DISPELLING THE NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS ABOUT LOBBYING

Lobbying is not a well-known activity. When individuals are confronted with lobbying they usually have a bad perception of what it is about. The critics can be so harsh that sometimes lobbyists wish they has stayed in the shadow. Lobbying has a very bad reputation and the concept is frequently associated with words such as manipulation, corruption, bribery and so on. The rare occasions the public hears about lobbying is in the media and reports are usually negative. Scandals do sell so the media prefers to concentrate on the bad stories regarding lobbyists instead of reporting about good ones. It is not surprising therefore that lobbyists are perceived as the bad guys.

Lobbyists have been termed the 'fifth power' (after the executive, legislative, judiciary branches, and the media) Critics' main objections are a lack of transparency in lobbying, implied links between lobbying and corruption and that lobbying lacks legitimacy or even that it poses a threat to democracy. Lobbying appears undemocratic in their eyes because it bypasses the established 'one man-one vote' principle with (one sided) representation of interests. The underlying fear is that politics become client politics; that a small minority gains benefits at the expense of the vast majority. Another common perception is that lobbying is linked to corruption, the main argument being that lobbyists buy political advantages.

There is certainly no justification for a general and indiscriminate demonization of lobbyists regardless of whether they act for business associations, unions, corporations, non-governmental organisations, or other groups in society.

Each year sees the presentation of the "Worst EU lobbying Award" in Brussels to civil servants, politicians and businesses. The prize publicly denounces what its jury considers particularly controversial lobbying activities with the aim of reducing their effect. This "scandalization" of the issue contributes to the "lobbying myth", a myth constantly being reinforced by implications in media reports and which is sometimes reduced to a simplistic black and white scenario. Lobbying, is moreover, an issue which can be easily used to serve and apparently confirm existing prejudices and resentment along the lines of "policy is made by business, not by voters". Of course, such allegations are unfounded and if the situation was that simple, there would be no need of lobbying.

The Lobbying Myths

Myth 1: Lobbyists are all rich

Certainly, some lobbyists make good money, but many, many lobbyists toil from morning until night checking e-mails, making phone calls, writing issue papers and lobbying policymakers and their staff for salaries that are just average.

Myth 2: Lobbyists are liars, cheaters focused on bending government to their personal interests

The negative perception is that they are the dark side of any political engagement, that when they are very good at their job they can influence not only government policies but also force cultural change.

Certainly like every profession there are those individuals we could do without, but generally, lobbyists are a smart and strategic group of communicators doing good work.

Myth 3: Lobbyists receive money to lobby

Given the complexities of the government, it is not unreasonable to assume that an organization might seek the assistance of those who specialize in understanding government to represent them. Paying someone to lobby or accepting money in order to lobby is not suspicious behavior. Despite this, lobbyists carry with them the expectation of bad behaviour. What other communications professional is obliged to complete a public expectation of their activities and intent before and every time they initiate their business practice?

Myth 4: Lobbyists provide access

Another pervasive myth that surrounds government relations is the discussion of access. The myth runs something like this, a good lobbyist is someone who can get you access to government officials. What this implies is that access is limited, content irrelevant and objectives extraneous. It says that your issue, its effect on the public and any informed solutions you may to offer are irrelevant if you don't have a personal friendship with the right government official or enough cash to hire the right lobbyist.

Having a lobbyist with good contacts in government can facilitate the timing and effectiveness of your meetings, speeding things along, but it shouldn't be and rarely is, a requirement for meeting with elected officials or civil servants.

Myth 5: Lobbyists lack ethics

Lobbyists get all kinds of flak for being intellectually promiscuous and ethically-lacking, because people assume they work for whichever, and however many, corporate clients that are willing to pay them.

Some lobbyists do have a stable of different corporate clients. But many lobbyists work in-house. And it's not just corporations that hire them. So do trade associations, professional associations, non-governmental organisations, consumer groups etc. There's literally a lobbyist for every cause and every issue you can think of, and many you've never thought of. Most people who lobby focus on a specific set of issues about which they feel very strongly.

Myth 6: Lobbyists don't contribute anything of value to the political system

Most of the lobbyists do serve a purpose. There are many proposals (bills) that are introduced each year and most of them generate very little constituent input. It would be awfully inefficient if Government or Parliament reinvented-the-wheel to research every issue. Instead they usually try to weigh what different lobbyists, with specific knowledge about that issue say. The process helps identify why a bill may or may not be in the interest of citizens, along with unintended consequences.

Myth 7: Lobbyists participate in politics only to help their clients or employer

The reality is that many people end up as lobbyists because they are passionate about politics.

The "lobbying myths" are therefore like most myths and legends, far removed from the reality. No question that there are regularly instances that cross or at least touch ethical and legal boundaries. The criticisms should therefore be taken seriously. Lobbying can without a doubt exceed reasonable and legitimate influence, especially when it reaches or passes the bounds of what is legal. Yet such exceptions merely prove the rule that lobbying is usually structured, professional and legally unassailable. The majority of people working in government and politics are hard-working, honest people. And focusing too much on exception and not the rule compromises the legitimacy of the government and inhibits its ability to function.

Lobbyists are a popular and easy scapegoat and attacking a lobbyist is like scratching a rash. It feels good, but it actually makes things worse.