VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
ĐỖ THỊ THẢO
CORPORATE LOBBYING IN THE U.S. AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR VIETNAM
SUMMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)
SUPERVISOR: NGUYEN THI BACH THAO, M.A.
Hanoi, May – 2009

RETENTION AND USE OF THESIS
I hereby state that I : Do Thi Thao, K39A18, being a candidate for the
degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College
relating to retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the
library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper
deposited in the library should be accessible for the purpose of study and
research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the
librarian for care, loan, or reproduction of the paper.
Signature
Do Thi Thao
Hanoi, May – 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to a
number of people, without whose support, this graduation paper would not
have been completed.
First and foremost, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Nguyen
Thi Bach Thao, M.A., for her continuous support, encouragement,
patience, careful instruction, and critical feedback during the process of
fulfilling this study. What I was given from her is priceless, without which
I cannot finish my graduation paper.
Special thanks are due to my classmates at group K39 E18 and other
friends for their encouragement and support of collecting materials for this
study.
Finally, from the bottom of my heart, I wish to express my heartleft
thanks to my family for their understanding and constant encouragement,
without which I could not manage to finish this paper.
i

ABSTRACT
In the United States of America (U.S.), lobbying has long been a
fundamental part of American society. To American businesses, lobbying
to influence government policies and regulations in the way that maximizes
their interests has popularly been used. However, until now, lobbying is
still little known among Vietnamese people and enterprises. Thus, this
study is conducted as an attempt to help Vietnamese people, especially
Vietnamese businesses to get profound understanding on major motivations
for American companies’ participation in lobbying, and their lobbying
strategies and tactics. The study also suggests some implications for
Vietnam’s enterprises. In the study, lobbying activities conducted by
American companies were examined through surveying, comparing and
contrasting different related documents such as books, journals, articles.
The investigation found that there are two main factors attributing to
American enterprises’ involvement in lobbying activities namely the
increasing impact of government on business operations and severe
competition between companies in market. As regard lobbying strategies
and tactics, the investigation in the paper revealed that American
companies often direct their lobbying effort to government officials who
are already on their side, and those who are undecided. Today, they often
employ both direct and indirect lobbying tactics. When deciding which
types of lobbyists between in-house and contract lobbyist, there is a
tendency among American companies to use both types. However,
companies whose lobbying expenditure is limited and location is far from
Washington, D.C., contract lobbyists are primary choice.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Lists of tables and figures vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Statement of the problem and the rational 1
1.2. Aims and research questions 3
1.3. Scope of the study 3
1.4. Significance of the study 3
1.5. Methodology 4
1.6. Organization of the paper 4
CHAPER 2: OVERVIEW ON LOBBYING IN THE U.S.
2.1. Lobbying 5
2.1.1. Definition of lobbying 5
2.1.2. Lobbying components 7
2.2. Lobbyists
10
2.2.1. Definition of lobbyists 10
2.2.2. Types of lobbyists 11
iii

2.3. The roles of lobbying and lobbyists in American society
13
2.4. Factors encouraging the practice of lobbying in the U.S.
15
2.5. Laws regulating lobbying 18
2.6. Summary
20
CHAPTER 3: MOTIVATIONS FOR U.S. COMPANIES’S
INVOLVEMENT IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
3.1. Increasing impact of government on business operations
22
3.1.1. Government policies and regulations vs. cost of production
23
3.1.2. Government policies and regulations vs. companies’ revenue 24
3.1.3. Government policies and regulations vs. new entrants
26
3.1.4. Government policies and regulations vs. substitutes
27
3.1.5. Government policies and regulations vs. methods of competition
28
3.2. Severe competition from rivals
29
iv

3.3. Summary
31
CHAPTER 4: LOBBYING STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
4.1. Choice of lobbying targets 32
4.1.1. Targeting allies 33
4.1.2. Targeting fence-sitters 34
4.2. Choice of tactics
34
4.2.1. Direct lobbying tactics 34
4.2.2. Indirect lobbying tactics 36
4.3. Choice of lobbyists 38
4.4. Summary
40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1. Summary of the study 41
5.1.1. Motivations for U.S. companies’ involvement in lobbying
activities 41
5.1.2. Lobbying strategies and tactics 42
5.2. Implications for Vietnam 42
5.3. Limitations of the study 44
5.4. Proposal for further study 45
REFERENCES
v

vi

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Table 1: Different definition of lobbying
Figure 1: Relation between components of lobbying
Figure 2: Number of federal lobbyists (1998-2008)
Figure 3: Distribution of groups lobbying government
Figure 4: Separation of powers and check and balance
Figure 5: Lockheed Martin's annual revenue by customer
Figure 6: Government spending on defense contracts vs. Lockheed Martin's
revenue
Figure 7: Choice of lobbyists to lobby government
vii

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
Lobbying has long been a legal practice in many democratic regimes
in the world. In the United States (U.S.), the right of people to lobby the
government is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech
[…] or the right of the people peaceably […] to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
Madison, J. (n.d.)
By nature, lobbying refers to activities designed by interest groups to
influence policy- and decision-makers to “propose, pass, or defeat
legislation or to change existing laws” (United States Senate, n.d.).
Lobbying acts as important communication channel that helps interest
groups and legislator communicate with each other. To interest groups,
lobbying brings their voices and concerns to legislators so that they can
ensure and protect their rights and benefits. In turn, legislators are informed
about interest groups’ views before making decisions. Thus, it has great
impact on the process of making policies and laws of the government.
Lobbying even has become a fundamental and cultural feature of American
politics. This makes lobbying an indispensible tool for any individual,
business, organization or even nation who seeks to influence the American
government’s policies and legislation to protect and maximize their
benefits.
For foreign governments and enterprises, including Vietnam,
lobbying is a master key to be successful in relationship with the U.S,
especially in trade relation. Yet it did not receive due attention from
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 1

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Vietnam’s government and enterprises. According to a report of the U.S.
Department of Justice, until the end of 2004, while other countries and
territories in Southeast Asia spent thousands of dollars lobbying the U.S
government, only Vietnam and Laos did not involve in this activity (cited
in Hanh Phuong, 2006). Not until shrimp and catfish dumping lawsuits in
which Vietnamese firms are defendants, that Vietnam’s businesses
appreciate the value of lobbying activities. For example, Southern Shrimp
Alliance and Louisiana Shrimp Association, who sought anti-dumping
measures against Vietnamese shrimp producers, hired scores of famous
lobbying firms such as Livingston, Jones Walker, Waechter, Poitevent &
Denegre, etc. to persuade the U.S. government to levy punitive tariff on
imported shrimp from Vietnam whereas Vietnamese producers take no
action to lobby American government (Mashimaro, 2007, August 16). As a
result, the U.S. Department of Commerce imposed anti-dumping tariff on
imported shrimp from Vietnam, which had adverse impact on Vietnamese
shrimp processing industry. To cut a long story short, Vietnamese
enterprises have been suffering many disadvantages in competing with
other enterprises in the American market because most of them lack
understanding on lobbying and its significance in trade relation with the
U.S.
Hence, it is urgent to do comprehensive studies on lobbying in
general and lobbying activities by American businesses in particular to help
Vietnamese enterprises get profound knowledge of lobbying and adopt it
effectively. This has intrigued the researcher to conduct her graduation
paper on the topic “Corporate lobbying in the U.S and implications for
Vietnam”.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 2

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
1.2. Aims and research questions
The thesis’s primary aim is to investigate corporate lobbying
activities in the U.S. To be more specific, the reasons why American
companies get involved in lobbying and lobbying strategies and tactics
which they use to lobby the government were taken into investigation.
Besides, the researcher would suggest some implications for Vietnamese
enterprises to adopt when they do business in the U.S. In brief, these
objectives were specified in the following research questions.
1. Why do American businesses get involved in lobbying?
2. What are strategies and tactics businesses use to lobby
government at federal level?
1.3. Scope of the study
In the U.S., lobbying takes place at all levels, ranging from local to
federal level. However, this study just covered lobbying activities aimed at
the federal government. Besides, only the clout of corporate lobbying was
considered in this paper since business firms and trade associations
dominate lobbying activities at federal level (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998;
cited in Brady, Drutman, Schozman, & Vebra, 2007).
1.4. Significance of the study
Once having been finished, this research would bring about some
benefits. First, the research can provide a deep insight into corporate
lobbying in the U.S. Thus, it helps Vietnamese people in general and
Vietnamese enterprises who desire to do business successfully with the
U.S. in particular acquire a clear and proper perception about this practice.
Besides, the study suggests some down-to-earth implications for them to
apply lobbying effectively. Moreover, the research would serve as a
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 3

