Canada's estimable opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, is leading the way for his Conservative Party of Canada and the GOP. Watch out, lobbyists. Disruption is coming. For you.
Kelly, very much like "Against the Grain" and stipulate to readers who may evaluate this 'dialogue' that besides being widely known as a trusted government affairs pro, you're also well-practiced on the campaign and journalism side of things. Unique and uncommon... I've been working on a long form piece on this broad topic of DC "lobbyists" and "consultants" and your post motivated a discussion. First, while I'll maintain my general 50% observation about "lobbyists" in original post, I'll add that "marginally qualified" should be an added assessment variable. DC "lobbyists" who've never worked on Capitol Hill or the regulatory agencies whom they're paid to influence is common. Same with DC "pr consultants." I'll also add an essential caveat most outside of DC simply don't believe: that 95%+ of lobbyists (as well as members of Congress) are highly ethical -- and went to Washington for all of the right reasons. How do I know? Been in DC since 1980 -- and besides waiting tables to survive after some initial campaign debacles -- have since worked all sides of the Hill, campaign, lobbying and consulting business. The most common misconception I experience when traveling across the country is that lawmakers, lobbyists etc are "corrupt." Simply not true. And... so I'm not a hypocrite throwing bottles at glass houses, I'll add that 75%+ of "DC political consultants" are totally full of "it" -- having never won a campaign; never worked on a competitive 'toss-up' race; or have worked solely as a DC campaign committee staffer (RNC, DNC etc) with no 'on the ground' experience. As for professional qualifications and discussion in general about this topic, talk is cheap. The free-market determines where one stands in this unusually interesting inside-the Beltway culture in which we live. And that's a good thing. My having said the vast majority of congressional lawmakers and lobbyists are highly ethical will surely generate still more comment. Worthy discussion.
Thanks, Gordon. I deeply appreciate it. I completely relate to and agree with everything you've said—our paths have run parallel with many of the same experiences and within some of the same circles.
Well said.. i work w/ lots of lobbyists -- always have, whether on the political campaign side or the advocacy side. As a DC-based campaign consultant who spent a LOT time on the ground in far flung locales across the country, i routinely saw flocks of K Street guys flood into a campaign HQ a week before a senate, gubernatorial or house candidate was about to win and go 'door to door' with volunteers to help 'get out the vote' -- then peddle their B.S. back in DC that they'd 'helped' the newly-elected lawmaker in their winning effort. They'd proceed to talk up their campaign 'expertise' at Hill fundraisers and with prospective clients. Pathetic. Now, this is not universal. I know a LOT of first-rate lobbyists with integrity, real policy expertise and of superior value to clients, candidates and incumbents alike. But they're are an exception to the rule. I'd estimate well over 50% of these Beltway "government affairs" folks (perhaps a charitable assessment) are smooth talking grifters wearing custom made suits to their real "place of work": dozens of monthly DC fundraisers and dinners. And it's only gotten worse over the years. In the final analysis, there's a need for "Disruption" across the entire spectrum of the "DC consultant" class -- not just lobbyists, but my own coterie of campaign consultants -- and our entire collective ilk.
Hi, Gordon, great to hear from you. Although the number isn't quite 50%, I know my share of loud-mouthed, grifting lobbyists. The good lobbyists are the ones you never hear or read about, who are patriots and typically don't get involved in many political campaigns. I'm not consulting any campaigns, but I'd love to see a candidate announce that he/she's banning lobbyists. "If an employer has a problem or an issue, he or she can pick up the phone and call me directly. They don't need a useless or overpaid lobbyist to get my attention."
It is definitely interesting to see the rise and fall of Trudeau in Canadian politics. I like to think of him as very similar to New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern-- both were elected around the same time, both seen as very progressive "hopeful" figures in the political systems of their countries, etc. But what I find very interesting is the parallels of their fall. While Ardern resigned before she could lose an election, Trudeau is holding out. A lecturer at the University of Auckland, Mark Boyd, put the "Jacindamainia" fall of her era like this: the bigger the figure they are, the harder they fall. I think the same thing is happening to Trudeau as he was the darling of the Canadian Liberals up until the most recent snap election. I truly wonder if we'll ever see someone like Polievre in American politics.
Very insightful; I haven't been as close to New Zealand's experience as Canada's, but I agree. I think Ron DeSantis is a close to Poilievre as we're going to get, given our political and systemic differences.
