AT AFF

AT: Abramoff Bad

1) What Abramoff did was illegal – it’s not inherent to Lobbying

Capital Eye Blog, September 15, 2009
Lack of enforcement, however, muddles full disclosure, as well as other lobbying rules, said Jim Thurber, head of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. Panelists pointed out that

The reforms the Abramoff scandal spurred were largely unnecessary -- what Abramoff did was
already illegal. Instead of more rules, the government needed to enforce those laws that already
existed.

2) Abramoff was a terrible lobbyist

Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and the
Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

“The media dubbed Jack Abramoff a ‘Super Lobbyist.’ This characterization is incorrect and
According to Boggs,

unfortunate. Unlike the vast majority of law abiding and ethical lobbyists, Abramoff delivered
very little for his clients. Rather he was guilty of lying, cheating, and stealing from his clients.
He was not a lobbyist, but rather a con artist who abused a system that on the whole functions
pretty well. Jack Abramoff and others like him are lazy lobbyists, trying to buy influence rather than being willing to work hard on behalf of their clients. Good
lobbyists are not successful because they buy favors, they are successful because they know the
system and provide expertise.” Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., Remarks at the Patton Boggs LLP Post Election Forum (Nov. 9, 2006)
AT AFF

A2T: Junkets/Company Paid For Trips

Company paid--‐for trips have dramatically declined

Congressional Quarterly Today, September 14, 2009, p. online

Lawmaker trips sponsored by outside groups have decreased by 56 percent since the ethics and
lobbying overhaul law was enacted exactly two years ago, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of congressional travel. More
than 2,300 former sponsors of lawmaker trips, including many corporations, government contractors and other groups that lobby, have
stopped paying for such travel. Meanwhile, the average amount of money still spent on lawmaker-related travel by outside groups has dropped from $250,000 a
month to $110,000 a month. "This is a sign that the law is working as intended ... It takes most of the influence peddling out of these trips," said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, one of the

watchdog groups that pushed for tougher ethics restrictions on lawmakers and lobbyists .
AT AFF

AT: Lots of Lobbying Scandals

1) There are very few scandals relative to the total number of lobbyists
Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and the
Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

The cacophony of bad news drowns out the fact that the crooked lobbyists are deviant outliers who hardly represent the
norm. Each of these scandals is, in a sense, an extreme example which should remind us that the
public policy process is usually above board and honest. In Washington, D.C. alone there are approximately 85,000 attorneys, a large number of whom
engage, to varying degrees, in public policy. At this writing, there were 35,844 registered lobbyists [in DC].

Exceedingly few of these men and women would even contemplate breaking an ethical rule or
tolerate anyone who does. The public policy work of these professionals rarely is noted by the press, and when it is, it is not because they had an ethical lapse.
Those headlined for breaking the rules were caught and punished, and they did not prevail in
bending the law and policy their way. The bad guys not only violated public trust, but shortchanged those clients who were naïve enough to try to buy
outcomes, because they did not, and in fact could not, deliver. The scandals we all read about were essentially political Ponzi schemes that collapsed,

inevitably, under their own weight.

AT AFF

AT: Lobbyists Just Buy Washington

1) (this can be made easily as an analytic) If Washington were easily bought,
lobbyists wouldn’t be needed Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable
Profession: The Right to Petition and the Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

The simple
Consequently, there is a great deal of myth and misperception about what public policy advocacy entails and the important role it plays in the democratic process.

truth is that our government cannot be bought. If it were that easy—if all it took to prevail was to a buy a
few steaks, sponsor a golf trip, or make campaign contributions— then anyone could do it, and
there would be no reason to hire a professional lobbyist to argue your case before lawmakers or to help you navigate through the
procedural and political labyrinth. People working in Congress and the Executive Branch are honest and dedicated. They are also attuned to political constituencies. Even if they are tempted to
ignore ethics rules, those who ignore the public interest (and their political self- interest) do so at the peril of their careers. Public policy advocates are also, with few exceptions, diligent and
honest. Writing from the perspective of lawyer policy advocates who practice in law firms, this author has an even easier case to make than lobbyists who do not because lawyers thrive on
compliance with rules, and must adhere to their own professional standards and canons of ethics. Like the Kosher hot dog company, lawyer lobbyists must “answer to a higher authority.”
AT AFF

AT: Lobbyists Lie

1) Lobbyists’ reputation will collapse if they do not provide full and accurate
information
Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and the
Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf
Third, part and parcel of persuasion on the merits is the advocate’s reputation and credibility. As explained by my colleague Darryl Nirenberg, who held several senior staff positions in the

[L]obbying is by necessity honorable, because a lobbyist is only as good as his

United States Senate:

reputation. A reputation is built by being forthcoming and honest. If you don’t provide the full
story or all the information, not only will you not be trusted, but your reputation will reflect this.
And then doing your job will become impossible.

2) Lobbyists who lie are ignored

Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and the
Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf
Nirenberg’s insight is confirmed on many fronts. Bryce Harlow, the “unofficial dean of Washington corporate representation” until his retirement in 1978, put it this way: The coin of lobbying,
as of politics, is trust . . . truth telling and square dealing are of paramount importance in this profession. If [one] lies, misrepresents, or even lets a misapprehension stand uncorrected—or if
someone cuts his corners too slyly—he is... dead and gone, never to be resurrected or even mourned. Gross explains that “to be a credible lobbyist in Washington, D.C., you have to provide
credible, valuable information. You just don’t go in there with a couple cigars and a glass of bourbon and schmooze. That’s not the way you get your reputation in this town.” The Policy

In [a] its 2007 survey, which included 273 congressional staff personnel, eighty-
Council’s data confirm the point.

six percent of respondents pointed to the importance of “consistently providing reliable

information” when asked to identify the tactics of the best lobbyists—making credibility the
single most important tactic. According to the survey, the most effective lobbyists are those who
provide credible information in a concise fashion and who also present and address the opposing
view.

