Many people saw the movie Thank You for Smoking that gives a glimpse into the life of a tobacco lobbyist whose smooth talking can sell people products that inevitably lead to their deaths. Lobbying itself has become a dirty word. Instead "interest representation" or "advocacy" are used. Big oil, big sugar, big tobacco are all terms carrying a negative connotation used in the U.S. to describe massive organizations within an industry that pour money into lobbying efforts. The U.S. public possesses a stereotype of lobbying in Washington, but is the perception of lobbying in Brussels similar to the U.S.?
I was drawn to the topic of interest representation by an article in the EUObserver discussing the website http://www.worstlobby.eu/ and the award it is granting for the worst lobbying organization in Brussels. The nominees are divided into two categories: finance and climate. Among these nominees are American hedge fund Goldman Sachs, for “aggressive lobbying to defend their financial weapons of mass destruction” and ArcelorMittal, a steel company, for “lobbying for CO2 cuts under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and at the same time raking in windfall profits under the ETS.” It’s important to note however, that this campaign is run by opposing interest representation groups, like LobbyControl, Friends of the Earth Europe, and Spinwatch.
The European public has a history of skepticism towards lobbying organizations in Brussels, similar to the American public. Public outrage against government support of the financial sector is evident in the surging popularity of the Tea Party movement in the U.S. But there are some stark differences between the EU and U.S. Differences that exist because of federalism in the U.S. and the multi-level governance in the EU.
In the EU the most important lobbying actors are the member states themselves. Germany, France, the UK, etc. drive policy, rather than the executive or Congress. Interest groups have the option of “venue shopping” in the EU, where they can choose at what level of governance to dedicate resources. Even with interest groups focusing on member state governments, the most important actor, there has been an almost exponential increase in interest organizations in Brussels after the Singe European Act in 1986. The EU also differs from the U.S. because it engages interests through compromise due to the consensus based governance it has come to represent. The U.S. represents a “winner takes all” system[i], a zero sum game, where one interest is clearly the victor over the other. If big oil wins, the environment loses.
In the U.S. it is clear that governance structures will not change; this is not a given in EU, which is perpetually evolving. Therefore it is much easier for organizations to establish best practices and stick with them. Interest groups concentrate themselves in Washington because that is where the most important actors are located, not the case in the EU. In January the Supreme Court issued a ruling that has made it unconstitutional to ban interest groups from directly funding political advertisements during election campaigns (see Economist article) because it violates the First Amendment.
This ruling will certainly have an impact on political campaigns, but transparency is the major issue. This ruling will change little if the public knows that it is a coal company paying for an advertisement to support a legislative candidate promoting an increase in coal fired power plants. The same goes for renewable energy as well, although this is perceived as a “good” policy, rather than bad.
Perception is the main difference between the EU and U.S. Both public's are skeptical of special interests lobbying for concentrated benefits created through public policy, and are concerned about the public’s lack of involvement because the costs imposed are diffuse. However “good” and “bad” policies are perceived differently across the Atlantic. This is evident most clearly in environmental policy. During a meeting with Green Peace in Brussels I attended with my classmates, a question was raised asking if Green Peace suffers from an image problem in Europe. The question was answered “no” and the subject was immediately changed.
This was something myself and American classmates could not get over. From discussion afterward we came to the conclusion that Green Peace in the U.S. is viewed as having more in common with Al Qaeda than an NGO. This is obviously not true for all, or most Americans, but the perceived image in undoubtedly different. This sheds insight on perceived “good” and “bad” policies because the EU has shown, through substantial legislation, that it is going to do what it takes become an environmentally friendly continent. The federal government has take little action compared to the EU and the public in general is much more skeptical to the benefits that green policy measures can bring.
Is it easier for special interests to capture U.S. government institutions than the EU’s counterparts? That is a difficult question to answer, and lobbying is debated and studied extensively in the academic literature. Christine Mahoney and Frank Baumgartner are published extensively on this topic. Many of Dr. Baumgartner’s studies are available on his website. EU institutions are certainly more insulted than in the U.S. Whether or not this is good for democracy is debatable.
It is clear that there is room to increase the public’s confidence in government through increased transparency regarding lobbying in both the U.S. and the EU. With government bailouts of key sectors, both governments must take measures to distance themselves and illustrate clearly, through increased transparency, that they are not subject to capture. Distance and transparency will also help eliminate the problem of moral hazard that has not developed in bailed out industries.
Is lobbying a bad thing? Absolutely not, and increased transparency will show this by leveling the playing field for all organizations. Lobbying, interest representation and advocacy are here to stay and represent an integral part of democracy. Citizens’ initiatives account for the largest number of advocacy groups and play an important role in the legislative process, contrary to common belief. Both “good” and “bad” policies can be advocated for; it is simply in the eye of the beholder.
[i] Mahoney, Christine. 2007. “Lobbying Success in the United States and the European Union.” European Union Politics: Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 35-56.
No comments:
Post a Comment