Oil Lobbying

According to the Washington Post, three of every four lobbyists who now work for oil or gas companies originally began working with the federal government. Often these lobbyists have served as aides to Congress men and women on Capitol Hill or as part of an executive branch agency before being offered their lobbying post. Many of these ex-aides and ex-agency lobbyists have ties to important committees and members on the Hill, which may play a role in their ability to communicate their company's needs regarding oil and gas. The article states that many of these men and women were contacted to comment on the topic but opted not to speak. The conclusion of the article notes that some of these lobbyists have been convicted for various schemes related to money.

This morning's Politico ran an article stating that the Big Oil companies have increased their spending on lobbying in the second quarter of 2010. Spending was up roughly one million dollars from $1.3 million in the first quarter to $2.3 million in this quarter. The American Petroleum Institute paid lobbyists to work on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and fought efforts to raise liability caps on oil companies.

Contrary to API's increased spending on lobbying, BP, who is a member of API, amended their reported spending from $3.5 million to $1.6 million in the first quarter, which seemed to show a decrease. The company says this decrease is related to a change in the definition of "lobbying" that they used to file their report. By switching from the IRS definition of lobbying to the one provided in the Lobbyist Disclosure Act, BP was able to reduce the amount of money it spent on lobbying. Their second quarter report shows $1.7 million spent in the second quarter, which corresponds with the oil spill.

I find these articles very interesting because fo the way that they portray lobbyists. The first article seems to allude to a sinister connection between ex-Hill and ex-agency workers moving to lobbying firms. However, for a company in need of a lobbyist, the sensible action is to hire someone who has worked on the Hill or with the agency that the company plans to lobby. Often these individuals know how the system works and are going to be more efficient in their jobs. Just like one would hire an optometrist to prescribe glasses, one should hire an ex-Department of Energy worker if he or she plans to lobby the Department of Energy.

As for the Politico article, any time a company has an interest in current legislation, the company is likely to increase its lobbying of the Hill. If Congress is not working on anything of interest to this company, then it has less reason to visit the Hill.

Often lobbyists have a bad reputation, and I think that it stems from articles like these. While they are reporting true data, the presentation of the information makes it seem as if the companies employing these strategies are being deceitful. However, the companies appear to be transparent in reporting their spending and are completely within their rights to lobby. In addition, these lobbyists provide another piece of the puzzle for Congress members who must make decisions about regulations. These oil companies employ many people, and in a time where jobs are limited, crushing oil companies could do just as much damage to the economy as the oil spill has done to the ocean. Thus, Congress members need to hear both sides of the argument, leading to a need for lobbyists. - Kelly F.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072106468_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010072105484

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40052.html