3) Lobbyists have an incentive not to lie

Dorie Apollonio, Bruce E. Cain, and Lee Drutmanmm, political science professor, pharmacy professor, PHd
Candidate in Political Science, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Fall, 2008, Access and Lobbying: Looking
Beyond the Corruption Paradigm, p. 30

lobbyists cannot afford to

In general, political scientists who study the role of information in lobbying seem mostly sanguine about the consequences. They find that

misrepresent evidence because they know that their reputation for honesty is their most precious
asset. As a result, lobbyists often act as "information service bureaus" for policymakers, serving
in effect as an extension of research staff. And even if lobbyists do at times exaggerate their
claims, policymakers and staff are generally capable of filtering attempts to deceive them.
AT AFF

AT: Lobbyists Buy Support With Gifts

Giving gifts can actually hurt you because politicians want to avoid perceptions of
impropriety
Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to
Petition and the Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

money buys you less than it would appear and less than many politicians would
The dirty little secret is that

lead you to believe. Candidates are caught in an excruciating dilemma, in which they must convey to contributors that their
contributions are worthwhile, yet refrain from acting or exercising their official duties because of contributions.
Indeed, often members of Congress will bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of a
conflict or quid pro quo. Thus, contributions can become the gift that keeps on taking. It costs
you when you give, and it costs you when an official will not take up your cause in order to
avoid even the appearance of being influenced by money.
AT AFF

AT: Campaign Contributions Are Bribery/Affect voting

No evidence that campaign contributions buy legislative votes

Nick Allard, law partner, Patton Boggs, Lobbying Is an Honorable Profession: The Right to Petition and the
Competition to be Right, Stanford Law Review, (23), (2008),
http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/Allard_19slpr23.pdf

Though there are

A variety of popular economic theories view politics as a market where lawmakers sell policy outcomes in exchange for campaign contributions.

various models in the literature, the basic assumptions predict something like quid quo pro bribery. See generally Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman,
Special Interest Politics (2001); Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, Protection for Sale, 84 Am. Econ. Rev. 833 (1994). empirical studies, however, have not

been able to establish any consistent correlation between campaign contributions and political
outcomes. See generally. After examining almost forty scholarly articles attempting to find the correlation between money and politics between 1976 and 2002, Ansolabehere et al.
conclude that "overall, PAC contributions show relatively few effects on voting behavior. In three out

of four instances, campaign contributions had no statistically significant effects on legislation or

had the "wrong' sign - suggesting that more contributions lead to less support." Similarly, Baumgartner and Leech
note that "the unavoidable conclusion is that PACs and direct lobbying sometimes strongly influence Congressional voting, sometimes have marginal influence, and sometimes fail to exert
influence."
AT AFF

AT Health care

Both Sides Of The Health Care Debate Were Loaded With Lobbyists.
Seelye in 2010, Katherine Q. Seelye [Political Reporter]. “Pro or Con, Lobbying Thrived.” New
York Times’ Prescriptions Blog. January 30, 2010.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/pro‐or‐con‐lobbying‐thrived/. Accessed
February 1, 2010.

Clearly, lobbying has been a major factor in the fate of the health care overhaul, which suddenly
slid from the top of the president’s domestic agenda last year to an also‐ran in a new year in
which he wants to focus on producing jobs. Whether anything will pass is now in doubt. But
what the president did not mention in his address was that many of those lobbyists actually
worked to support his health care overhaul, not oppose it. Health care and insurance lobbyists
spent more than $648 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which
tracks the influence of money on elections and policy. That figure is not final; the center has not
been able to process about 20 percent of the year‐end lobbying reports. But even the incomplete
tally shows that the money spent last year on health care dwarfs the amount spent on any other
single issue in a single year. “It’s the most money ever spent by a business sector for federal
lobbying,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center. The lobbying reports do not break
down whether an interest group works for or against an issue. But Mr. Obama, who wants an
overhaul to provide insurance to almost everyone and curtail abuses by the health insurance
industry, had some powerful interests on his side. The 800‐pound gorilla in favor of an overhaul
was the pharmaceutical industry, which struck a deal with the White House that would protect its
profits for years to come. Drug companies spent more than $245 million on lobbying last year
(Pfizer, for example, chipped in $22 million) — more than any other single industry has ever
spent on lobbying on behalf of any issue, and by far the most that any group spent last year on
health care. To put that figure in perspective, it is about $90 million more than the oil and gas
industry spent on lobbying last year. In addition to the $648 million that all sides spent lobbying
on health care, they also poured $210 million into television advertising, according to Evan
Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks television
commercials. The television spending on health care also set a record for a single issue in a
single calendar year, Mr. Tracey said.
AT AFF

AT Earmarks

1) Earmark concerns should be minor.

Mann in 2009, Thomas E. Mann [Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings
Institution]. "Put Earmarks in Perspective." Politico. March 6, 2009.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19673.html. Accessed February 2, 2010.

Earmarks constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget [and mostly] In most cases, they don’t add to federal
expenditures but merely allow Congress to direct a small fraction of program funding that would otherwise be

allocated by formula or grant competition. Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending and budget deficits.
While earmark reform and reduction is a worthy cause, it is a relatively minor [cause] one. It would do nothing to slow the rate of
federal spending or improve our long‐term budget outlook. Moreover, hyperbolic attacks on earmarks do a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention and
energy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face in the months and years ahead.