Kelly, very much like "Against the Grain" and stipulate to readers who may evaluate this 'dialogue' that besides being widely known as a trusted government affairs pro, you're also well-practiced on the campaign and journalism side of things. Unique and uncommon... I've been working on a long form piece on this broad topic of DC "lobbyists" and "consultants" and your post motivated a discussion. First, while I'll maintain my general 50% observation about "lobbyists" in original post, I'll add that "marginally qualified" should be an added assessment variable. DC "lobbyists" who've never worked on Capitol Hill or the regulatory agencies whom they're paid to influence is common. Same with DC "pr consultants." I'll also add an essential caveat most outside of DC simply don't believe: that 95%+ of lobbyists (as well as members of Congress) are highly ethical -- and went to Washington for all of the right reasons. How do I know? Been in DC since 1980 -- and besides waiting tables to survive after some initial campaign debacles -- have since worked all sides of the Hill, campaign, lobbying and consulting business. The most common misconception I experience when traveling across the country is that lawmakers, lobbyists etc are "corrupt." Simply not true. And... so I'm not a hypocrite throwing bottles at glass houses, I'll add that 75%+ of "DC political consultants" are totally full of "it" -- having never won a campaign; never worked on a competitive 'toss-up' race; or have worked solely as a DC campaign committee staffer (RNC, DNC etc) with no 'on the ground' experience. As for professional qualifications and discussion in general about this topic, talk is cheap. The free-market determines where one stands in this unusually interesting inside-the Beltway culture in which we live. And that's a good thing. My having said the vast majority of congressional lawmakers and lobbyists are highly ethical will surely generate still more comment. Worthy discussion.
Thanks, Gordon. I deeply appreciate it. I completely relate to and agree with everything you've said—our paths have run parallel with many of the same experiences and within some of the same circles.
Well said.. i work w/ lots of lobbyists -- always have, whether on the political campaign side or the advocacy side. As a DC-based campaign consultant who spent a LOT time on the ground in far flung locales across the country, i routinely saw flocks of K Street guys flood into a campaign HQ a week before a senate, gubernatorial or house candidate was about to win and go 'door to door' with volunteers to help 'get out the vote' -- then peddle their B.S. back in DC that they'd 'helped' the newly-elected lawmaker in their winning effort. They'd proceed to talk up their campaign 'expertise' at Hill fundraisers and with prospective clients. Pathetic. Now, this is not universal. I know a LOT of first-rate lobbyists with integrity, real policy expertise and of superior value to clients, candidates and incumbents alike. But they're are an exception to the rule. I'd estimate well over 50% of these Beltway "government affairs" folks (perhaps a charitable assessment) are smooth talking grifters wearing custom made suits to their real "place of work": dozens of monthly DC fundraisers and dinners. And it's only gotten worse over the years. In the final analysis, there's a need for "Disruption" across the entire spectrum of the "DC consultant" class -- not just lobbyists, but my own coterie of campaign consultants -- and our entire collective ilk.
Hi, Gordon, great to hear from you. Although the number isn't quite 50%, I know my share of loud-mouthed, grifting lobbyists. The good lobbyists are the ones you never hear or read about, who are patriots and typically don't get involved in many political campaigns. I'm not consulting any campaigns, but I'd love to see a candidate announce that he/she's banning lobbyists. "If an employer has a problem or an issue, he or she can pick up the phone and call me directly. They don't need a useless or overpaid lobbyist to get my attention."
It is definitely interesting to see the rise and fall of Trudeau in Canadian politics. I like to think of him as very similar to New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern-- both were elected around the same time, both seen as very progressive "hopeful" figures in the political systems of their countries, etc. But what I find very interesting is the parallels of their fall. While Ardern resigned before she could lose an election, Trudeau is holding out. A lecturer at the University of Auckland, Mark Boyd, put the "Jacindamainia" fall of her era like this: the bigger the figure they are, the harder they fall. I think the same thing is happening to Trudeau as he was the darling of the Canadian Liberals up until the most recent snap election. I truly wonder if we'll ever see someone like Polievre in American politics.
Very insightful; I haven't been as close to New Zealand's experience as Canada's, but I agree. I think Ron DeSantis is a close to Poilievre as we're going to get, given our political and systemic differences.
I don’t know about the lobbyists, but Trudeau has got to go.