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
precious reference for Vietnamese researchers who are interested in
studying business lobbying.
1.5. Methodology
This research is a secondary research and the approach applied is
comparative document analysis. Different documents related to business
lobbying conducted by American companies in the U.S. are collected from
internet, books, magazines, journals. These documents are synthesized,
analyzed, compared, contrasted and evaluated to find out conclusion for
each research questions.
1.6. Organization of the paper
Chapter 1 – Introduction describes the study’s rationale, aims,
objectives, research questions, significance, scope and methods.
Chapter 2 – Overview on lobbying in the U.S lays the theoretical
foundation for the research by discussing (1) lobbying, (2) lobbyists, (3) the
roles of lobbying and lobbyists in American society, (4) factors
encouraging the practice of lobbying in the U.S., (5) laws regulating
lobbying.
Chapter 3 – Motivations for companies’ lobbying activities explains
motivational factors that encourage companies to involve in lobbying.
Chapter 4 – Lobbying strategies and tactics provides an insight into
strategies and tactics that companies use to lobby government.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion ends the study by summarizing American
businesses’ experience of lobbying and suggesting some implications for
Vietnamese enterprises.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 4

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW ON LOBBYING IN THE U.S.
Since the 19th century when it first came into being, lobbying has
always been a principal part of political involvement of American people in
general and business companies in particular. Nearly all American
corporations and their trade associations have their finger in lobbying pie.
Annually, they invest millions of dollar into lobbying activities with the
intention of influencing legislation. Why do companies pay so much
attention to lobby the government? To find the answers for the question, it
is essential to understand lobbying first. This issue will be discussed in this
chapter.
2.1. Lobbying
2.1.1. Definition of lobbying
From the time the term was born, definition of lobbying has always
been part of its controversy. As stated by political scientists Frank R.
Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech that “the word lobbying has seldom been
used the same way twice by those studying the topic,” there are many ways
to define lobbying (cited in Nownes, 2006). Not only scientists studying
lobbying but the U.S. Congress also provides different legal definitions of
lobbying in laws that regulate this practice (Mayer, 2007, p.24-33).
In the U.S., lobbying originated in 19th century, according to the
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). As quoted in the OED, the term was
originally perceived as “buying votes with money in the lobbies of the Hall
of Congress” while on the word of Stephanos Anastasiadis (2006) from
International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, initially lobbying
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 5

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
was “the act of special interests approaching someone with political
power.” Until now, the question about defining the term “lobbying” is still
under debate. Table 1 provides an illustrative overview of different
meanings of lobbying in accordance with viewpoints of some scientists and
organizations.
Definitions of lobbying Source
“Lobbying is advocacy of a point of view, American League of
either by groups or individuals.” Lobbyists (2006)
Lobbying “conveys most information to Hansen & Mitchell (2000)
policy-makers concerning policy
preferences, is most instrumental and is
most likely to result in an exclusive benefit,
such as regulatory relief or a government
contract.”
Lobbying “means the deliberate attempt to Woodstock Theological
influence political decisions through various Center (2002)
forms of advocacy directed at policymakers
on behalf of another person, organization or
group.”
“Lobbying is about investment in Figueiredo (2002)
information accumulation, organization and
transferred by corporations and interest
groups.”
Lobbying “in its commonly accepted sense” United States v. Rumely,
is “representations made directly to the 345 U.S. 41, 47 (1953), cited
Congress, its members or its committees.” in Mayer (2007, p. 4)
Lobbying is “attempt to influence legislation Logan & Patten, cited in
in any way whatsoever.” Mayer (2007, p. 4)
Lobbying is “the process of petitioning the History of the Lobbying
government to influence public policy.” Disclosure Act (2005, para.
4)
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 6

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Lobbying is “the communication of Biggs & Helms (2007, p.
information …in an effort to influence the 102)
production of public policies.”
Table 1 – Different definitions of lobbying
The definition of lobbying is a matter of differing interpretation.
Some people consider lobbying as a specific action while others perceive it
as “any attempt” to influence policy-makers. Neither highly specifically
nor highly generally defining lobbying is useful. The former will not cover
all activities of lobbying while the later will make people confuse lobbying
with other actions to influence legislators such as campaign contribution.
The definition of lobbying adopted in this paper is based on the
definition suggested by the Woodstock Theological Center: lobbying
means the deliberate attempts to influence the political decisions through
communication directly and/or indirectly with members of government
on behalf of another person, organization, or group. This definition is
broad enough to encompass all ranges of lobbying activities, but narrow
enough to differentiate lobbying from other actions attempting to influence
policy outcomes.
Corporate lobbying means attempts conducted by trade associations,
business firms to influence government decisions.
2.1.2. Lobbying components
Though lobbying is differently defined, there is a strong consensus
among scholars on basic components constituting lobbying namely access,
communication, information, and credibility (Anastasiadis, 2006).
Stephanos Anastasiadis noted in his study that:
Lobbying seeks to affect public policy by providing key
stakeholders – notably policy makers – with specific information
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 7

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
about preference for policy or policy positions […].It may involve
providing information on the costs and benefits of different issue
outcomes […]. The ultimate target of lobbying input is the
legislator or political decision maker […]. In addition to seeking
desired policy outcomes, one goal of lobbying is to develop a
strong reputation, so that the decision-makers are inclined to trust
the information provided and turn to the lobbying organization for
information when developing or discussing policy or policy
positions. (2006, p. 14)
Access, which means willingness of government officials to meet
lobbyists1, listen to their arguments and trust information they provide, has
long been considered precondition for lobbying (Austen-Smith, 1995;
Lerbinger, 2006). Only when lobbyists have access can they present their
position on a pending issue and influence legislative decisions. Without
access, interest groups, through their lobbyists, cannot make their voice
heard. Many scholars contended that access to government officials
depends critically on credibility of lobbyists, their clients and the
information they provide.
Empirical studies indicated that information plays a critical role in
lobbying (Figueiredo, 2002; La Pira, 2008). Austen-Smith confirmed that
lobbying is “strategic information transmission”. In policy-making process,
legislators are those who are in need of information to make sound
decisions. Lobbyists possess information that legislators need and
strategically transmit them to legislators with a view to influence policy
outcomes. Hence, it can be said that information is the core content of
lobbying process. Without it, lobbying becomes meaningless.
Similarly, communication is a crucial part of lobbying. To put it
simple, lobbying itself is a communication process, in which legislators and
lobbyists exchange information. It is the process of communication that
transmits information on preference for or positions on a specific
1
For definition of lobbyists, see 2.2.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 8

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
legislation from lobbyists to legislators. In turn, lobbyists also gain
information on changes in government policies to inform their clients.
In addition, Anastasiadis pointed out that credibility of lobbyists and
the organization they represent is “indispensable”, both to get a “foot in the
door” in the first place, and then have communication taken seriously.
Since lobbying is “a process based upon trust”, credibility is vital for
successful lobbying and the maintenance of relationship between lobbyists,
interest groups and government officials. It is “power of persuasion tool”
for both organizations and their lobbyists (Cotton, 2004). Credibility
requires that lobbyists establish a reputation for being knowledgeable about
relevant policy issue, being reliable and honest when providing information
(McGrath, 2006, p.76). For organizations, they must have good reputation
being professional and reliable. If credibility is damaged, lobbyists will
lose their relationship with legislators or administrators and cannot access
them anymore.
In conclusion, lobbying is “about communication of credible
information” and before lobbying any public official, interest groups must
have access to that one (McGrath, 2006, p.76). Credibility is crucial to gain
and maintain access to these people. Thus, information, communication,
access and credibility are at the heart of lobbying. These components link
so closely with each other that without one of them, lobbying cannot
happen. The following diagram clearly illustrates not only the basic
components of lobbying, but also the relationship between them.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 9

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Figure 1: Relation between components of lobbying
2.2. Lobbyists
2.2.1. Definition of lobbyists
Carland & Gihring (2003) contended that in the eyes of Americans,
the terms “lobbyist” has long carried negative connotation. Stereotypical
lobbyists were those wearing expensive clothes, smoking cigar and bribing
legislators with lots of money (Walman, 2000). American newspapers in
the past even described a lobbyist as a monster in the Capitol building:
Winding in and out through the long, devious basement passage,
crawling through the corridors, trailing its slimy length from gallery to
committee room, at last it lies stretched at full length on the floor of
Congress-this dazzling reptile, this huge, scaly serpent of the lobby.
(Public Affair Links,
2007)
Lobbyists operating in the U.S today are far cry from those of the
early day. They work more professionally and transparently. They are
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 10

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
defined as people “acting for a special interest group […] to influence the
introduction of or voting on legislation or the decision of government
administrators”2.
2.2.2. Types of lobbyists
For years, many political scientists have taken great pains to
categorize types of lobbyists (Birnbaum, 1992; Thomas & Hrebenar, 2003,
cited in Thomas, 2004; Gelak, 2008). However, it is really challenging as
there are thousands of lobbyists acting in the U.S and this number gradually
increases (see figure 2). Today, more than 17,000 lobbyists are performing
at the federal level alone, outnumbering lawmakers in U.S. Congress by
about 30 to one (Eagleton, 2006). Besides, another factor that makes
scholars face lots of difficulties in categorizing lobbyists is the appearance
of many new types of lobbyists since lobbying first came into being in 19 th
century.
Source: Centre for Responsive Politics (2008)
Political scholars presented many different points of view on types of
lobbyists, but the classification of lobbyists suggested by Thomas and
2
Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English, 1994, p. 793
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 11

