Lobbying

LOBBYING

SOME OBSERVATIONS
By
A REFORMED BUREAUCRAT
Jim Beers

An Address Given At The Freedom 21 National Conference
Friday 21 July 2006
In
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky

LOBBYING. The term conjures up visions of fat guys in suits sitting in an expensive restaurant with money sticking out of their pockets and big cigars sticking out of their mouths. Actually that is “influence peddling” and while it has always and will always go on, I don’t know much about it so we won’t even go there.

No, the lobbying I want to talk about is what you and I (those of us without “influence” or lots of money) engage in when we come in contact with government. Whether it is some law or regulation or policy, whether it is a politician or government employee: when we are confronted, we either lobby or are run over like a European serf caught before a King’s carriage on its way to a banquet.

The last four decades in America have seen a tidal wave of Federal absorption of State authorities and the bold assertion of government powers from taking private property without “just compensation” (Endangered Species) to taking private property for things that are not even a “public use”. Simultaneously, State governments have come to rely ever more heavily on the Federal funding and the Federal mandates that either accompany or Federal bureaucrats imply are conditions for receiving such funds. The result is growing friction between individuals and both State and Federal government. The growth in intensity and duration of this friction increases directly the need for and interest in Lobbying.

Lobbying today is not: a one-shot deal for a few individuals, nor is it easy.

Lobbying today is: a continuous duty for all and it is straightforward.


An Example of Successful Lobbying –

Last year I met a priest who enjoyed fishing and canoeing. Although he had never gone hunting or grown up around guns, he went duck hunting (as an observer) with me last fall. It was not what you would call a “successful” hunt, but we had a good time and he was enthusiastic about going hunting next year. I told him about getting a license and stamps and checking into a Hunter Education Course. Last winter he told me that he had looked into the Hunter Education Courses and found all of them in Northern Virginia required a half-day of classes during the week, but always a FULL day of classes on Sunday. I told him I couldn’t imagine how that could be but that I would look into it.

Sure enough, every Hunter Education Course required a full day of Sunday attendance. I thought this was an unnecessary and improper burden for a required mandate and thought about Lobbying the State game Commission. Immediately two questions arose. Lobby who? Lobby how?

Now here is how a “reformed bureaucrat” went about it:
- If I were to call the State Hunter Education Office and talk to a staff person, that person would only defend the status quo as his or her boss expected.
- If I were to call the “head” of the Hunter Education “Office” or “Department” or whatever, he would have a vested interest in the schedules and volunteers he had approved PLUS he would be resentful because a member of the general public like me was bothering him rather than “his” staff.
- If I were to talk to the local Hunter Education Instructors, they would be the ones that had adjusted their hours (more likely adjusted the State Hunter Education Office approved hours) to fit “their” (the instructors) schedules.
- If I were to go to my State politicians, they would know right away that there aren’t a lot of hunters in these Northern Virginia environs, so they would assuage me with “Response #37” and send my letter over to the Game Commission who would forward it to “Hunter Education” who would write a response to me that would echo what the Department head would have said AND if I did this AFTER I had spoken with him (the Department Head) I would have made a non-friend-for-life.
- After mulling all this over, I remembered that the Director of the Game Commission had recently been fired (for suspicion of misusing funds) and we had just elected a new Governor. I checked the internet and found out that there was an “Acting” Director. Now “Actings” are either old guys that don’t want the job or are about to retire or persons that want the job as much as they ever wanted anything in their life.
- I decided to try and contact the “Acting” Director. How would I contact him? What would I say?
- I called the general switchboard at 8:10 one weekday morning and asked for the Director. I was forwarded to his secretary who asked what I wanted and who I was. I told her I was a hunter in Northern Virginia and I had some disturbing information that the Director and the Governor should be made aware of concerning Hunter Education. The Director took the call and was very gracious. I explained about how all-day Sunday Hunter Education classes for a priest were impossible but then asked what about Baptist kids or Catholic teens or Methodist dads? Did it make sense that they HAD to miss Sunday Church Services in order to buy a hunting license in a State that had FORBIDDEN SUNDAY HUNTING SINCE COLONIAL TIMES? Was he or the Governor aware of this? Certainly some adjustment was called for and could be made to obtain compliance with this license requirement, couldn’t it?
- He said he was unaware of this problem and certainly appreciated my bringing it to his attention. He said that he and the Governor would not want it to persist. He assured me that it would be changed by late summer and he thanked me very much for bringing this to his attention. Bingo.
- Why did I call at 8:10 AM? Because “Actings” nearly always come in early and rummage around their paperwork and drink a beverage early to be prepared for what is ahead for them and to appear competent and available to their overseers. That means they are usually as “available” as they will ever be during the day.
- Why did his secretary let me through? Because I said it was important and that it concerned Hunter Education (a function of the Director) and that he and the Governor should know what I was calling about. Also it was early in the morning when she and he are generally not as busy as later.
- Why did he take the call? Because I mentioned the Governor, the new politician that would be responsible for how he was treated until he left the job or that would ultimately give him the job. Also Hunter Education is usually all “warm-fuzzy” things that are like puppies or little birds – good publicity for bureaucrats.
- Why did he agree to change the schedule? Because he knew it was the right thing to do and because it affected not only hunting but religious practice in a State that takes that seriously and neither he nor the new Governor would want that sort of problem or publicity.

