Congressional leadership has adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting practices.  Paygo, in Washington shorthand, means that all new spending requires either an equivalent budget cut or revenue increase.  It is responsible and it is generating shockwaves across K Street.

A recent article in the Washington Post described a significant organizing effort by the major lobbying firms to block attempts to pay for new spending on such items as health care or education with cuts in the tax breaks and subsidies lobbyists garnered for high paying clients.  All the big time players are gearing up – oil and gas interests, the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies and financial services firms.  The wining and dining of legislators that paid off in the form of friendly earmarks for favored clients is being threatened by the promise of responsible budgeting. 

At the same time Congress has started to rein in the practices that have allowed powerful interests unfair access and influence.  If paygo is to succeed, members of Congress will need all the help they can get and the new rules are just the beginning.  The newly adopted bans on gifts and trips paid for by lobbyists and the use of corporate jets represent an important first step in breaking the bonds between legislators and those wealthy enough to buy the access they want.  To fully address the problem, Congress needs to change the way campaigns are funded which includes adopting a public financing system for congressional campaigns.  In the meantime, Congress should tighten the rules and open the books on the day to day activities of the K street crowd.

Following up on the rules changes passed in the early days of the new Congress, the House will soon be taking up legislation that could have a real impact on the way business is done in Washington.   To start with, Congress should eliminate the loopholes in the current law that allow members and high ranking staff to leave Congress one day as public officials only to return the next as representatives for special interests.  Cashing in on their public service in this way gives them unfair access to their former colleagues and puts the public at a distinct disadvantage. Consider the following.

• Former Representative Billy Tauzin left Congress to become the top legislative strategist for PhARMA, the lobbying arm for the leading drug companies.  Just prior to his moving from public service to the private sector, he personally negotiated Medicare’s new prescription drug plan which, many argue, is serving the interests of pharmaceutical companies more than the nation’s seniors.  Whatever they are paying him, there is no doubt it is worth the money.  His connections make him a valuable commodity, relegating those fighting for accessible healthcare to the back of the line.

• A former staff director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee negotiated a senior level position with the Nuclear Energy Institute before he left Congress.  He spent his last few months in public service working successfully to insert billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for the nuclear power industry.  The “advisory” conflict of interest rules did not prevent him from proving his worth to his potential employer while still in public life.  The Senate has since adopted new rules that would end this unseemly practice.  The House should follow suit.

After slowing the so-called revolving door, House members should modernize the disclosure rules to account for the way today’s campaigns are run and lobbying is practiced.  While individuals may contribute up to $2,300 to a candidate, “bundlers” now raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates.  President Bush formalized the practice by awarding the best bundlers with membership in elite clubs like the Rangers and Pioneers.  Senator Hillary Clinton has set a goal for fundraisers for her presidential bid of $1 million each.  The lobbyists who raise these sums are doing more than raising  money, they are gathering political chits to cash in at later date.  The public has a right to know who these individuals are because the role they play is far greater than is reflected in the individual contribution they make personally.

Congress should also increase the disclosure requirements for the lobbying that firms do outside of Washington.  Lobbying firms already report the work they do inside the halls of Congress, but when these same firms create large scale advertising campaigns or run phone banks to generate public support for an issue important to their clients, they do so without any information to the public about who is behind these campaigns.  Our democracy works far better in sunlight than in darkness.  We should be allowed to make informed decisions and that requires knowledge of who is behind the competing messages.  As the public sees more and more of these outreach campaigns, Congress must act to update the disclosure rules to match the current practices.

These are the next steps Congress must take if the new leadership is serious about breaking the unhealthy ties that put the interests of the powerful few ahead of the public.