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Hrebenar (2003) are widely accepted. Based on kinds of organizations that
lobbyists represent, they classified lobbyists into five types that are (1)
contract lobbyists; (2) in-house lobbyists; (3) government legislative
liaisons; (4) citizen, cause or volunteer lobbyists; (5) private, “hobbyist”, or
self-appointed lobbyists. However, within the scope of this study, only the
two types contract lobbyists and in-house lobbyists are taken into
consideration.
Contract lobbyists refer to those who are hired by contract
specifically to lobby the government (Encyclopedia Britannica Online,
2009). They can represent several clients. A majority of contract lobbyists
are ex-government officials or lawyers (Milbrath, 1963, Salisbury, 1986;
cited in Thomas, 2004). Contract lobbyists who are former government
members have two extraordinary advantages over most other lobbyists:
immediate access to powerful members of the House and Senate or the
administration, and years of “mastering the tricky world of legislation”
(Walman, 2000). Similarly, lawyer-lobbyists also have deep knowledge of
the law and law-making process.
In-house lobbyists: in contrast with contract lobbyists, in-house
lobbyists are those who work for and are employed by the organization
which they lobby for. In addition to being a lobbyist, they are often
executive directors, presidents, vice presidents and managers of the
organizations that they lobby for. Nelson et al. (1987) pointed out that in-
house lobbyists often serve their employers many years before becoming
lobbyists and many of them have no government experience nor they are
lawyers (cited in Thomas, 2004). However, they have expert knowledge on
the specific field that they work in many years. Besides, in-house lobbyists
have better understanding of the goals of the organization they represent
than contract lobbyists due to years of working for that organization
(Deason, 2004).
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 12

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
2.3. The roles of lobbying and lobbyists in American society
What is the role of lobbying in American society? To Americans,
this question is so simple. It is said that lobbying is as American as apple
pie to this country. Apple pie, an America’s especially beloved dessert, is
one of the most popular symbols of American culture. Similarly, lobbying
has been an intrinsic and vital part of American culture and society.
Without lobbying, individuals, groups, organizations could not perform the
function of interest articulation that is required for the maintenance of the
American political system (Eulau, 1964). Through lobbying, groups make
their voice heard, put pressure on government’s decisions to seek for
political outcomes. Lobbyists are their agents that represent their interests,
bring their concerns to the government and negotiate with government for
political outcomes which benefit them most. Additionally, thanks to
lobbying, groups also have their finger on legislation. A lobbyist is not only
a representative, a communicator for his clients but also an instructor that
helps his groups accommodate, adapt, and adjust to changes in government
and legislation.
To the government, the role of lobbyists is vital too. Senator John F.
Kennedy (1956) once declared that:
Lobbyists are in many cases expert technicians capable of examining
complex and difficult subjects in clear, understandable fashion. They
engage in personal discussion with members of Congress in which
they explain in detail the reasons for the positions they advocate [...]
Because our congressional representation is based upon geographical
boundaries, the lobbyists who speak for the various economic,
commercial and other functional interests of the country serve a useful
purpose and have assumed an important role in the legislative
process.\"
Meyers & Associates Inc. (n.d.)
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 13

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
History has proven that lobbying and lobbyists play crucial role in
government’s policy and regulation-making process. Through lobbying
activities initiated by groups, organizations, unions, etc. government is
aware of issues that are highly concerned by people, their opinions and
attitude about government’s actions, regulations and policies, which help
government make rational and timely decisions and enhance the quality of
law-making. Lobbyists provide invaluable information and support to
government officials to fulfill their responsibility to the public and enhance
their possibility to be re-elected as well as re-appointed. Everyday
policymakers are responsible for keeping up with hundred of pending bills,
tracking multiple committee hearings, responding constituents questions
and problems, attending and participating on-going debates, and
performing numerous other official and political acts. As having to deal
with thousands of subjects and respond to numerous issues related to
various fields and sectors, government officials are in need of lots of
information, both technical information and their constituents’ likely
opinions on those issues to make adequate decisions. However, due to
pressure of workload and limited time, they cannot collect all of needed
information by themselves. Additionally, government officials can hardly
have sufficient expertise to know all nuances of every single issue they
have to deal with. Thus, lobbyists are significantly important to them.
Lobbyists can provide important facts, arguments, intelligence to support
legislators and administrators, as they are often specialists in the field they
lobby. In many case, lobbyists even draft bill for legislators. They also
educate legislators on practical aspects of proposed legislation – who it
would help, who it would hurt, who is for it, and who is against it.
Lobbyists ensure that public officials are adequately informed before
making decisions. Without them, legislators, administrators and their staffs
could not be expected to do the “right thing”. The statement of a scholar
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 14

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
that the lobbyist is “teacher in the school of politics” who “frames the
intellectual issues, pointing out the subtleties in a situation, and implying a
conclusion” strongly illustrates this point (Thomas, 2004).
To sum up, lobbying and lobbyists are crucial to both people and
government. Rubin (2000) emphasized that they foster understanding, build
an important bridge between people and government administrators, and
without them American political system could not function properly.
2.4. Factors encouraging the practice of lobbying in the U.S.
Nowhere on Earth experiences lobbying development as strong as it
does in America. There are two major factors that make the U.S a heaven
for lobbying activities. They are the development of organized interest
groups and the structure of government.
The establishment and development of organized interest groups
characterize American society. An organized interest group is a group of
people who “are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion,
or of interest […] or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the
community” (Madison, 1787). According to James Madison, the “Father of
the Constitution”, organized groupings are “sown in the nature of man”. In
1834, the famous chronicler Alexis de Tocqueville remarked that American
was a nation of joiner (cited in Ragone, 2004). And more than a century
later, Kieffer (2007) found that there is no American today who is not
represented (whether he or she knows it or not) by at least a dozen
organized interest groups. The main function of these groups is to influence
policy and policy maker to protect and maximize their interests.
Tocqueville asserted in his famous book Democracy in America (1864) that
“in no country in the world has the principle of association been more
successful used, or applied to a greater multitude of object, than in
America”. Among groups and organizations that lobby the government,
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 15

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
business groups, which represent interest of firms and industries, are the
most active ones. They account for 62% of lobbying activities in the U.S.
(see figure 3).
Source: Baumgartner & Leech (2001)
Besides, the structure of government also encourages the
development of lobbying in the U.S. American government is extraordinary
open to external influence. Fearing that concentrated power in one
institution can lead to tyranny, the Founding Fathers of the Constitution
established the government based on the principle of separation of powers
(Steiner, 2005). Powers of the government are divided between three
branches – legislative, executive, and judicial with considerable
independence and powers to check and balance each other (see figure 4).
No single branch can control the other two, but rather, each branch checks
the other two to make sure that the other branches do not have too much
power. This means that the action of one branch do not fully define policy,
which enables organized interest groups to lobby one branch to counter the
decision of another branch.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 16

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Figure 4: Separation of powers and check and balance
Source: Costa, 2006
Additionally, the division of powers between the federal government
and state government also facilitates lobbying activities at different level.
At the same time, the system of election finance, in which candidates
mainly depend on contribution of citizens and organized interest groups for
electoral campaign fundraising, presents countless opportunities that
individuals and organizations advance their interests.
2.5. Laws regulating lobbying
The fact that through lobbying the government interest groups can
greatly influence policy- and law-making process raises public concerns
about potential concentration of power over government within a small
group of people. In efforts to prevent abuse of lobbying and to make
lobbying transparent, Congress has passed numerous laws regulating
lobbying activities. Among them, the Foreign Agents Registration Acts
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 17

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
(FARA) of 1938, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (FRLA) of 1946,
and the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995 are the most important
and significant ones.
The Foreign Agents Registration Acts (FARA) was enacted into law
in June 8, 1938. Its primary purpose is to restrict the influence of foreign
agents and propaganda on American public policy. A foreign agent is
defined as “any individual or organization which acts at the order, request,
or under the direction or control of a foreign principal, or whose activities
are directed by a foreign principal who engages in political activities; acts
in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal; solicits or dispenses
anything of value within the United States for a foreign principal;
represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official
of the U.S. government” (Sourcewatch Encyclopedia Online, n.d.). Under
FARA, all foreign agents are required to disclose the name of each
individual person they lobby in any branch of government along with the
date of the contact to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division.
Under FARA, foreign agents also must to disclose the actual legal
agreement between them and those they lobby.
After FARA was enacted, in 1946 Congress approved the Federal
Regulation of Lobbying Act, the first comprehensive lobbying disclosure
law for domestic lobbyists. The focus of FRLA was to require public
disclosure of lobbyists’ finance and of the interests they represent.
However, FRLA contained a score of loopholes that lobbyists can exploit.
For instance, it applied only to lobbying activities that directed at members
of Congress. Lobbying directed at congressional staff or the executive
branch and indirect lobbying were not covered under FRLA. Besides,
FRLA failed to require lobbyists to disclose the overall objective of
lobbying activities. For such flaws, just after some years since it was
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 18

