This document analyzes lobbying in the United States. It discusses how lobbying is defined differently by pro-business stakeholders who see it as a way to advance business versus citizen groups who see it as undue corporate influence. It also examines actions that have been taken to regulate lobbying, such as the McCain-Feingold Act, and potential future actions like the American Anti-Corruption Act that aims to restrict lobbyist influence and increase transparency. Public opinion on lobbying is mixed, with many seeing corporations as having too much influence but others valuing free speech rights. There remains little agreement on how to balance these perspectives.

1. LOBBYING IN THE
UNITED STATES
By Jonah Baker

2. Baker 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze and interpret information regarding the
effects of corporate lobbying on politics in America. In order to provide a proper analysis
of evidence for stakeholders, about a dozen different academic sources were investigated
for facts and figures that could provide further context and insight into the discussion.
The majority of the articles used in this paper were found through references from
similarly focused journalism pieces and scholarly articles.
Said research provided findings focused mainly on the stasis theory categories of
value and action, and this report will be of interest to entities on both sides of the issue of
lobbying in American politics. The conclusion summarizes the current state of lobbying
and the different approaches to what is valued and what actions could be taken according
to each side of the issue.

3. Baker 3
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………….. 2
Introduction……………………………………....4
Methodology……………………………………...5
Results and Discussion…………………………...6
Definition……………………………………6
Action……………………………………….7
Conclusion………………………………………10
Bibliography…………………………………….11

4. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to clarify the state of lobbying in American politics and
what the involved stakeholders stand in the points of contention around lobbying. There
are issues within the system of corporate lobbying that breed schisms between
stakeholders and distrust in the nation as a whole. Lobbying can be seen as another
vehicle for expression in government for interested groups and corporations, but it can
also be understood as a way to buy influence and effectively take control of the
policymaking process to concerned citizens. The objectives for this project were:
 Find sources conducive to stasis theory
 Understand the minutiae of how lobbying happens and how money flows
 Thoroughly investigate the points of contention between stakeholders
 Maintain objectivity throughout analysis and presentation
This report follows and alternating presentation that allows for in-depth analysis of
the two most important stasis theory categories (value and action) without trying to
maintain focus on both points of contention for longer periods of time.

5. Baker 5
Methodology
This project required the application of stasis theory to ensure an objective and
comprehensive analysis for stakeholders. Stasis theory is recognized as the gathering and
interpretation of primary source data to analyze any or all of the four main categories of
conjecture, definition, definition and action. Once the research for the project was
gathered, each article was examined for contribution to either the definition or action
points of contention within the larger issue of lobbying in American politics. The
historical biases of each source were taken to account, and those histories were taken into
account and reflected within this paper’s findings.
The data for this project was gathered with the help of Evernote, a document
clipping web extension that allows the user to track their sources and make it easier to
remember them for later. The sources used were clipped either as simple articles or
screenshots to the attached research dossier, and their information was interpreted
through stasis theory and applied to one or both of the highlighted categories of definition
or action. Specifically focused articles were tagged in relation to the part of the paper
they applied to (Definition, Action, Background, etc.).

6. Baker 6
Results and Discussion
Definition
Lobbying revolves around the issues of what businesses and groups are valued
and which are left out. The pro-business stakeholders value the advancement of business
and the protection of existing opportunities, and as such they define lobbying as the
accomplishment of those things through influencing policy (Gilens, Martin and Page).
Firms have been known to “invest a considerable amount of labor and resources in trying
to create a more favorable regulatory and legislative environment,” (Walker), and the
numbers make it easy to understand why. Lobbying is an effective investment strategy,
with some estimates putting its return on investment as high as 220:1 (Alexander et al.).
These same firms have continued to utilize lobbying strategies in the past couple decades,
as firms have ramped up lobbying expenditures and lobbyist employment.
The primary source data on the other side of the issue contends that lobbying is
not expression of businesses’ rights, and instead is the “capture of the regulators by the
regulated,” (Gilens, Martin and Page). These sources see lobbying activities as
overprotected and underreported, and they believe that their evidence points towards
illegal activity that is protected by insufficient lobbying laws (Hamilton). Citizen
awareness groups contend that lobbyists wield influence over policymaking and elections
that goes beyond the First Amendment right that gives them the right to influence in the
first place (Lee).
Media coverage of lobbying accelerates around election seasons and controversial
policy debates, when lobbying dollars are funneled to PACs or quid pro quo alliances are

7. Baker 7
tested. During those times, popular media outlets tend to focus on the lobbying influence
on that particular election. The media focuses on the amount of money spent on lobbying
policy, thus defining corporate lobbying as a monetary means of expressing First
Amendment rights after the landmark Citizens United v. FEC case of 2010 (Barnes).
Public perception of lobbying and resulting corporate power in politics is largely
unfavorable. 71 percent of those surveyed in a 2011 Gallup poll believed that lobbyists
had “too much” power, and 67 percent of those surveyed believed that major corporations
had “too much” power. According to a 2015 survey, 48 percent of Americans believe that
corporations have too much influence over the nation’s economic future (Saad, “Majority
Receptive”).
Action
The McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was the result
of bipartisan reform to regulate lobbying efforts and
maintain a standard of transparency for years to come.
The act prevented party fundraising on issues that were
not subjected to hard government limits and it prohibited
attack ads or “electioneering communications” in the
days leading up to an election (McCain and Feingold).
16 years later, both corporations and citizens are looking
for additional ways to approach the lobbying issue as
lobbying expenditures have crept back towards their

8. Baker 8
high in 2010 of $3.5 billion as represented in Figure 1 (“Lobbying”). Concerned citizens
do not see the vast amounts of money being spent as a problem, but they do see the lack
of transparency within the lobbying industry as cause for new action. Possible actions
include installing “cooling off” periods in which former politicians would have to wait
for a period of between two to five years before utilizing their influence for the private
sector as a lobbyist (“The American Anti-Corruption Act). The biggest piece of citizen-
driven legislation currently in the works to address this issue is the American Anti-
Corruption Act, which calls for restricting lobbyist influence on elections and stopping
the flow of retiring congressmen and women to lobbying firms among many other
provisions (“The American Anti-Corruption Act”). In contrast, the corporate sector that
employs those lobbyists is averse to any further restrictive policy and would rather
maintain the status quo. When the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of
2006 made its way to Congress, firms spent more money lobbying against the bill to
ensure its downfall, even though corporations without unethical lobbying practices would
be largely unaffected by the bill (Small).
Media coverage of potential action can be explained as immediate reaction to new
ideas with short discussion periods. Sources like the Washington Post are quick to cover
landmark cases like Citizens United v. FEC, with three constantly updated stories
following the issue over the week following the 2011 decision. Most media are less
concerned with what action should be taken and instead focus on what has been done and
what could follow in the future without losing objectivity.
The public is divided on action for lobbying in politics. Citizen groups like
Represent.Us are responsible for public action in support of AACA, and similar pieces of

9. Baker 9
grassroots legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act have spent years in Congress in
various forms with little effect. The Employee Free Choice Act aims to make it easier to
form unions, who could then go on to represent citizen workers and not corporations with
lobbyists of their own, but it would not include provisions to ensure that union lobbying
would be comparable to corporate lobbying in terms of influence (“Unionizing Bill
Advances). In a Gallup poll conducted in the weeks after the first version of the bill was
announced, 53 percent of those polled were in favor of new labor union legislation and 39
percent opposed it (Saad, “Americans Decry Power”). The poll did not include an option
to state the justification for the stance of those surveyed, but labor unions are one of the
most effective ways for the citizenry to exert influence through lobbying in a similar
manner to corporate lobbying firms.

10. Baker 10
Conclusion
Lobbying in American politics is a difficult issue with little common ground
between stakeholders and even less conviction in a brighter future. The current state of
lobbying pits a section of the citizenry with fears of a government run by corporations
against firms that want their First Amendment rights to speech and election influence to
be protected. There is very little middle ground upon which to find a compromise and
address the action stasis category, but firmly defining what corporate lobbying is would
allow both sides to have a starting point for that conversation. The actions taken in the
past to address lobbying have not satisfied both sides, but there are pieces of legislation in
progress that could provide meaningful compromise, pending examination and approval
from stakeholders.

11. Baker 11
Bibliography
Walker, Edward T. “Putting a Face on the Issue: Corporate Stakeholder Mobilization in
Professional Grassroots Lobbying Campaigns.” Business and society 51.4 (2012):
561–601. PMC. Web. 18 Apr. 2018.
Alexander, Raquel Meyer, et al. “Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures:
An Empirical Case Study of Tax Breaks for Multinational Corporations.” KU
ScholarWorks, University of Virginia School of Law, 1 Jan. 1970,
kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/11410.
Barnes, Robert. “Supreme Court Strikes down Limits on Federal Campaign
Donations.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 Apr. 2014,
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-
campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-
c739f29ccb08_story.html?utm_term=.05adb4364d13.
Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites,
Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 12, no. 03,
2014, pp. 564–581., doi:10.1017/s1537592714001595.
Hamilton, Lee. “Why So Much Money Gets Spent on Lobbying.” Why So Much Money
Gets Spent on Lobbying | Center on Representative Government, Indiana
University Center on Representative Government, 28 Sept. 2010,
corg.indiana.edu/why-so-much-money-gets-spent-lobbying.
“Lobbying.” OpenSecrets.org, The Center for Responsive Politics, 28 Feb. 2018,
www.opensecrets.org/lobby/.

12. Baker 12
Lee, Louise. Dealing With the Dominance of Corporate Lobbyists. Stanford Graduate
School of Business, 30 Nov. 2017, www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/dealing-
dominance-corporate-lobbyists.
McCain, John, and Russ Feingold. “H.R. 2356 (107th): Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002.” GovTrack.us, 23 Jan. 2017,
www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2356/summary.
Saad, Lydia. “Majority Receptive to Law Making Union Organizing
Easier.” Gallup.com, Gallup, Inc., 17 Mar. 2009,
news.gallup.com/poll/116863/Majority-Receptive-Law-Making-Union-
Organizing-Easier.aspx.
Saad, Lydia. “Americans Decry Power of Lobbyists, Corporations, Banks,
Feds.” Gallup.com, Gallup, Inc., 11 Apr. 2011,
news.gallup.com/poll/147026/americans-decry-power-lobbyists-corporations-
banks-feds.aspx.
“The American Anti-Corruption Act.” AACA, Represent.Us, anticorruptionact.org/whats-
in-the-act/.
Small, R. Christopher. “The Corporate Value of (Corrupt) Lobbying.” The Corporate
Value of (Corrupt) Lobbying, The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate
Governance and Financial Regulation, 18 Aug. 2014,
corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/08/18/the-corporate-value-of-corrupt-lobbying/.

13. Baker 13
“Unionizing Bill Advances; Cheney Threatens Veto.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 14 Feb.
2007, www.reuters.com/article/us-congress-labor-veto/unionizing-bill-advances-
cheney-threatens-veto-idUSN1437667720070215.