K Street hiring more Democrats : Good or bad?

[kentuck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601598.html

<snip>

Washington lobbying firms, trade associations and corporate offices are moving to hire more well-connected Democrats in response to rising prospects that the opposition party will wrest control of at least one chamber of Congress from Republicans in the November elections.

In what lobbyists are calling a harbinger of possible upheaval on Capitol Hill, many who make a living influencing government have gone from mostly shunning Democrats to aggressively recruiting them as lobbyists over the past six months or so.

<snip>

At Patton Boggs LLP, another lobbying powerhouse, the calculation is similar. "Democrats' stock has clearly risen in the interviewing process this year as the chances for a Democratic takeover have increased," said John F. Jonas, the head of Patton Boggs's health practice. "Serious hiring" of Democrats, he added, has become "a high priority here at Patton Boggs."

"Earlier this year, the propensity was to look mostly at Republicans" as candidates for lobbying jobs, said W. Michael House, director of the legislative group at the law firm Hogan & Hartson. "Now, we're looking at both Republicans and Democrats closely."

....more

[Atman]

1. Good AND bad

Good, because K street puts its money where it thinks the influence is. Where it thinks their lobbyists can buy the most influence. So obviously, they see dark days ahead for the GOP, and their candy store is about to be shuttered.

Bad, because it means they expect to be able to purchase Democrats as easily as Republicans. And they're probably correct.

And the beat goes on.

[Totally Committed]

2. WHO'S hiring Democrats??? K Street Republican advisors? Great...

just great. :sarcasm:

More co-opting and diluting of our message. More DINO advisors to be hired by Democratic campaigns. More DINO advice to be followed by Democratic candidates. More elections to be conceded. More DLC influence to be felt. More Democrats to be sold out for K Street $$$$$$$$$.

Once they get to K Street they'll learn there's only ONE PARTY there: The $$$$$$$$$$ Party.

Gee, I can't wait!

TC

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Gray, not black or white

Insofar as lobbying firms are a fact of life in American politics, it has to be considered a good thing that they are trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle.

The best thing about this news is that it signals the end of Grover Norquist's K Street Project.

On the other hand, the fact that lobbying firms are a fact of life in American politics isn't that good in the first place. It indicates that the system is corrupt to the bone.

[Cosmocat]

10. Yeah ...

Delay was the driving force with it, and with him out of power, it ratches things down a good bit ... Santorum runs the senate side, and he obviously is focused on trying to save his butt ... IF we do what we need to do in PA and send that scumbag packing for good, it will put another good hit into the Republican lobbyist machine ...

I don't think it is dead yet, and as others noted, it isn't a good thing at all ... But, republican total control of it has been a HUGE part of creating the mess we have now ... You can only hope that SOME day, these clowns, theirs and ours, decide to clean it up ...

[KKKarl is an idiot]

4. ..

When I hear Diebold is hiring more democratic lobbyists then I am believer we will pull this one of.

[brentspeak]

5. Bad. All political lobbying of Congress should be banned.

100% ban.

[MrModerate]

6. Lobbying as practiced today is a cancer . . .

It's not encouraging that those describing themselves as Democrats will now have a larger hand in the spread of the disease.

On the other hand, lobbying is sometimes the only way a complicated, technical or esoteric issue can be packaged for congressional consumption, and the only way professional analysis gets included in legislation. Even the most well informed and well intentioned legislator is hardly an expert on every issue they support or actively promote. Without lobbyist expertise, they'd be legislating in the dark even more than they are now. And yes, the people (which includes CEOs, professors, NGO directors, and grandma down the street) do have the right to petition their government and the lobbyist system is sometimes the only way this can take place.

I think we have to take this trend as a qualified positive. At a minimum, the guys whose livelihood is on the line have their noses in the air and they smell dem victory in November. That's encouraging, if not conclusive.

[Warpy]

7. It means they fully expect Democrats to control Congress

and that's probably not a bad thing. I just wish I shared that hope.

I have yet to hear a Democrat campaign on their perfect wedge issue: WAGES.

The party leadership is still a pack of conservative fools and their beltway blinders are as secure as ever.

[leesa]

8. K Street should be shut down. Isn't prostitution illegal in DC?

[Totally Committed]

9. Exactly right!

Beautifully said, and I agree. They should just shut the whole damned place down, and outlaw the "business" done there.

TC

[ccpup]

11. As always,

in Washington, if you want to see who's in Power, follow the Money. Or at least follow wherever the Money is going. And I believe it's a good sign that the Money is drifting toward the Dems! It'll take years for the "rules" in DC to change. A good first step, though, is getting the Sane, Smart Party (the Dems) back in Power.

Just my two cents.

[Gman]

12. Ha! The K Street Project is crashing!

First sign of what might be a pretty good 2007.

[demnan]

13. Good if you're a Democrat

bad if you're a Republican :)

[kentuck]

14. How can this be good for Democrats??

How can Democrats tolerate this at all? I don't understand. This only makes our Party weaker - not stronger - when it is tied to special interests and corporations. That is Republican territory. people.
:shrug:

[mmonk]

15. I think the dream of having that power behind you

is why we don't have a cohesive party as some dems think they must co-opt republican politics to get it.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. It just means that...

lobbyists for GE, Lockheed, and Wal-Mart are assuming there's gonna be a big change in the power structure next year and are looking for people who can influence Democrats

I agree there's too much money floating around on K Street, but don't anyone forget that all those groups on the left we support are lobbying, too. Outspent, perhaps, but they're still there fighting.

[kentuck]

17. Are you comparing "groups on the left" with those on the right?

To lobby for equal rights, justice, feeding the hungry, affirmative action, etc, is hardly the same as lobbying for Haliburton, Bechtel, or huge corporations that are looking to suck more dollars from the American taxpayers. I don't think we should compare the two.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Even the bad guys have a right...

to petition Congress. My groups petition for some kid of justice, their groups petition for money.

But, all commercial lobbying is not evil. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 was essentially written by insurance companies as a response to the Torrey Canyon disaster, and was considered a great success at the time, even by environmental groups. It set up rapid response teams for oil spills and a system of liability for the spillers. It worked for years until it became gutted. I was out of the loop when the Valdez hit the rock, but I'm pretty sure that if the system we set up was still in effect then, the problems would have been greatly reduced.

The concept of lobbying is neutral, and it's supposedly up to us to put Congress' feet to the fire to make the right choices.