You are here
The Separation of Lobbying and Campaign Services
Wednesday, May 7th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
According to a
post in the Crain's Insider blog last week, the New
York City council hired as deputy general counsel a lobbyist whose
firm recently had been the council speaker's campaign consultant (the speaker is the leader of the NY city council, elected by its members).
This raises an interesting conflict issue relating not only to
hiring, but also to firms that both provide campaign services and lobby local
government officials.
When a firm advises a local government official with respect to a campaign, this creates a special relationship — personal, business, and political — that creates the impression that anything that is done for the firm, its members, or its clients involves some level of preferential treatment based on this relationship. It can appear that an official owes her election to such a firm, and she can feel this way about it, too.
Thus, when the body she leads hires a member of that firm (or a member's relative or a client of the firm), it appears that this was due to her paying back a favor. Even if she does not participate in the hiring in any way, it appears that her colleagues (who, after all, just elected her their leader) are doing what she could not do herself. Therefore, withdrawal is not a cure.
On the other hand, it would be natural for a high-level official to hire as a political adviser someone who has already been a trusted adviser, or someone highly recommended by that adviser. Political positions have different rules; they can be given to a political ally, best friend, business associate, or relative. Therefore, the question here is whether the position of deputy general counsel is a professional position (for the council) or a political position (for the speaker). If it is the latter, then her relationship with the individual or his firm is irrelevant.
What is most problematic here is the fact that one firm gets involved in two areas that are supposed to be kept separate: campaigning and lobbying. Lobbyists make and bundle campaign contributions on behalf of their clients, and for themselves as well, where this is legal. But there are limits on this activity and it is allowed primarily because of judicial decisions based on a First Amendment free speech right to make campaign contributions.
But actually being involved in, even running or being an important adviser to, a campaign places an individual or firm in a very special relationship with a high-level official. Not only does it create mutual obligations, but they have fought in the trenches together. It's a strong emotional bond. When that same individual or firm lobbies the official, during and after the campaign, it gives clients a special advantage and makes it appear to the public that the official, when she supports spending or a bill that benefits those clients, is not acting in the public interest.
This is not good for anyone involved. Lobbyists should limit themselves to lobbying (legal representation is a good complement, because it consists of the same sort of representation of clients). If one or more members of a lobbying firm have been involved in an official's recent campaign, the firm should not lobby the official or her staff, or even lobby her indirectly through her close colleagues on the council.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
When a firm advises a local government official with respect to a campaign, this creates a special relationship — personal, business, and political — that creates the impression that anything that is done for the firm, its members, or its clients involves some level of preferential treatment based on this relationship. It can appear that an official owes her election to such a firm, and she can feel this way about it, too.
Thus, when the body she leads hires a member of that firm (or a member's relative or a client of the firm), it appears that this was due to her paying back a favor. Even if she does not participate in the hiring in any way, it appears that her colleagues (who, after all, just elected her their leader) are doing what she could not do herself. Therefore, withdrawal is not a cure.
On the other hand, it would be natural for a high-level official to hire as a political adviser someone who has already been a trusted adviser, or someone highly recommended by that adviser. Political positions have different rules; they can be given to a political ally, best friend, business associate, or relative. Therefore, the question here is whether the position of deputy general counsel is a professional position (for the council) or a political position (for the speaker). If it is the latter, then her relationship with the individual or his firm is irrelevant.
What is most problematic here is the fact that one firm gets involved in two areas that are supposed to be kept separate: campaigning and lobbying. Lobbyists make and bundle campaign contributions on behalf of their clients, and for themselves as well, where this is legal. But there are limits on this activity and it is allowed primarily because of judicial decisions based on a First Amendment free speech right to make campaign contributions.
But actually being involved in, even running or being an important adviser to, a campaign places an individual or firm in a very special relationship with a high-level official. Not only does it create mutual obligations, but they have fought in the trenches together. It's a strong emotional bond. When that same individual or firm lobbies the official, during and after the campaign, it gives clients a special advantage and makes it appear to the public that the official, when she supports spending or a bill that benefits those clients, is not acting in the public interest.
This is not good for anyone involved. Lobbyists should limit themselves to lobbying (legal representation is a good complement, because it consists of the same sort of representation of clients). If one or more members of a lobbying firm have been involved in an official's recent campaign, the firm should not lobby the official or her staff, or even lobby her indirectly through her close colleagues on the council.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