There was nothing sinister or hidden in any of this. The bureaucrats were neither good nor bad, only humans behaving as predictably as their paid roles required. The schedule is being adjusted, the public good is served, and there aren’t any hard feelings or scores to be settled at the next opportunity.


An Example of Unsuccessful Lobbying

Several acquaintances spent a lot of time and money in the past two years LOBBYING Federal politicians about including Invasive Species language in the enormous Highway Bill (SAFETEA-LU) that disburses Billions of dollars in Federal Highway Funding every few years. The 5 or 6 locations (sentences or paragraphs) in the bill that would have established a Federal MANDATE to prohibit the use of any Invasive Plant Species* on, along, or near any highway project were the “further-foot-in-the-door” desired by the US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of land Management, and National Park Service to establish a Federal role to eradicate all plants and animals that are considered “out-of-place” or the object of human uses targeted for elimination by environmentalists or animal rights organizations.

*NOTE: Consider what conceivable interest a Highway Department has in the “nature” of plants used in any Federal, State, or Local Highway Project. Certainly initial cost and maintenance costs and hardiness are important. Beauty is a consideration if costs are neither additive nor prohibitive. Noxious weeds that harm crops or gardens or lawns are a legitimate consideration. Plants that encourage insect pests or attract wildlife onto roadways are another legitimate concern. Such harmful plants that may spread from the road are certainly worth avoiding. All that said, there is absolutely NO LEGITIMATE CONCERN about whether the plants were here when Columbus arrived or when the Revolutionary War was won. There is absolutely NO LEGITIMATE CONCERN about prohibiting plants specifically developed for low planting cost, low maintenance costs, and hardiness on the grounds that they are not “natural” or “Native” or are “Invasive”. “Invasive” is a term used to mean both “Non-Native” or “out of place”. It is the implied accompaniment and antithesis of “Native” and is used equally for plant or animal species or populations. It is equally applied to both wild and domestic plants and animals. In other words a Federal role and mandate to States to “eliminate Invasive Species” compared to the Endangered Species Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Animal welfare Act is like comparing a thermonuclear device to a spear, a sword, and a crossbow.

Getting back to our story. My friends met with Congressional staffs on numerous occasions. (People without “influence” rarely actually meet a Congressman or Senator. These superior beings use a “different door”, a “members-only elevator”, and eat in a “members-only dining room”.) It is amazing how some really good-talking politicians have staffers that fight for the opposite of what the member says or, occasionally, actually means.

When confronted with the 5 or 6 offending “Invasive Species” sections, the staffers could not defend the language (See the *NOTE above). There was no justification, and with determined pressure they caved and agreed to get rid of the language (at which point they usually start to act like it was their idea as they look forward to telling their boss how they are “supporting” him by lifting language that often they acquiesced in inserting in the first place).

At this point the “successful” LOBBYISTS do one last word check on the computer and rejoice when the Search for “Invasive Species” comes up “Zero Found”. They all go to dinner at the “Influence Peddler Restaurant” and buy themselves dinner. End of story? Not quite!

The Bill gets passed on 10 August 2005 and on 16 May 2006 the disbursements are accompanied by new “Guidance” on Section 329 of the Omnibus (that means BIG) Bill. This “Guidance” from the Highway Bureaucrats on behalf of the Slippery Congressional Staffers concerns “noxious weeds”, aquatic noxious weeds”, and “establishment of native species provisions”. The “Guidance” goes on to inform (i.e. really “instruct” since this now involves money and bureaucratic direction) each State that while former requirements were “that one-quarter of one percent of the landscape budget on a federally-funded project be reserved for establishment of native wildflowers”, “SAFETEA-LU expands eligibility to establishment of native plants, which include not only native flowers, but also grasses, shrubs, trees, and vines.” It goes on, “This additional eligibility for establishment of native plants will be beneficial in supplementing FHWA’s environmental stewardship efforts in areas of wetlands mitigation, wildlife habitat planting, native plant restoration, and plant community restoration.” Note the ambiguity about how much to spend and what to do whenever you plan a “landscape”. No one will oppose this since State Highway Departments (like State Fish and Wildlife agencies) “have to work with their Federal counterparts” as they are rewarded on how well they “get every nickel due the State at the earliest opportunity”. Thus is born another Federal mandate and another State area of Constitutional authority and jurisdiction is ceded meekly to Federal bureaucrats to be used to fulfill radical hidden agendas.

If you listen real hard you can still hear the Congressional staffers and Highway bureaucrats still snickering, “suckers” just like one of those Bugs Bunny cartoons. Price be damned, maintenance be damned, wildlife benefit (many “invasives” are very good for wildlife) be damned, the thing was a success! A Federal “native ecosystem/invasive species role” has been strengthened and more money made available for activist agendas and another basis for lawsuits spreads across the Nation like poison ivy rash. (Those are cheers you hear from the offices in Washington.)


DISCUSSION

The first example (Hunter Education) was successful for many reasons. It was a small thing and there were no national agendas involved. It involved a bureaucrat and a politician that genuinely feel threatened by a complainant with a legitimate beef. Money wasn’t a factor and power was not a factor. The guys that would fight change (the volunteer instructors and the Hunter Education Division folks) were under the “Acting” bureaucrat and the new Governor. But most importantly, it was a success because I was dealing with a State as opposed to a Federal entity.

Do you think some US Fish and Wildlife Service Hunter Education Coordinator or Regional Director or Agency Director would even take my call? Do you think they would even listen much less consider the problem? Do you think they would consider, even for a nanosecond, that if the newspapers or some political opponent got hold of this that it would threaten their job or create any problem? Not on your life!

The first example was successful precisely for the reason clearly understood by the Founding Fathers over 200 years ago. The closer to the people the government authority, the more responsive the government authority is to the people. While it sounds profound, it is self-evident common sense and the reason why the Federal role was so specifically limited in our Constitution.

The reason for the failure of the second example was (like “Invasive Species” and its antithesis “Native Species”) the antithesis of the reason why the first example was a success. Federal or central government, by its very nature is remote and unresponsive. It incorporates all manner of “alien” (to your State or community) agendas again by its very nature. The bureaucrats are rewarded and the politicians elected depending on how well they “play” those national agendas. Some priest’s hunting license is of no matter, hunting requirements that discourage hunting or a federal mandate to “restore” and “manage” a “Native Ecosystem” builds bureaucratic budgets and power, elects politicians, and fulfills radical agendas at the expense of our liberties, freedoms, and rights.

The Senate staff tinker belles that snookered my friends with their slight-of hand may get a job with some environmental outfit or one of the “land-management” Federal agencies to be replaced with someone from an environmental outfit or even a US citizen that works for the UN. The Federal politician we all love may get a new Committee assignment that takes him away from the things he “talked a good game about” before his staff’s antics catch up with him. The Federal Highway “Guidance Wordsmith” will soon be a Regional Director and then have a shot at some Assistant or Deputy Director slot when that old political hack they picked up from the last Administration retires. It is all like a happy merry-go-round
with laughing children all having a good time, at our expense!

My friends spent a lot of money. They researched and reviewed language. They hired and consulted Washington “expertise”. They worked hard and learned a lot and they lost.

The “system” is always several steps ahead of you because the politicians and the bureaucrats have unlimited time and funds. They are handling dozens of issues like yours and they have “handled” people like you hundreds of times before. They study why they failed here and succeeded there. They save stuff they lost with three years ago and polish it off with a new name when some politician is having a tough reelection. They can lie and cheat and never get called on it. They can make trouble for you. They train each other about how they “handled” this issue or “guys like you” before. In short they have become, to our great detriment, a growing power unto themselves that is feeding on our liberty.

LOBBYING IS THE ANSWER. We must all:

1.) Support and elect State and Local politicians that will defend our Rights and States Rights. Identifying and defeating their antithesis, politicians that oppose or are indifferent to our Rights and States Rights, is part and parcel of this important first step. These politicians are the bush league for those “professionals” in Washington. These politicians control and Administer and guide their staffs and our State Bureaucracies to work for our State and defend us against national agendas and Federal maneuvers that would harm us. We pay for this and should be content with nothing but the best.
2.) Monitor who is working for State government and what is being done by our State bureaucracies from the State agencies to the Universities. We must identify employees and programs that harm rather than help State residents and communities and then direct our State elected officials on how to go about correcting the problems. This takes persistence and strong public support. Steps 1 & 2 are necessary to go on.
3.) Defeat Federal politicians that are harmful or indifferent. Replace them with tested State elected officials that have proven their commitment to protecting you and your family and your community. Compose specific recommendations for legislation or to amend or repeal legislation. Publicize what they do, what you want, and what they or their staff have done or failed to do. Publicize, Publicize. Then turn them on their primary job in these early years of the 21st century; bringing the Federal bureaucracy under control and reforming it into a machine fit for US Federal responsibilities and return those State Constitutional authorities and jurisdictions that the Founding Fathers wisely defined in the first place.
4.) Be aware of every aspect of government. University curriculums, teacher conduct, hiring and promotion standards for bureaucrats, salaries and benefits for bureaucrats and politicians, and laws that need amending or repeal are all relevant to and impetus for the more apparent issues like taking property and surrender of national sovereignty to UN authority. This demands reading and discussing with others what you know and what is coming. It is a never-ending job in this world of centralized power, unresponsive bureaucracies, and growing indifference to liberties and freedom.

I said it wasn’t a one-shot deal. I said it would take more than one good person and I said it wasn’t easy. However, I did say it was straightforward and a duty for every one of us. Now I ask you, would an old bureaucrat like me, lie to you?

Thanks for your attention. Are there any questions?

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.