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
passed, FRLA became obsolete. In 1995, it was replaced by the Lobbying
Disclosure Act (LDA).
Compared to FRLA, the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995 is
a substantial progress of Congress to create an effective system of lobbying
disclosure. The enforcement of the LDA contributes greatly to making
lobbying more transparent and professional. Senator Carl Levin stated in
1992 when he first introduced LDA to Congress that the LDA “tells the
public who is being paid how much to lobby whom on what”. LDA closes
many loopholes contained in the FRLA. Generally, it requires lobbyist to
register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of
the Senate, state their purpose for lobbying, and make semiannual report
disclosing the specific issues and bill worked on, the amount of money
spent and the branch of government contacted. The LDA also requires
lawyers who represent foreign entity or US-owned division of foreign-
owned companies to register with Congress. Under the LDA, lobbyists are
those who spend at least 20% of their time for particular lobbying
activities, have multiple contacts with legislative staff, members of
Congress, or high-level executive branch officials, and work for a client
paying more than $5,000 over the six months for that service.
In addition to the LDA and FARA, lobbying is also regulated by
some other rules of the Houses and Senate such as “revolving door”, gifts
and travel rules. The “revolving door” is the phenomenon that former
members of Congress and the executive branch become lobbyists. Going
in, these people can easily access to legislators or administrators, who are
their former colleagues, to carry out lobbying activities. To limit potential
corruption, the Congress issued a rule that requires ex-members of
Congress or the executive branch to wait at least two years before
registering as lobbyists. Besides, lobbyists and foreign nationals are
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 19

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
prohibited from financing private travels for officers and employees of both
Congress and the executive branch. As regard receiving gifts, “members of
Congress and their staff may not accept gifts amounting in value to $50 or
more at any one time or amounting to $100 or more from a single source
per year. For the executive branch, the limits are $20 and $50, respectively”
(Public Citizen, 2005).
In conclusion, American Congress continuously has tried to limit the
negative side of lobbying without violating the right of people to lobby the
government. The rules governing lobbyists are great endeavors of Congress
to ensure that people’s voices have fair opportunities to be heard by the
government. Besides, they also prevent potential corruptions, which
preserve the confidence of the public in political institutions and enhance
transparency of lobbying activities and government operations. Thanks to
these laws, lobbying activities have become more transparent and
professional.
2.6. Summary
Chapter 2 has presented a general overview on lobbying activities in
the U.S. First, it examined various definitions of lobbying to find out an
adequate definition for this study. Then it continued to examine the three
main components of lobbying namely access, information, communication,
and credibility. Lobbyists and types of lobbyists were considered after that.
The third part of this chapter provided an insight into the roles of lobbying
and lobbyists in American society. Factors that stimulate the practice of
lobbying in the U.S. were the content of the fourth part. Chapter 2 ended
with information about laws governing lobbying activities in the U.S.
Chapter 3 will continue by investigating reasons for companies’
involvement in lobbying.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 20

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
CHAPTER 3
MOTIVATIONS FOR U.S. COMPANIES’
INVOLVEMENT IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
It is often said that lobbying is a long-standing game in American
political arena and business firms are top and extremely experienced
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 21

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
players in this game. Being one of the first players of the game as soon as it
was born, they have comprehensive knowledge about the rules of the game
and its operation mechanism. Each year, companies and their trade
associations are willing to pour huge amount of time, money, and human
resources into lobbying activities. This fact raises a question that why
companies and their associations enthusiastically participate in this game?
The answer of this question will be covered in this chapter.
For years, there are scores of scholarship conducted to find out
reasons for firms’ decision to get involved in lobbying activities. Scholars
have contended that increasing impact of government on business
operations and severe competition in market place are key factors that
encourage firms to lobby the government.
3.1. Increasing impact of government on business operations
Businesses do not function in vacuum. Their functioning is always
affected by external environmental factors surrounding them3. Among these
factors, scholars contended that government is the most important one
(Hillman & Hitt, 1999; Hillman, Zardandkoohi, & Biernam, 1999; Lord,
2000; Sadrieh & Annavarjula, 2005; Jacobson, Lenway, & Ring, 1993).The
impact of government on business firm has long been widely
acknowledged. However, that influence has never been as dramatic as it is
today. Over the last decades, the U.S. has witnessed a considerable
expansion in the federal government size and activities (Keim, 1985),
which has strongly stimulated its impact on business operations. It is said
that there is hardly any company today that is not somehow affected by
government. Government makes and enforces policies and regulations
which have direct impact on all dimensions of every company such as how
they conduct their operation, how they compete with each others, how
3
See Jain, Trehan, & Trehan, 2006 for more detail
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 22

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
much they can earn, etc. Following is the analysis of the relation between
government policies and regulations with main factors that directly affect
companies’ operation, competition, and profitability. They are cost of
production, revenue, new entrants into market, substitutes, and methods of
competition.
3.1.1. Government policies and regulations vs. cost of
production
On the cost side, cost of production is one of the first issues that
companies concern as it directly affects how their business is conducted
and how much they have to invest into production. Government policies
can alter cost of production through various policies and regulations such
as policies on natural and human resources, requirements on technical and
safety standard of product, environmental and labour laws, etc.
For instant, to companies in industries that directly use natural
resources in their production process, government taxes on exploiting
natural resources have direct impact on cost of production. An increase in
these taxes will lead to rise in cost of input materials. Regarding labour
cost, government policies on human resource development directly affect
the quantity and quality of human resource, which in turn decide price of
labour.
Besides, requirements on technical and standard of products, health
and environmental standard decide how much companies have to invest
into production line and technology. The higher these requirements, the
more money companies have to invest. One example is the standard of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emission on companies that exhaust CO2 to
environment in production process. That the government increases the
standard will push costs of these companies due to extra investment into
upgrading or installing technology to eliminate CO2.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 23

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
3.1.2. Government policies and regulations vs. companies’
revenue
Revenue of a company has close relationship with cost of
production, hence, that government policies have influence on the latter
also result in direct and/or indirect effect on the former. Besides, through
policies relating to tax, trade, administered price, spending, etc.
government can exert great influence on companies’ revenue. For instance,
that government imposes high tax on petrol will directly affect revenue of
car producers, transportation companies, etc. The U.S. government policy
on protecting agriculture industry has deep effect on revenue of businesses
operating in this industry. That the U.S. government sets high floor price
for agricultural products brings enterprises in agriculture industry $10-11
billion each year (Friedman, 1999; cited in Vining et al., 2005).
Government can affect companies’ revenue not only through
imposing tax, or administering prices but also through buying products of
companies. In the U.S., federal government is key customer to thousands of
companies ranging from multinational corporations to the smaller ones.
Government expenditure on purchasing goods and services will directly
affect revenue of these companies. The case of Lockheed Martin (L.M.)
typically represents this point. L.M. is the largest contractor for
government’s defense contracts. Revenue from the U.S. federal
government accounts for the largest proportion of L.M.’s total annual
revenue (see figure 5). Therefore, any change in government policy on
defense spending will immediately affect L.M.’s revenue. The swelling of
government spending on defense contracts over eight-year period under
Bush’s administration resulted in dramatic growth in the company’s
revenue, from $23.9 billion in 2001 to $42.7 billion in 2008 (see figure 6).
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 24

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Source: wikinvest.com
Source: usaspending.com
3.1.3. Government policies and regulations vs. new entrants
Operation and profitability of companies in a market are always
threatened by new entrants. When a new competitor enters a market, it
brings new capacity and a desire to gain market share, to attract customers,
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 25

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
etc., which in turn puts pressure on existing companies’ profitability in the
market. The more new companies enter market, the lower profitability of
existing companies is. Meanwhile, government is the powerful
“gatekeeper” who decides to open and close market for new competitors.
Through various policies and regulations, government can hinder or aid
new entrants directly. Government can directly limit or even foreclose
entry to a market through licensing requirement, restricting foreign firms’
entry through quotas, tariffs or non-tariff barriers, regulations on product
quality, etc. The higher the entry barrier, the lower number of firms can go
into market and vice versa. The case of quota on Vietnamese textile and
tariff on shrimp and catfish imported to the U.S. are clear examples.
Besides, through regulations on quality standards of product, government
just opens market for companies whose products satisfy the standards,
while those whose products fail to meet the standards will have no chance
to enter the market. However, there are also many government policies
encouraging new players to enter market such as lowering tax, granting
subsidies, financing basic research and making it available for all firms,
and so on.
3.1.4. Government policies and regulations vs. substitutes
Substitutes are goods and services that can be used to satisfy the
same needs, one in place of another (Piana, 2005). When product of one
company is substitute for product of another firm, competition of the
former will affect profitability of the latter. Government influences
competitiveness of substitutes through research and development (R&D)
policy, tariffs, law on intellectual property rights, health and environment
policies, and so on. Government decisions on financing research and
development of new product or technology can lead to the appearance of
new substitute products and in many cases, it can lead to the dissolution of
an existing industry. Christensen (1997) proved that government R&D
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 26

