Lobbyists: Their Opinion Means More Than Yours, Or At Least To Congress

Noah Roberts

Junior year, after we had completed the AP government and politics exam, my class watched the movie, “Thank You for Smoking” starring Aaron Eckhart and Cameron Bright. The movie focuses on a slick lobbyist, Nick Naylor, who works for the Big Tobacco Corporation. Throughout the movie, Naylor is often spinning the reported negative effects of smoking and trying to work out deals with the government on how to brand and warn society about the effects of smoking. The twisted agenda of Naylor and the Big Tobacco corporation was to market cigarettes in the most appealing way possible. They didn’t care that they were deceiving the public into buying goods that were damaging to their health; they were focused on maximizing their sales and profits. Although this movie satirized to show the extremes of lobbying, it holds some truth in the relationship between businesses and government.

To learn more about the state of lobbying within our government, I read,”How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy” written by Lee Drutman from The Atlantic. Drutman brought to light the continual growth of lobbying in our government. Lobbyists reportedly spend $2.6 billion a year, which is more than the $2 billion that is provided to fund the House of Representatives and Senate combined. Compared to the 1950s and 60s, where special interest groups and labor unions had much more impact in the government, business lobbying has become the strongest force in government influence. The relationship between government and business has completely flipped in the last 50 years, from corporations shifting their focus from avoiding government involvement in their business, to focusing on how they can be business partners with the government. This has resulted in more lobbyists being more politically active and proposing and supporting more laws and legislation.

The most obvious “Big Idea” to me, is the relationship between business, state, and society. The actions of business and government are not so separate, and actually go hand in hand. The businesses and government are proposing new laws that can benefit both of them. For example, the article states how in 2000, the industry lobbyists were able to get Medicare Part D passed, which would benefit them by $205 billion in the span of a decade. The lobbyists were able to use the government as a vehicle to a major profit, while Congress was able to get legislation passed. So, if both sides are getting what they want, it makes sense the lobbying relationships have grown so rapidly. This relationship, however, ultimately effects the everyday people in society. For example, when a deal with Medicare Part D was made between the government and corporations, it resulted in different Medicare options offered to the people. Or when a cigarette company like the one portrayed in the movie actually does lobby for less regulation on their products, more people will be attracted to consuming more of their product.

Lobbying in the government doesn’t always result with a harmful outcome for the people in our society. What it does do, though, is take away the voice of the people. Everyday workers who are a part of labor unions or special interest groups now have less of an impact with what legislation is passed. Congress is listening to the people with the money, and not the people who have to deal with the outcome of whatever is passed. The article mentions that for every dollar spent by a special interest group, lobbyists are spending $34 and that each corporation has about 100 lobbyists. With no way to compare to these resources, the interests of the common man are being drowned out.

In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy stated one of the most famous quotes, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” I think that corporate lobbyists should reflect on this quote, as it seems to me they are trying to see what our government can do for them.

Narconomics: Corporations VS Cartels

The book Freakonomics wrote by the economists Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, has a definition as “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”. Such definition coincided with an in-class discussion which a student questioned: “if a smuggler would classify as a businessman and/or entrepreneur”. Based on that inquiry,  I recollected the chapter three of Freakonomics in which the authors compare a street gang organization with corporate monopolies. Thus, it was a direct match with my in-class discussions.

narcos-season-3.jpg (960×640)

(Picture from Netflix “Narcos”)

In short, the book describes the organization of the Black Disciples street gang mirrored the structure of most corporate monopolies. To further my understanding, I read Susan Chandler’s article, Gangs Built on Corporate Mentality from the Chicago Tribune. Both sources agree when comparing the structural organization of the Black Disciple to Mcdonals and Walmart. Their system was incredibly efficient, and the gang was adept at putting the right people in the right jobs, including identifying legitimate business opportunities to launder cash. A lot of these people could have been business leaders if they had chosen to run a legitimate firm instead of a drug cartel. Nevertheless, the similarities go beyond this point. As Tom Wainwright claims, one theory behind the similarities is that the cartels in the area have what economists call a “monopsony.” A monopsony is a monopoly on buying in the area and is often associated with Walmart. In addition, like many large franchises, including McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Walmart itself, the gang members pay fees and “taxes” for the right to sell drugs and for “protection”, while the employee to boss hierarchy in the gang resembles a pyramid. 

At the bottom of the pyramid are the basic jobs; cashiers, burger flippers, and in the case of the Black Disciples, foot soldiers or those who actually sell crack on street corners. Then there is the second base tier. These people are the department managers, who manage specialized jobs. In a corporation, they make sure all the shelves are stocked, and storage rooms organized. They put all the cash from the registers into a safe at night. In the case of the Black Disciples, those employees are known as officers. A officers duty is to make sure that the drug supply and money are delivered to the appropriate people at the appropriate location. They keep the ledgers and books up to date, and they make sure lower level employees stay in line. At the third level of the pyramid is the manager himself or the gang leader. However, even store managers and drug gang leaders have to report to a higher authority. This is the top tier of the pyramid: The directors- or as the Black Disciples call them, the board of directors. These are the ‘hot shots” that truly receive the capital return. Their duty is to run and assist all branches of their franchise and make sure everyone is pulling their own weight and delivering money into the board’s pockets. 

The two “Big Ideas” for this course that emerges through this controversial comparison are complexity and capitalism. The Black Disciples’ operations plan is extremely compound including a pyramid structure for control and even a starting of a genuine business to launder the money. Their pyramid structure has a lot of “do and don’ts” and can be seen everywhere in the business world, as it resembles the organization of governments, schools, big businesses, and drug gangs. When exploring their system to the extreme, Jonathan King said: “I’ve always believed they were run the way IBM should have been run…”  What he said was that their(the gang’s) system would have been beneficial for a multimillion dollar company that had numerous skilled educated professionals working with an experienced board of directors. Why does it work? I understand that it works because it operates on the power of incentivized opportunity and hope. We as citizens or people trying to make the best possible living, see these board members, as the standard goal for how we would like to live. We see their achievements and wealth as our personal end goal. We also have been taught that to get there, you have to start from the bottom.  As children, we are told stories of poor, unfortunate heroes going on quests up in the social ladder until they become princess and kings. How did they get there? Hard, relentless work. A theme that is even echoed in the infamous American dream. The possibility of one day reaching that top tier of the economic pyramid makes us take low paying, 9-5 jobs in the hope that one day, we too will sit on that board of directors.  If you were working at the cashier at Walmart or selling crack on a street corner, your ultimate goal is still the same. It wouldn’t be outrageous to affirm that drug gangs and corporations have great synergy and a high correlation- there was even an annual company picnic for the gang members. In the end, we are just hoping for economic success and a life of comfort.