Views differ on county hiring a lobbyist

January 29, 2006

The primary error in a generalization is its illogical nature. Simply put, a generalization doesn't make sense because not all people believe the same thing, have the same habits, react in the same way to anything. One might say the only justifiable generalization is that one should never generalize.

Yet the word "lobbyist" has become an alternative definition of "crook" in many minds, because of the Jack Abramoff case. And that backlash has hit home, with the Anderson County Council under criticism for paying, in 2004, $40,000 for professionals to lobby the federal government on the county's behalf. In 2005, the tab was almost double the 2004 figure, $78,000. Lobbying has, because of the illegal activities of the few, become a dirty word and some members of council didn't waste any time climbing on the bandwagon.

Yet according to County Administrator Joey Preston and at least four members of Anderson County Council, the results have far outweighed the expense: an estimated $6 million to $7 million in federal transportation funding since the firm was hired.

Anderson County is one of numerous other municipalities and organizations, both nonprofit and commercial, to hire professional help to make a case in Washington. In a matter of minutes, on a single job site we found three dozen open jobs for "lobbyist" or "grant writer," from entities ranging from a major national charity to a state chamber of commerce to a non-profit trade association to a state retirement system to a state employees association. Salaries ranged from $35,000 to $120,000 a year, depending on the size of the organization seeking applicants and its geographical location (metropolitan or suburban).

The point is that lobbying is nothing new, and it is more often than not a smart investment.

Steve Suranovic is an associate professor of economics and international affairs at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. In searching for a learned definition of the word "lobbyist," we came across his Web-text for classes on international economics. He defines lobbying as "the activity where individual citizens voice their opinion to government officials about government policy actions ... essentially an information transmission process." He divides lobbyists into two categories: casual and professional.

The former describes persons who are using "leisure time to petition or inform government officials of their point of view." In one sense, anyone who writes a letter to his congressman or member of the state legislature is by definition a lobbyist.

A professional lobbyist, on the other hand, is one who represents others for compensation to present their point of view to government. The professor gives the example of a law firm, which is the type of lobbying organization with which the county has contracted for the last two years.

In the final paragraph of the definition, Mr. Suranovic says that "lobbying is a necessity for the democratic system to work. Somehow information about preferences and desires must be transmitted from citizens to the government officials who make policy decisions."

Councilman Bill McAbee believes the expenses were unwarranted, that the county should be able to deal directly with members of Congress. They have in the past and still do. But there is a lot of competition out there for limited dollars, and our congressional members have more than Anderson County with which to contend.

And we would even say this to any of our agents in Washington: They're good, but they're not cloned; there is no way any delegation can equally serve all constituents. There have to be priorities. And while it's true local officials can go to Washington and talk with our representatives and senators, the reality is that even those personal visits are no guarantee and are rarely made with the amount of research a professional can amass and present, or with a professional's contacts.

We disagree with council member Cindy Wilson as well, who said the practice of paying for someone to represent Anderson County's interests in Washington was "absurd."

What would be "absurd" would be to continue pleas on a less-than-effective level when help is available for what comparatively speaking is a small price to pay for the return.

It's certainly not something every city or county needs. Charleston has little need of lobbyists; it's contributions to the state economy through tourism are well known, and when you have that kind of impact on the economy, even people in Washington listen when you whisper.

But Anderson County needed a more powerful voice.

And we believe it was a good decision for the community's future to find one.

Copyright 2006, Anderson Independent Mail. All Rights Reserved.