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
support of laser technology was an important factor in the displacement of
vinyl record from the recording market place (cited in Vining et al., 2005).
Law on intellectual property rights (IPR) also can affect the emergence of
substitutes. When intellectual property law is weak, it will inhibit
innovative activities and the discovery of new substitutes and vice versa.
Tariff on substitute products protects domestic companies from the
product of foreign companies; therefore it is in similar effect to tariffs as
entry barrier. For instance, in the American shrimp market, imported
shrimp and domestic shrimp are substitutes. That the U.S. government
imposed high tariff on imported shrimp greatly affected competition of
imported shrimp in terms of price. This fact encouraged customer to buy
domestic shrimp instead of imported shrimp. Thus, competitive position of
foreign shrimp exporters will be lowered due to decrease in market share.
3.1.5. Government policies and regulations vs. methods of
competition
Regulating methods that companies can use in their competition is
another important way that government can exert influence on firms.
Through antitrust law, government prevents anticompetitive methods that
are used by companies to gain or maintain their dominant position in
market.
A clear example is the case of WorldCom. WorldCom ranks after
AT&T as the second largest telephone company in the United States with
worldwide interest in long-distance and internet service. In 1999,
WorldCom proposed to merge with Sprint, the America’s third largest
long-distance carrier in a $115 billion deal which would solidify
WorldCom’s position as the leading rival to AT&T in global
telecommunication market. However, the deal was blocked by Department
of Justice (DOJ) because according to DOJ, the merger of WorldCom and
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 27

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Sprint, if successfully went through, would give WorldCom monopoly
position in the U.S. internet backbone traffic and private line
communication between the U.S. and at least 12 other countries.
To sum up, government, as the framer and enforcer of policies and
regulations, has great power over operation and performance of every
company in the economy. Accordingly, it is crucial for companies not only
to constantly monitor but also know the way to influence government
policies and regulations. Otherwise, they can face potential risks or even
damage to their operations due to uncertainty over government legislation.
That fact greatly motivates companies to lobby government. Lobbying not
only brings them up-to-date information about policies, regulations,
emerging policy issues but also enables them to exert influence on
government legislation in the way that favors their interests most. Thanks
to that, companies can have their finger on the pulse of government
legislation, which greatly mitigates uncertainty and helps them in making
appropriate and timely response. More importantly, enterprises can both
prevent harmful policies and enhance their performance by actively
lobbying government for policies and regulations that favor their interests
best and deter competition from their rivals. It can be said that lobbying
government has been becoming a vital part of companies’ development
strategy. Carroll and Hall (1987) strongly emphasized that even the best
competitive strategies accompanied by superior products and unique firm
resources will not survive without attention to government (cited in
Hillman, Zardandkoohi, & Biernam, 1999). Many companies which are
reluctant to involving in lobbying for various reasons often end up in
engaging in these activities (Chen & Parsley, 2008).
3.2. Severe competition from rivals
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 28

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
The ever-increasing competition between companies in American
market requires each of them to have effective competitive strategies and
methods to survive and develop. With the growing impact of government
policies and regulation on business operations, more and more enterprises
are aware that lobbying is one of the most effective ways to fight against
their competitors. Through lobbying government, companies can seek for
government subsidies, tax relief, regulations and policies that enhance their
performance and deter competition of their rivals.
For instance, they can lobby government to levy a higher tax on
product of their rivals compared to that of their product, which brings their
product advantage in terms of price over product of other companies. This
action is often used by domestic firms to deal with strong competition from
foreign competitors. Many industries and corporations have gained
enormous advantages over their foreign competitors as they succeed in
lobbying the U.S. government to impose high or antidumping tariff on
imported goods. The U.S steel industry is one of the most successful
industries in mastering this tactic to deter competition of imported steel.
Additionally, companies facing the fierce competition from their
rivals can seek government intervention by initiating lobbying campaign
against their rivals in anti-trust lawsuit. The case of Microsoft is a typical
example. The antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998 was the result of a 3-
million dollar lobbying campaign carried out by the company’s rivals such
as Netscape, IBM, ALO, Sun, etc. to persuade the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) to file an antitrust suit against the company. When (DOJ)
sued Microsoft for violation of antitrust law, it was Microsoft’s rival-
Netscape that sponsored a 222-page white paper on monopolistic actions of
Microsoft that formed basis of DOJ’s suit. Other rivals of Microsoft such as
IBM, AOL, and Sun carried out grassroots campaigns to influence public
opinion, participated in hearings of Senate committee to give evidence
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 29

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
against Microsoft and to present their damage caused by anticompetitive
actions of Microsoft. All of these lobbying actions aimed at weakening
dominant position of Microsoft in market.
In many cases, companies can lobby government to tighten
regulations on product quality standard, health and environmental standard
because they are able to meet the proposed standard more easily than their
competitors. A typical example is the case of the U.S. pharmaceutical
industry. To erode competitiveness of small firms, the largest companies in
this industry lobbied Food and Drug Administration to tighten regulations
on administering drug production and standard. As a result, small firm
suffered serious reductions in research productivity while the largest firms
gained substantially in sales (Thomas, 1990, cited in Vining et al., 2005).
3.3. Summary
Chapter 3 has presented thorough investigation of two main factors
motivating companies to lobby government. The first part of this chapter
presents the influence of government on companies’ operation. Through
policies and regulations, government strongly affects costs of production,
revenue of a company, competitiveness of substitutes, new entrants, and
methods of competition between companies in market. Such strong and
comprehensive of government policies and regulations on companies
greatly motivate companies to lobby government to both monitor and seek
favorable policies and regulations. The rest of this chapter continues to
investigate the second motive for companies’ involvement in lobbying
activities. Severe competition from rivals strongly encourages companies to
get involved in lobbying activities. Chapter 4 will continue by investigating
strategies and tactics that companies use to lobby government.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 30

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
CHAPTER 4
LOBBYING STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
In the U.S. today, the number of companies and trade associations
join in lobbying activities are numerous, but not all of them succeed in this
game. Whether a company or a trade association can be successful in
lobbying government or not depends on many factors, of which strategies
and tactics it uses are the key one. Appropriate and comprehensive
strategies together with rational tactics are prerequisite for success in
lobbying government.
In general, a lobbying strategy is an overall plan that a company
implements to gain access, influence, and secure its specific policy goals
while tactics are a group of specific actions taken to reach these goals
(Harris & Fleisher, 2005). A lobbying strategy consists of a set of strategic
considerations in which an enterprise has to choose lobbying targets, tactics
to employ, and type of lobbyists to use.
4.1. Choice of lobbying targets
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 31

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
The choice of whom will be targeted is the first and foremost
decision that a company has to take into consideration when making a
lobbying strategy. Correctly targeting lobbying efforts is essential for a
victory in every company’s lobbying campaign. Normally, a company can
direct their lobbying effort to three types of government officials: those
who are their allies, those who are presupposed against their position, or
those who are undecided (fence-sitters) (Austen-Smith & Wright, 1994).
Many scholars contented that companies mainly direct their lobbying
efforts to their allies and undecided government officials.
4.1.1. Targeting allies
Government officials who are considered as allies to a company or
its associations are those who share the same predisposition toward an issue
with the company, and those who the company has established relationship
with. Identifying and lobbying the allies is crucial for a company as these
people are those who will officially support its position, speak for its
interest, negotiate on its behalf with colleagues, give it important and hard-
fought votes, consult about what is winnable or not, who are undecided and
opponent to its position, etc. (Shuzlt, 2003).
Empirical studies proved that companies always pay special attention
to lobbying their allies in government agencies and institutions because it is
the “easy path”. Bauer, Pool, & Dexter (1963) explained it is much easier
for companies to carry on activities within the circle of those who are on
their side than those who are against them (cited in Hojnacki & Kimball,
1999). Besides, Milbrath (1963) argued that legislators often make up their
mind before any lobbying effort of companies who seek to influence their
decision, thus they only grant access to and hear those who share their
predispositions (cited in Thomas, 2004). Companies and their lobbyists
understand that and only press issues with legislators who are on their side.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 32

