future. For this reason, the administration should continue employing the services of lobbying firms that will advocate for the university’s interests in Washington. With fewer federal grants, earmarks, and loans divided among a larger group of institutions, it is imperative that Tufts is represented well in the halls of Congress. By failing to “keep up with the Joneses,” the university risks losing the gains in reputation and academic standing that have been made over the previous decade. In lieu of an effective alternative, lobbying remains a necessary “evil.”
As former Provost Sol Gittleman acknowledges in this week’s feature article, Tufts students are privileged to have a seat in one of the nation’s premier institutions because “of an earmark.” The university holds the distinction of being a pioneer in the academic earmark “industry,” which now allocates more than $2.3 billion in federal dollars, because of the efforts of former university president Jean Mayer. In 1976, President Mayer and Washington consultant Gerry Cassidy lobbied former House Speaker Tip O’Neill for $10 million in federal money for the construction of a nutrition center in Boston, thus laying the foundation of the university’s transformation from an unheralded liberal arts school to a top research institution. This allocation was an unequivocal coup, and it demonstrated to other institutions the opportunities that federal earmarks can present. For better or worse, President Mayer’s modest goals fundamentally altered the relationship between the public and Congress, and a new era of political lobbying was born.
Now fully entrenched in Congress, lobbyists have amassed unparallel influence with national leaders. For some, this access to legislators has distorted policy in favor of powerful interest groups, to the detriment of the country as a whole. The midterm elections in 2006, and Senator Barack Obama’s status as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, seem to symbolize the electorate’s rejection of the undue influence of lobbyists in our legislative process. However, the public’s discontent with “bridges to nowhere” and corrupt politicians should not overstate the waning power of lobbying groups in Washington; simple political theory articulates how small, concentrated groups with a singular interest can more effectively influence legislation than the general public. As long as the public lacks overarching political concerns and maintains little interest in the legislative process, interest groups and their lobbyists will still drive policymaking in Washington.
As an inseparable aspect of future decisions regarding policies and research allocations, the university would be mistaken to limit its lobbying presence in Boston or Washington. Nonetheless, steps taken can ensure that this unsavory process does not jeopardize the university’s ethics or reputation. One reform could be greater transparency in what firms the university employs, and public information on its individual lobbyists. Such openness would allow undergraduates to understand better the relationships Tufts maintains with private groups, and permit greater oversight of these relationships. Since particular students would be uncomfortable if the university hires lobbying firms that also work on the behalf of controversial interest groups like the National Rifle Association or “Big Tobacco,” increased transparency would hold the administration accountable for these associations. Along with transparency, greater student input in how federal earmarks are spent could improve the lobbying process and increase its relevance to undergraduates.
Despite the best intentions of a Democratic Congress and growing popularity of Senator Obama, the advantage held by interest groups and their lobbyists will still factor into the nation’s political climate. Ignoring this reality may grant greater moral and ethical standing, but it will do nothing to maintain the university’s ascension into the upper echelon of institutions of higher learning. While The Observer desires a Congress free from the grip of outside parties, the short-term appears to offer no such relief. The necessary “evil” of lobbying must therefore endure as a tool in the university’s pursuit of academic excellence.