Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 4–29 | Cite as

Revolving door lobbyists and interest representation

  • Timothy M LaPira
  • Herschel F ThomasIII
Original Article

Abstract

Although experience inside the halls of power afford lobbyists valuable political, policy and procedural skills that can improve the deliberative process, it also gives them privileged access to former employers that others do not have. Washington’s revolving door evokes legitimate ethical concerns, such as when former legislators resign their seats to take lucrative jobs representing the very industries they regulate. However, social scientists know surprisingly little about the revolving door beyond such sensational, albeit important, cases. To shed more light on the broader phenomenon, we systematically explore the revolving door on a large scale to answer a simple question: Do revolving door lobbyists represent different interests than conventional lobbyists? If, as revolving door proponents imply, these lobbyists work on behalf of organized interests solely for their specialized subject-matter expertise, then we would expect them to represent clienteles that are no different than conventional lobbyists. Alternatively, if they represent a wider variety of economic interests than conventional lobbyists then we assume they are hired more for their ability to get a foot in the door than to serve as policy expert adjuncts to government. Using evidence from original data on the professional biographies of roughly 1600 registered lobbyists – which we link to data from almost 50 000 quarterly Lobbying Disclosure Act reports – we expose a significant transparency loophole in the law. Because lobbyists are not required to continuously disclose their ‘covered official’ status – the statutory definition of revolving door – periodic lobbying disclosure reports effectively hide the revolving door from public scrutiny. Instead, we rely on our more comprehensive information on lobbyists’ connections to previous employers to more accurately measure the size and scope of Washington’s revolving door, and to investigate how these connections affect which interests they represent. We find that revolving door lobbyists have worked mostly in Congress, tend to work as contract lobbyists rather than in-house government-relations staff and are more likely to specialize in lobbying for appropriations earmarks. Then, after controlling for a variety of lobbying specializations, we show that former members of Congress are no more likely than other lobbyists to attract a more economically diverse set of clients than their conventional-lobbyist counterparts. However, congressional staffers who had worked their way up the organizational ladder on Capitol Hill do. We infer that well-connected congressional staffers who spin through the revolving door sell access to key decision makers in Congress, not their industry- or issue-specific technical or substantive expertise. Simply, the revolving door problem is not limited to a handful of headline-catching former legislators, is much bigger than the existing lobbying disclosure regime reveals and – most importantly – significantly distorts the representation of interests before government. The practical implications are clear: lobbying transparency rules, cooling-off periods and other restrictions are insufficient disincentives. Interest group demand for access is simply too strong. We advocate enhancing lobbying transparency by expanding the statutory definitions of lobbying activities, requiring lobbyists to disclose more details about government employment and shifting some of the disclosure burden to democratically accountable government officials themselves.

Keywords

interest groups lobbying revolving door Lobbying Disclosure Act Congress congressional staff 