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
A company can enlist more easily their allies in government agencies and
institutions to act as agents on its behalf to lobby their colleagues, shape
legislations in line with its preference, etc. Empirical studies indicated that
companies often assign high priority to build allies with influential
policymakers such as members of key committees, committees and
subcommittees’ chairs, party leaders, etc. due to their significant role as cue
givers to their colleagues and their big influence over other policymakers
and government decisions as a whole (Wright, 1990; Hojnacki & Kimball,
1999).
4.1.2. Targeting fence-sitters
Fence-sitters, who are uncommitted to or undecided on standing on
which side, are the other important lobbying target of a company’s
lobbying campaign. Scholars proved that companies can anticipate huge
payoff from lobbying fence-sitters as they are the most likely to be swayed
(Denzau & Munger, 1986; Baumgartner & Leech, 1996; Victor, 2006). The
more fence-sitters a company can lobby successfully, the more allies and
votes they have. In close vote, lobbying fence-sitters is extremely important
as they are those who can make the difference.
4.2. Choice of tactics
Employing appropriate tactics to approach and influence government
officials plays a crucial role in success of a lobbying strategy of every
company. Based on types of contact with decisions-makers, lobbying
tactics can be grouped into two broad categories namely direct and indirect
lobbying (Paquette, 2002).
4.2.1. Direct lobbying tactics
Direct lobbying, sometimes known as “inside lobbying”, is those
tactics that bring lobbyists of companies or their trade associations into
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 33

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
personal and direct contact with government officials. Companies often
employ direct lobbying tactics when they want to privately convey
sensitive and specialized information to policymakers without making their
opponents know or have access to for a number of reasons (Wright, 1996,
cited in Hojnacki & Kimball, 1999). Direct lobbying typically includes
scores of tactics such as meeting person-to-person with policy makers;
phone, email, or snail mail contacts, informal contacts, testifying at
hearings, drafting legislation, etc. Person-to-person meetings with
policymakers are the most favorite tactic which enables representatives of
companies to lobby government officials in private. However, since
policymakers’ limited time, companies can alternatively use phone calls,
emails, snail mails to contact with them. Testifying at hearings is also
popularly used by companies to express their preference on existing or
pending legislation and policies. According to Biggs & Helms (2007),
testifying at hearings include two parts: oral testimony and written
statement accompanied by supporting documentation. Drafting legislation
is another important tactic which enables companies to influence wording
and content of legislation, rules or regulations by providing law- and
policy-makers technical information and support in drafting legislation
process.
These tactics mainly rely on long-term relationships with
government officials, financial resources, and substantive expertise as a
basic for influence (Gale & Walker, 1991, cited in Victor, 2007, p. 827;
Smith, Roberts, & Wielen, 2006). Relationships with government officials
play a crucial role in direct lobbying tactics as relationships bring
companies access to government officials. Access, in turn, will enable
companies to present their perspective and information to government
officials so as to influence their viewpoints on a pending issue. Companies
can build relationships with policymakers through using personal relations
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 34

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
between companies’ leaders with government officials and their staff,
employing lobbyists who have a network of relations with government
officials, or making financial contribution to electoral campaign of elected
officials. It is widely accepted among lobbyists, economic and politic
scientists that money plays a crucial role in enabling companies to cultivate
relationships with government officials and gain important information to
lobby policymakers. For instance, money enables companies to hire famous
lobbyists having lots of relations with policymakers. They are those who
make the path for companies to access government officials. Besides, to
build relationships between legislators, especially those who are elected,
companies can donate money to legislators’ electoral campaigns. In turn,
the legislators grant access to their contributors. That is the reason why
many people believe that money can buy votes of legislators. Actually,
money is no more than intermediary between lobbyists and legislators, it
only brings lobbyists chances to exercise influence on decision-makers.
Whether lobbyists can be successful in lobbying legislators or not totally
depend on credibility, usefulness, and persuasiveness of information they
provide.
4.2.2. Indirect lobbying tactics
Compared with direct lobbying, indirect lobbying is more
“circuitous” (Hofrenning, 1995, p. 54). Generally, it aims at influencing the
views of the public, which in turn will affect the preference of government
officials through grass root campaigns. Indirect lobbying (is also called
outside or grass root lobbying) includes a host of tactics such as talking
with the press and media, organizing letter-writing campaigns, holding
press conferences, advertising, protesting, and so on. Indirect lobbying
tactics are especially effective when a pending issue can have potential
impact on a great deal of people in society.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 35

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Means of communication such as the media, the press, telephone,
letter, internet, etc. play crucial role in indirect lobbying tactics as they are
important intermediaries which transmit the message of companies to the
public. Accordingly, companies can appeal support of the public to their
positions on debating issues. The public, in turn, will affect government
officials’ position though writing letter or email, making telephone calls,
participating in demonstrations held by these companies, etc. In recent
years, thanks to rapid development of communication technology, indirect
lobbying tactics have been increasingly used by companies.
Companies employ indirect lobbying tactics when they want to
create the public’s pressure on government officials’ decisions (Kollman,
1966). Policy- and law-makers cannot make legislation without considering
the public opinions, especially those who are elected. It is well
acknowledged that the most important goal to any elected officials is re-
election (McGrath, 2004). Through indirect lobbying, companies show
elected legislators how their constituents might react to legislation and their
possibility of being re-elected. A legislator can face electoral consequence
in his run for a seat in Congress if he does not vote in favor of his
constituents because a constituent will not vote for a candidate that does
not represent for his interest before Congress. It is said that constituency
pressure and votes are the key to success in indirect lobbying.
Today, companies and their associations often combine indirect
lobbying and direct lobbying tactics to maximize effectiveness when
lobbying government. The case of Microsoft is a typical example. To
defend itself against antitrust suit filed by the Department of Justice,
Microsoft conducted scores of intensive lobbying activities using both
direct and indirect tactics. For instance, Microsoft poured a load of money
to hire priciest and well-connected lobbyists to lobby government officials.
Its contract lobbyists surrounded government officials with conversations,
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 36

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
phone calls, emails. Additionally, Microsoft’s president and senior officers
also had many meetings with government officials in order to advocate the
company’s cause and influence government officials’ viewpoints on its
suit. Besides, the Redmond-based company also took numerous actions to
call upon the support of the public. It hired a dozen or more prominent
academics and writers who would make arguments and give interview
advocating Microsoft’s positions on newspapers and the mass media. The
company also used its advantage in internet services to mobilize its clients
and users to contact government officials. A comprehensive campaign to
advocate its position through advertising on numerous websites, chat
rooms, emailing to its users, etc. was conducted.
4.3. Choice of lobbyists
Choosing which types of lobbyist to employ is another important
decision that directly affects the effectiveness of a lobbying campaign. A
company or its trade associations can carry out its lobbying by its own
through using full-time staff (in-house lobbyists) or outsourcing to a
lobbying firm (hire contract lobbyists) (see figure 7). Each type brings real
difference in strength to the lobbying process.
Figure 7: Choice of lobbyist to lobby government
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 37

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Source: Steiner (2005)
As mentioned in chapter two, in-house lobbyists are full-time
employees of a company which they lobby for. They only present one
client who is the company they work for. Thus, they are more committed
and loyal than contract lobbyists who often present more than one client at
one time (Deason, 2004). Furthermore, in-house lobbyists also have a
better understanding of the goals of the company they represent than
contract lobbyists do. Companies often use in-house lobbyists when they
want to transfer specialized and sensitive information. Moreover, in-house
lobbyists often have deep knowledge on the issue which their company is
lobbying. On behalf their company, in-house lobbyists can strategically
provide valuable and technical information to government officials, which
significantly contribute to building direct relationship between their
companies and government officials.
As regard contract lobbyists, their strategic advantages over in-house
lobbyists are instant access to government officials and mastery of law-
making process. They have a network of extensive relationships with
members of government; therefore hiring contract lobbyists, companies do
not have to spend time and resources cultivating relationships with
government officials from scratch. Additionally, extensive relations with
government officials also enable contract lobbyists to gain lots of
experience in dealing with various government officials. Thus, they know
where, when and how to approach and persuade different types of
policymakers. Besides, as most of contract lobbyists are lawyers and
former government members, they have mastery of decision-making
process. Companies who hire contract lobbyists immediately experience
benefit from their relations and experience. However, a big disadvantage of
using contract lobbyists is that as companies do not lobby directly on their
own but hire contract lobbyists, their connection with government officials
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 38

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
is only maintained by contract lobbyists. If they do not hire these contract
lobbyists, they lose the connection. Hence, today, there is a tendency for
companies to use both in-house and contract lobbyists when lobbying
government. Besides, Deason (2004) also emphasized that companies
whose lobbying expenditure is limited and location is far from Washington,
D.C. tend to choose contract lobbyists rather than in-house ones. He argued
that hiring contract lobbyists is more economic for these companies as in-
house lobbyists require annual salaries, while contract ones can be paid for
part-time or temporary work. Companies located far from the capital find
that contract lobbyists with daily presence is necessity.
4.4. Summary
In conclusion, chapter four has comprehensively presented lobbying
strategy and tactics that American companies and/or their trade associations
employ to lobby government. Forming a lobbying strategy, companies and/
or their associations has to take great pains to consider which government
officials will be targeted, which tactics will be used to approach and
influence them and which types of lobbyist to employ. They are three
strategic and crucial elements which determine the success of a lobbying
campaign.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 39

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
The current study investigates why American companies and trade
associations lobby the U.S. federal government and what are their
strategies to conduct a lobbying campaign.
5.1. Summary of the study
5.1.1. Motivations for companies to lobby government
In this paper, the investigation reveals that in the U.S., lobbying is a
legal practice and popularly used by companies and trade associations to
influence government’s policies and regulations. It has been becoming a
fundamental part in the development and competition strategy of many
American companies ranging from multinational corporations to smallest
ones. They are active in lobbying activities due to two main reasons.
Firstly, companies are motivated to lobby government because it
increasingly has great impact on their operation and profitability. Through
making policies and regulations, government exerts enormous influence on
every dimension of companies such as cost of production, revenue, method
of competition, etc. Any change in government policies and regulation can
have potential effect on companies’ operation. Hence, companies are aware
that they need to have a voice in government’s policy and law-making
process so as to protect and enhance their interests. Lobbying is proved to
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 40

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
be one of the most effective ways for them to make their voice heard. By
lobbying government, companies not only can anticipate potential changes
in government policies and regulations, but they also can alter these
policies and regulations in the way that favor them most.
Secondly, the ever-increasing competition between enterprises
strongly encourages companies to lobby government. Government with its
power to make and enforce policies and regulations is a powerful tool
which brings enterprises great support to fight against their competitors.
Involving in lobbying, businesses can influence government’s policies and
regulations in the way that enhance their performance and erode the
competitiveness of their rivals. Lobbying can help companies gaining and
sustaining competitive advantages over their competitors.
5.1.2. Lobbying strategies and tactics
Lobbying is complicated political game and in order to play well,
each player must have effective strategy. The investigation in this paper
shows that a comprehensive and effective lobbying strategy is a set of
choices about lobbied target, tactics and lobbyists. It is shown in this paper
that companies normally lobby government officials who are already on
their side and those who are undecided to stay on which side. To lobby
government, companies can decide to use direct tactics or indirect ones.
Today, more and more companies tend to employ both of them when
lobbying government. As regard companies’ decision to use in-house
lobbyists or contract lobbyists or both, the investigation finds that more and
more companies use both types. However, to companies whose expenditure
on lobbying activities is limited and location is far from Washington, D.C.,
hiring contract lobbyists is the primary choice.
5.2. Implications for Vietnam
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 41

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
The U.S. is one of strategic markets that more and more Vietnamese
enterprises aim at. The findings in this paper suggest that in order to be
able to enter and compete with other enterprises in this highly competitive
market, it is advisable for Vietnamese enterprises to lobby the U.S.
government. Lobbying government’s policies and regulations with the
intention to gain for competitive advantages and enhance performance has
long been mastered by American companies in competition with their
rivals. Accordingly, Vietnamese businesses should assign high priority to
this practice; otherwise, they will face potential risks and disadvantages
which result from lobbying activities of American businesses to fight
against them. Getting involved in lobbying, they can anticipate and prevent
sudden and negative changes in the U.S. policies and regulations. More
importantly, they can gain business opportunities, contracts, competitive
advantages, etc. In short, in the context that lobbying has become an
indispensable part of American business culture, Vietnamese companies
have no choice but to engage in this practice if they want to do business
smoothly and successfully in this market.
To lobby successfully, building relationships with the U.S.
government officials is essential. Hence, Vietnamese enterprises should
actively cultivate relations with the U.S. government officials as soon as
possible. Long-term and close relationships with the U.S. government
officials will be great advantages for Vietnamese businesses to lobby the
government successfully.
Regarding choosing types of lobbyists, it is advisable for Vietnamese
businesses to hire contract lobbyists. Most of Vietnamese enterprises
hardly have adequate knowledge, skills, and experience of lobbying in the
U.S., and access to government officials as well. Therefore, it is nearly
impossible for them to carry out lobbying activities on their own. Under the
circumstances, hiring contract lobbyists who are professionals in this field
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 42

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
will be rational choice for Vietnamese enterprises. Contract lobbyists have
deep knowledge and extensive experience of lobbying, mastery of the
government’s policy and law-making process, and long-term relationships
with government officials. They are elements that are indispensable for
successfully lobbying the U.S. government. Additionally, in terms of
location, Vietnamese enterprises base out of the U.S., it is difficult for them
to get up-to-date information about alternations in the U.S. government’s
policies and regulations. A contract lobbyist with daily presence in the U.S.
in general and Washington, D.C. in particular is a sensible choice for them.
However, in long term, a permanent staff with good knowledge of
American laws as well as lobbying activities, and capability to lobby the
U.S. government on behalf of their companies is also essential for
Vietnamese enterprises. Accordingly, they should actively invest time and
resources to enhance their understanding, accumulate experience, and
improve skills step-by-step in order to be able to carry out their lobbying
activities on their own.
Finally, Vietnamese enterprises are normally much smaller than
American businesses in terms of size and financial resources; it will be
difficult for each company to lobby the U.S. government on their own. The
pressure they can create is limited and the possibility that the U.S.
government officials perceive their concern is low. Accordingly, they
should join in coalition with other companies or found associations when
lobbying the U.S. government. Doing so, they can create greater pressure
and have more funds to carry out lobbying activities. Their voice will be
more likely to be heard.
5.3. Limitations of the study
Though the research has been conducted to the best of the
researcher’s effort, there remain some limitations due to scope of the study.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 43

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
The researcher only investigated lobbying activities at federal level while
in the U.S. lobbying occurs at all levels of government. Each state of the
U.S. has its own government, policies and regulations which are sometimes
greatly different from the federal ones. Besides, only American enterprises
were investigated in the study, meanwhile many foreign companies also
have strong and effective lobbying activities to influent the U.S.
government. The two limitations have influence on the generalisability of
the findings.
5.4. Proposal for further study
Further study can expand on the study in several ways. First,
additional studies on corporate lobbying in the U.S. should involve
lobbying activities at state to increase the generalisability of the findings.
As different states in the U.S. government have their own governments,
policies and regulations that are quite independent from the federal ones,
therefore, lobbying in different states require different strategies and
tactics. Secondly, future study can also study lobbying activities conducted
by foreign companies in the U.S. In the U.S., not only American companies
are master in using lobbying but foreign companies also have strong and
comprehensive lobbying activities to influence the government. They are
significantly contributing to alternations in the U.S. government policies
and regulations. Thus, studying lobbying activities of foreign companies
can bring closer and sufficient view on lobbying activities in the U.S. Last
but not least, it is also worth studying various lobbying cases to understand
how different companies employ lobbying strategies and tactics in different
situations. The findings of these studies together with those of this research
would be useful reference for those who are interested in lobbying in the
U.S.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 44

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
REFERENCES
Anastasiadis, S. (2006). Understanding corporate lobbying on its own
term. International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility,
research paper series.
American League of Lobbyist. (2006). What is lobbying? Retrieved
January 20, 2009 from
http://www.alldc.org/publicresources/lobbying.cfm
Austen-Smith, D. (1993). Information and influence: Lobbying for agenda
and votes. American Journal of Political Science, 37 (3), 799-833.
Retrieved November18, 2008 from Jistor database.
Austen-Smith, D. (1995). Campaign contribution and access. American
Political Science Review, 89(3), 566-581. Retrieve March 16, 2009
from Jistor database.
Austen-Smith, D., & Wright, J. R. (1994). Counteractive lobbying.
American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1), 25-44. Retrieved
November 29, 2008 from Jistor database.
Baumgartner, F., & Leech, B. (1996). The Multiple Ambiguities of
“Counteractive Lobbying”. American Journal of Political Science,
40(2), 521-542. Retrieved April 19, 2009 from Jistor database.
Baumgartner, F., & Leech, B. (2001). Interest niches and policy
bandwagons. The Journal of Politics, 63(2), 1191-1213. Retrieved
January 12, 2009 from Jistor database.
Biggs, S., & Helms, L. B. (2007). The practice of American public
policymaking. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 45

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Birnbaum, J. H. (1992). The lobbyists: How influence peddlers get their
way in Washington. New York: Times Books.
Brady, H. E., Drutman, L., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2007).
Corporate Lobbying Activity in American Politics. Paper presented
at the American Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago.
Retrieved November 8, 2008 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p210425_index.html
Carland, M. P., & Gihring, L. A. (2003). Careers in international affairs.
Baltimore, Md: Georgetown University Press.
Centre for Responsive Politics. (2008). Lobbying database. Retrieved
December 18, 2008 from
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
Chen, H., & Parsley, D. (2008). Money talks: Lobbying has its place in
politics, but so does transparency. Retrieved February 12, 2009,
from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/magazines/vanderbilt-
business/2008/11/money-talks/
Contracts from Department of Defense. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from
http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?
datype=T&detail=-1&database=fpds&fiscal_year=2009&maj_agenc
y_cat=97
Costa, M. (2006). U.S. government. Retrieved February 18, 2009 from
http://usva-
government.mountainview.groupfusion.net/modules/groups/integrate
d_home.phtml?gid=61903&sessionid=f29654ef30
Cotton, R. D. (2004). Credibility, power of persuasion tools of the trade for
lobbyists. Retrieved December 10, 2009 from
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 46

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
http://memphis.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2004/12/13/focus3.
html
Deason, M. C. (2004). Systematic Factors of Organized Interest Choice: In-
house Versus Contract Lobbying. Paper presented at the Midwest
Political Science Association Meeting, Illinois. Retrieved March 18,
2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p83159_index.html
Denzau, A. T., & Munger, M. C. (1986). Legislators and Interest groups:
how unorganized interests get presented. American Political Science
Review, 80(1), 89-106. Retrieved April 15, 2009 from Jistor
database.
Eagleton, D. (2006). Under the influence. Retrieved November 20, 2008
from
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/174_6_under_the_influence_fin
al.pdf
Encyclopedia Britannica Online. (2009). Interest group. Retrieved
February 17, 2009 from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-257771
Eulau, H. 1964. Lobbyists: the wasted profession [Electronic version]. The
Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(1), 27-38.
Figuerido, J. M. (2002). Lobbying and Information in Politics [Electronic
version]. Business and Politics, 4(2), 125-129.
Gelak, D. R. (2008). Lobbying and advocacy. Alexandria: The Capitol.Net.
Inc.
Hansen, W. L., & Mitchell, N. J. (2000). Disaggregating and explaining
corporate political activity: Domestic and foreign corporations in
national politics. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 891-903.
Retrieved November 29, 2008 from Jistor database.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 47

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Hanh Phuong. (2006, November 11). “Van hoa” lobby. Lao dong cuoi
tuan, 16. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
http://www.laodong.com.vn/Home/Van-hoa-
lobby/200611/12437.laodong
Harris, P. & Fleisher, C. S. (2005). The handbook of public affair.
California: SAGE Publication Inc.
Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Corporate political strategies
formulation: a model of approach, participation, and strategies
decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825-842.
Retrieved March 12, 2009 from Business Source Premier database.
Hillman, A. J., Zardkoohi, A., & Bierman, L. (1999). Corporate political
strategies and firm performance: indication of firm-specific benefits
from personal service in the U.S. government. Strategic
Management Journal, (20), 67-81. Retrieved March 11, 2009 from
Business Source Premier database.
Hofrenning, D. J. B. (1995). In Washington but not of it: The prophetic
politics of religious lobbyists. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Hojnacki, M., & Kimbal, D. C. (1999). Organized Interests and the
Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress. American Political
Science Review, 92(4), 775-790. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from
Jistor database.
Jacobson, C. K., Lenway, S. A., & Ring, P. S. (1993). The political
embeddedness of private economic transaction. Journal of
Management Studies, 30(3), 454-478. Retrieved March 12, 2009
from Business Source Premier database.
Jain, T. R., Trehan, M., & Trehan, R. (2006). Business environment. Delhi:
V.K. Enterprises
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 48

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Keiffer, D. E. (2007). The citizen’s guide to lobbying Congress. Chicago:
Chicago Review Press.
Keim, G. (1985). Corporate grassroots program on the 1980s. California
Management Review, 28 (1), 110-123. Retrieved February 20, 2009
from EBSCOhost database.
Kollman, K. (1966). Outside lobbying. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
La Pira, T. M. (2008). Information as Lobbying, or Lobbying as
Information? Argument Quality, Group Credibility, and Heuristic
Processing in Congress. Paper presented at Midwest Political
Science Association Annual National Conference, Chicago.
Retrieved November 15, 2008 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p266203_index.html
Lerbinger, O. (2006). Corporate Public Affairs. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lockheed Martin. Retrieved March 12, 2009 from
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Lockheed_Martin_(LMT)
Lord, M. D. (2000). Corporate political strategies and legislative decision-
making: the impact of corporate legislative influence activities.
Business and Society, 39 (1), 76-93. Retrieved March 14, 2009 from
EBSCOhost database.
Madison, J. (n.d.). The Federalist No.10. Retrieved December 20, 2008
from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
Madison, J. (n.d.). The Bills of Rights. Retrieved December 20, 2008 from
the James Madison Center.
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 49

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Mashimaro. (2007, August 16). Lobbying – legal or illegal? [Msg. 18].
Message posted to http://webdoanhnhan.com/diendan/index.php?
PHPSESSID=79e1d0c08499946ec406dd8d5c2ca50e&topic=1792.0
Mayer, L. H. (2008). What is this 'Lobbying' that we are so worried about?
Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 485. Retrieved November 12, 2008
from Social Science Research Network Database.
McGrath, C. (2004). Grassroots lobbying: marketing politics and policy
“beyond the Beltway”. Paper presented at Election on the Horizon:
marketing politics to the Electorate in the USA and UK, London.
Retrieved January 20, 2009 from British Library.
McGrath, C. (2006). The ideal lobbyist: personal characteristics of
effective lobbyist. Journal of Communication Management, 10 (1),
67-79. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from ProQuest Psychology
Journals database.
Meyers & Associates. (n.d.). Lobbyists and lobbying. Retrieved November
16, 2008 from http://www.meyersandassociates.com/lobbyist.html
Neufeldt, V., & Guralnick, D. B. (1994). Webster’s New World Dictionary
of American English. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Nownes, A. (2006). Total lobbying: What lobbyists want and how they try
to get it. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary [computer software]. London: Oxford
University Press.
Paquetter, L. (2002). Political strategies and tactics. New York: Nova
Science Publishers.
Piana, V. (2005). Substitute goods. Retrieved April 21, 2009 from
http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/substitute.htm
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 50

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Public Affair Links. (2007). A brief history of lobbying. Retrieved January
28, 2009 from www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk/Help%20Guides/The
%20History%20of%20Lobbying%20(guide1).doc
Public Citizen. (2005). History of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Retrieved
January 25, 2009 from http://www.lobbyinginfo.org/laws/page.cfm?
pageid=15
Public Citizen. (2005). Gift rules for Congress. Retrieved January 28, 2009
from http://www.lobbyinginfo.org/laws/page.cfm?pageid=10
Ragone, N. (2004). The everything American government book.
Massachusett: Adam Media.
Recklies, D. (2001). Porter 5 forces. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from
http://www.themanager.org/Models/p5f.htm
Rubin, B. R. (2000). A citizen’s guide to politics in America. Armonk, New
York: M.E. Sharpe.
Sadrieh, F., & Annavarjula, M. (2005). Firm-specific determinants of
corporate lobbying participation and intensity. Journal of Public
Administration, 28 (1), 179-202. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from
EBSCOhost database.
Shultz, J. (2003). The democracy owners’ manual. New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press.
Smith, S. S., Roberts, J. M., & Wielen, R. J. V. (2006). The American
Congress 4th edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sourcewatch Encyclopedia online. (n.d.). Foreign Registration Acts.
Retrieved December 12, 2008 from
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 51

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Steiner, J. F. (2005). Business, government, and society. New York:
McGraw-Hill Professional.
Thomas, C. S. (2004). Research guide to U.S. and international interest
groups. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Tocqueville, A. (1864). Democracy in America (F. Bowen, Trans.).
Cambridge: Sever and Francis (Original work published 1835)
United States Senate. Lobbying. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Lobbying
_vrd.htm
Victor, J. N. (2006). Strategic lobbying: The How and Why of Interest
Group Lobbying. Paper presented at the American Political Science
Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia. Retrieved November 15,
2008 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152270_index.html
Victor, J. N. (2007). Strategic lobbying: demonstrating how legislative
context affect interest groups’ lobbying tactics. American Politics
Research, 35 (6), 826-845. Retrieved November 28, 2009 from
EBSCOhost database.
Vining, A. R., Shapiro, D. M., & Borgers, B. (2005). Building the firm’s
political lobbying strategy. Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 5, p.
150-175. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from Wiley InterScience
Database.
Waldman, T. (2000). The best guide to American politics. Los Angeles:
Renaissance Books.
Wright, J. R. (1990). Contribution, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the
U.S. House of Representatives. American Political Science Review,
84 (2), 417-438.Retrieved February 15, 2009 from Jistor database
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 52

Corporate lobbying in the U.S. and implications for Vietnam
Woodstock Theological Center. (2002). The ethnic of lobbying. U.S.:
Georgetown University Press.
Wikivest. (n.d.). Lockheed Martin. Retrieved March 12, 2009 from
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Lockheed_Martin_(LMT)
Do Thi Thao-K39 E18, HULIS 53