K Street hedges its bets

How precarious is the [tag]GOP[/tag] hold on [tag]Congress[/tag]? It’s reached the point in which lobbying firms on DC’s infamous [tag]K Street[/tag] are actually hiring [tag]Democrats[/tag].

Not long ago, a Hill staffer with a background working for House Democrats had few prospects on K Street. Many potential jobs were earmarked for Republicans, either as a result of the K Street Project, an affirmative-action program for Republicans, or simply in recognition that those with Democratic contacts were at a disadvantage in Republican-dominated Washington.

But with political fortunes apparently changing this year and Democrats enjoying their best election prospects in recent memory, many Democrats are hoping that the [tag]lobbying[/tag] world will begin to loosen up. The party hopes to be in charge in one or both chambers of Congress next year, and there are already some signs that Democrats may be enjoying a warmer welcome on K Street.

In 1998, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay intentionally blocked a vote on an intellectual property bill because the Electronics Industry Association announced it intended to hire a new director — who happened to be a Dem. No Republican meant no legislation, Gingrich and DeLay said. (DeLay later got a slap on the wrist by the House Ethics Committee for the stunt.) It helped establish a new precedent and K Street quickly learned that hiring [tag]Republicans[/tag] for [tag]lobbying[/tag] jobs was simply the price of doing business in Washington. It’s what the “K Street Project” was all about.

When the lobbying industry assumed Republicans would be in the majority indefinitely, it had a very strong incentive to play along. Now the same lobbying industry isn’t so sure about the GOP’s grip.

The Hill included a surprisingly long list of recent Dem hires, which would have been inconceivable just a couple of years ago.

“It [used to be] presumed that people wanted someone in the majority party. It left slimmer pickings for House Democrats looking to leave the Hill,” one Democratic lobbyist said. “Beginning this year, people started finding money in the budget for a House Democrat [tag]lobbyist[/tag].”

A number of companies have put out word that they would like to hire Democrats. Comcast is rumored to be looking for someone with a lot of contacts with House Democrats. A big life insurer is searching for a Democratic lobbyist, sources said.

Sinking poll numbers for the president and Congress have changed the political mood, raising Democrats’ prospects in November and likely causing some lobbying groups to hedge their bets in case of a Democratic win, lobbying sources said.

The fear of Tom DeLay’s wrath is apparently gone.

Now wouldn’t it be a hoot if, when the K Street gang tries to hire Democrats, nobody applies for the job? THAT would be proof of the Dems being serious about lobbying reform….

  • Well, this is good news anyway. Even if the Dems can’t break the electoral stranglehold (Gerrymandered districts and all that), if they can “cut off the oxygen” of Repubs by restricting the flow of money. This will have impact on the 2008 elections as well as the upcoming 2006.

  • “Good news” is bad news.
    Cash and carry Democrats will not bring honor, trust, or restore representative democracy.
    Without campaign finance reform we have a cashocracy.

  • Maybe this is a manifestation of the “tipping point” discussed here at TCR on Sunday. CorruptCo’s moist finger in the wind has sensed a change and decided it’s money should blow in a new direction. I thought the other day that there might be some transitory inconvenience in this area. CorruptCo is working to diminish that inconvenience, (and lull in influence), as much as possible.

    Ms. and Mr. America may be sleeping. But CorruptCo is wide awake and planning.

  • This is just a sign that the some Hill Democrats aren’t much different than their counterparts.

    Expect more of the same when big money lobbying is involved.

  • Couldn’t they just extend the “truth in advertising” laws or something to cover lobbying? I can understand why you can’t ban former legislators from lobbying, but — since they’re tied so closely to the legislative process — shouldn’t the lobbying industry be forced to report regularly on staffing, budgets, sources of income, amounts spent by whom to influence whom on which piece of legislation — .e., all the details involved in bribing members of Congress, etc.? Let a little “fresh air and sunshine” in on the murky business which dominates and corrupts our nation’s capital and capitol.

  • Steve- spot on. If the lobbyists weren’t interested in them when the republifucks were in power, why shouldn’t the lobbyists be marginalized and ignored when the dems come to power (oh, okay, so many of the dems would be just as crooked, given the chance. damn. why can’t we have real reform for once?).

  • yam, I’ve got to go with the others in saying this isn’t good news. The fleas are abandoning the dying dog for a new host. If the GOP implodes, within five years the Democratic Congress will be every bit as corrupt as the GOP is now (impossible to believe, I know) and the Democrats were in ’94. The entire legislative process makes corruption rewarding as well as helps hide it.

    Ed’s right–the best cure is transparency, not bans on lobbying. People have a natural tendency to behave ethically when they know they’re being watched.

  • I’m not saying that the Dem’s aren’t capable of corruption, goodness know that isn’t true. What I am saying is that this may possibly be de-funding the RNC. Their fully entrenched machinery runs on one raw-material — money.

    DeLay is out, Abramoff is on his way to jail, Reed is getting shown up for the sneaky little shit that he is and Rove is expecting a letter from Fitzgerald any day now. This, along with the decapitation of the RNC Hydra, may prove to be something that slows down the juggernaut that the Republican machine has become.

    Well, that, and the hubris, incompetence, greed and lies.

  • Comments are closed.