References

  1. Bauer, R.A., Pool, Ithiel de Sola and Dexter, L.A. (1963) American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade. New York: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F.R. and Leech, B.L. (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D.C. and Leech, B.L. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Naim, A. (2007) Entropy Demystified: The Second Law Reduced to Plain Common Sense. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertrand, M., Bombardini, M. and Trebbi, F. (2011) Is It Whom You Know or What You Know? An Empirical Assessment of the Lobbying Process. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 16765.Google Scholar
  6. Blanes i Vidal, J., Mirko, D. and Christian, F.-R. (2012) Revolving door lobbyists. American Economic Review 102 (7): 3731–3748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boydstun, A.E. (2013) Making the News: Politics, Media and Agenda-Setting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boydstun, A.E., Bevan, S. and Thomas, II H.F. (forthcoming) The importance of agenda diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal.Google Scholar
  9. Center for Responsive Politics. (2010) The Deregistration Dilemma: Are Lobbyists Quitting the Business as Federal Disclosure Rules Tighten? Washington DC: Center for Responsive Politics.Google Scholar
  10. Center for Responsive Politics. (2011) Revolving Door: Former Members of the 111th Congress, http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/departing.php, accessed 8 February 2013.
  11. Center for Responsive Politics. (2013) Lobbying: Top Issues, Lobbying Database, http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=u, accessed 8 February 2013.
  12. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (2012) Strategic Maneuvers: The Revolving Door from the Pentagon to the Private Sector. Washington, DC: Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.Google Scholar
  13. Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. (2011) Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance. Washington DC: House Legislative Resource Center.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J.E. (1986) The dynamics of the ‘revolving door’ on the FCC. American Journal of Political Science 30 (4): 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deakin, J. (1966) The Lobbyists. Washington DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  16. Drutman, L. and Cain, B.E. (forthcoming) Congressional staff and the revolving door: The impact of regulatory change. Election Law Journal.Google Scholar
  17. Eggers, A.C. (2010) The Partisan Revolving Door. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  18. Eggers, A.C. and Hainmueller, J. (2009) MPs for sale? Returns to office in postwar British politics. American Political Science Review 103 (4): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esterling, K.M. (2004) The Political Economy of Expertise. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fried, C., Gordon, R.H., Potter, T. and Sandler, J.E. (2011) Lobbying Law in the Spotlight: Challenges and Proposed Improvements. Washington DC: American Bar Association Task Force on Federal Lobbying Laws.Google Scholar
  21. Furlong, S.R. (1997) Interest group influence on rulemaking. Administration and Society 29: 325–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. González-Bailon, S., Jennings, W. and Lodge, M. (2013) Politics in the boardroom: Corporate pay, networks and recruitment of former parliamentarians, ministers and civil servants in Britain. Politics Studies 61 (4): 850–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gormley, W.T. (1979) A test of the revolving door hypothesis at the FCC. American Journal of Political Science 23 (4): 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (1996) The Population Ecology of Interest Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, R.L. and Deardorff, A.V. (2006) Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review 100 (1): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halpin, D.R. and Thomas, III H.F. (2012) Evaluating the breadth of policy engagement by organized interests. Public Administration 90 (3): 589–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hansen, J.M. (1991) Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1991-1981. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O., Nelson, R.L. and Salisbury, R.H. (1993) The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Herring, P. (1929) Group Representation before Congress. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jennings, W. et al (2011) Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas. Comparative Political Studies 44 (8): 1001–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LaPira, T.M. and Thomas, III H.F. (2013) Just how many Newt Gingrich’s are there on K Street? Estimating the true size and shape of Washington’s revolving door. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  32. Lazarus, J. and McKay, A. (2012) Consequences of the revolving door: Evaluating the lobbying success of former congressional members and staff. Paper Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  33. Leech, B.L. (2013) Lobbyists at Work. New York: Apress Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lessig, L. (2011) Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – And a Plan to Stop It. New York: Twelve Books.Google Scholar
  35. Loomis, B.A. (2007) Does K Street run through Capitol Hill? Lobbying congress in the Republican era. In: A.J. Cigler and B.A. Loomis (eds.) Interest Group Politics, 7th edn. Washington DC: CQ Press, pp. 412–430.Google Scholar
  36. Lowery, D. and Marchetti, K. (2012) You don’t know Jack: Principals, agents, and lobbying. Interest Groups and Advocacy 1 (2): 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mansbridge, J. (1992) A deliberative theory of interest representation. In: M.P. Petracca (ed.) The Politics of Interests. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 32–57.Google Scholar
  38. McGuire, K.T. (2000) Lobbyists, revolving doors, and the US Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Politics 16: 113–137.Google Scholar
  39. Milbrath, L.W. (1963) The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  40. Public Citizen. (2005) Congressional revolving doors: The journey from congress to K Street. Congress Watch (July). Washington DC: Public Citizen.Google Scholar
  41. Quirk, P. (1981) Industry Influence in Federal Regulatory Agencies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Revolving Door Working Group. (2005) A Matter of Trust: How the Revolving Door Undermines Public Confidence in Government – And What to Do About It. Washington DC: The Revolving Door Working Group.Google Scholar
  43. Salisbury, R.H., Johnson, P., Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O. and Nelson, R.L. (1989) Who you know versus what you know: The uses of government experience for Washington lobbyists. American Journal of Political Science 33 (1): 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schattschneider, E.E. (1960 [1975]) The Semisovereign People. New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  45. Shannon, C.E. (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27 (3): 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Washington Post Editorial Board. (2012) Congress’s Revolving Door. Editorial, Washington Post 8 December, http://www.washington.post.com/opinions/congress-revolving-door/2012/12/08/c59de32c-40ae-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html.
  47. Yackee, S.W. (2006) Sweet-talking the fourth branch: Assessing the influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeigler, H. and Baer, M. (1969) Lobbying: Interactions and Influence in American State Legislatures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy M LaPira
    • 1
  • Herschel F ThomasIII
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of GovernmentUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations