Tools of the Trade, Part II on Lobbying

People who blame lobbying for what ails Washington are falling for an old trick; politicians and special interests diverting your gaze from the real culprits - themselves.

I can almost write the fundraising email. “We’re the only ones standing between you and unsafe, unhealthy food,” the so-called “public interest” group will claim. “We expose and fight the corporate lobbyists (cue the spooky music) who pressure the (name the federal agency) to lower standards and keep you from knowing how your food is grown and what’s inside food packages. Contribute today so we can fight for your right to know.”

I bet you’ve received an email or snail mail or two like that. These same groups sometimes have just as many lobbyists scouring the halls of Congress and federal agencies, from the Food and Drug Administration to the Environmental Protection Agency. And they find writing and getting a Member of Congress to introduce their pet legislation easier because they’re a “consumer” organization. I’ve seen it time after time.

The lobbying world is just as divided, contentious, and competitive as the political and sports worlds. Maybe more so. Corporate lobbyists, especially for consumer goods companies, find themselves playing defense more often than not. And when you bring a perfectly good idea to Congress, you’re just as likely to find a praetorian guard - a competing coalition - ready to battle and crank up those fundraising emails and coalition partners.

It’s easier to kill legislation and regulations than it is to push them through the process and get them enacted. Getting to “no” takes less effort than “yes.”

Tools of the Trade: The Coalition

One tool contract and trade associations use is building a coalition - identifying an issue that can help employers operate more efficiently and compete more effectively, requiring a legislative or regulatory change or killing one.

About 15 years ago, a group of us realized that if we in the US could do what the European Union did - allowing heavier trucks on interstate highways, along with a sixth axle (today’s US 18-wheelers have five axles) to add braking power, make them safer, and better distributing weight to reduce wear and tear on bridges and highways - we could save our company a lot of money. We could actually lessen the growing demand for more trucks on interstate highways - and try to find drivers to fill their cabs - and curb truck emissions. Who could be against cleaner air and safer highways?

I asked the logistics experts at my company how much we could save if we could ship products on trucks in the United States weighing 97,000 pounds versus the current 80,000 limit. We would need fewer trucks. I was told the savings could save about $3 million annually. About 200 companies eventually joined hands and pooled resources to support a lobbyist who expertly gathered facts, worked with supportive House and Senate staff to write legislation, and, working with others (like me), recruited congressional cosponsors. We called ourselves the Coalition for Transportation Productivity. Legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate, the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, with scores of cosponsors.

It’s not a very sexy title for either the coalition or the legislation. We could have called ourselves the Cleaner Air, Safer Highways, or CASH coalition. The same goes for the legislation. Or maybe the “Safer Access to Freeways and Efficiency” or SAFE Act. No, we chose “transportation productivity.” Now you know why legislation and coalitions are so cleverly if often inaccurately named, such as the “Inflation Reduction Act,” which did no such thing—just the opposite. This stuff matters in the arena of public opinion.

You might think safety advocates would like this. Fewer and safer trucks on highways. And since most states and neighboring countries have higher weight limits than federal interstates, it would take trucks off secondary roads and reduce fatal accidents.

You would be wrong. Here came the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, enlisting their friends in local law enforcement who often arrive at scenes of accidents involving trucks. Bigger meant bad, and they could not be persuaded otherwise. Complicating our effort was a second coalition, led in part by a former US Transportation Secretary, James Burnley, to allow for longer trucks on highways - triple trailers in many cases. They complicated our lobbying efforts and proved a perfect foil for the “safety” advocates. Here’s their case:

Stand with over 3,500 law enforcement officers, EMTs, safety leaders, engineers, independent truck drivers and elected officials, and voice your opposition to bigger trucks on our nation’s highways.

Are we willing to compromise the safety of thousands of motorists every day just to haul more freight? Are we willing to spend billions to repair bridges damaged by bigger trucks? Who will pay the price for an 11-percent higher fatal crash rate for multi-trailer trucks? Who will pick up the tab when bigger trucks only repay a portion of their highway damage?

Having credible research and data on our side didn’t matter. They had the emotion and the easier task of defeat instead of trying to get something enacted through Congress.

They won additional supporters as their expertly-led coalition grew. They were joined by Teamsters, which represents many truck drivers. Fewer trucks means fewer drivers, which means fewer dues-paying members. And their safety!

But they were soon joined by an interesting partner: The American Association of Railroads, who somehow saw heavier and safer trucks as competitors to shipping things by rail.

Their argument was ludicrous. Shippers will opt for rail anytime they can because it is more cost-efficient. But rail, unlike roads, doesn’t go everywhere. For that reason, seventy-five percent of intercity shipments are made by truck. No single rail line was connected to any of my company’s factories at the time, with one exception: that could only bring ingredients to the plant, not ship from, and not very often or reliably. We had to use trucks. But I’m sure the railroads felt morally superior being associated with safety advocates, law enforcement, and labor unions.

But guess what? The railroad industry has powerful friends in Congress. One of their friends was then US Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA), who served on the House Transportation Committee and led the effort to kill our bill in committee. He had strong Democratic support and peeled enough Republicans, especially fellow Pennsylvanians, such as then-Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA), to vote with him.

Meehan’s vote was personally painful. I had strongly supported him in his election. We had a lot of employees in his district. He was my congressman then, and we’d spoken extensively about the bill. He didn’t cosponsor, but I had no indication he would vote against me. So much for my influence. The politics of Pennsylvania’s still-powerful rail interests, local law enforcement, and the emotional tug of safety advocates, despite clear and credible evidence to the contrary, ruled the day.

Political optics and considerations always outweigh even the best lobbying. I should have known that from my experiences working in 35 US House and Senate campaigns in 25 states over a decade of political work. Our facts would not trump photos of truck accidents and fallen bridges. I’m reminded of this famous clip from the Ghostbusters movie, featuring a meeting in the mayor of New York City’s office. I’ve never been in a lobbying meeting quite like this, but you’ll get the point (it might be easier to click the “watch on YouTube” button on the lower left).

We wound up settling for a study by the Department of Transportation and, with strong support from US Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), now chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a pilot program in her state to allow 100,000-pound trucks on Maine’s interstates. The study proved us largely correct, and the pilot was a resounding success. The Obama Administration agreed to support a legislative provision that made the 100,000 limit permanent in 2010. Sen. Collins:

In June 2004, Wilbur Smith Associates, a nationally recognized transportation consulting firm, completed a study which found that extending the current truck weight exemption on the Maine Turnpike to all federal highways in Maine, including Interstates 195, 295 and 395, would reduce heavy truck traffic through several communities such as Saco, Old Orchard Beach, Freeport, and Bangor and Brewer, and result in a significant decrease of three fatal crashes per year.

Larger trucks in much of Europe have weight limits exceeding 130,000 pounds with an extra axle. Canada and Mexico have truck limits of over 125,000 pounds. Many states have truck weight limits on secondary roads well over 100,000 pounds, and in the case of Michigan, trucks carrying logs can weigh up to 164,000 pounds. But on the good old Interstate highways of the USA, we’re stuck with 80,000-pound trucks (except for Maine), facts be damned.

If you’re wondering why little gets done in Congress these days, this is one example.

Sure, we used other tools of our trade to help make our case. We hosted fundraisers, with our affiliated Political Action Committee ponying up $1,000 or more each in campaign contributions over meals. We used social media. We hosted plant tours and visits to factories in districts and states. More about each of those tools later.

But I didn’t always lose. Next, I’ll tell the successful story of how the saving of an income tax reciprocity agreement between Pennsylvania and New Jersey was engineered through another powerful bipartisan business and political coalition, this time involving then-Gov. Chris Christie.