1. Page 1 of 7 Regulating Lobbying in the Democracy
Article 6
Title: Regulating Lobbying in Democracies
Abstract: This article reviews lobbying in different countries and discusses the link between
lobbying as a discipline and PR that is so evident in democracies.
(keywords: lobbying, regulation, PR, politics, democracy, journalism, social responsibility)
Lobbying as a word appeared first in print as early as 1820: “Other letters from Washington
affirm, that members of the Senate, when the compromise question was to be taken in the
House where not only “lobbying about the Representatives’ Chamber” but also active in
endeavouring to intimidate certain weak representatives by insulting threats to dissolve the
Union.” – April 1, 1820, New Hampshire Sentinel.1
Today the exact definition of lobbying varies from one country to another however the core
meaning of lobbying is the same. It represents an activity in which an individual or a certain
group of individuals concentrate their efforts on influencing or overturning decisions of
public power holders, ie. Legislative acts, regulations, etc. Countries often regulate lobbying
as an independent discipline in order to keep control over both parties lobbyists as well as
politicians, in order to prevent corruption.
US could rightly be called the birthplace of lobbying and Washington DC is the lobbying
realm currently accommodating around 12,000 lobbyists.2
The court rulings read lobbying as
free speech protected by the US Constitution. But, unlike citizens’ right to free speech,
lobbying is paid activity that could be practiced by professional advocates, often lawyers only
who need to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). Lobbying happens on all
governmental levels and is closely observed not only by the government but also private
companies, NGOs and academia. Regulation of lobbying in the US dates back to 1946, when
the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act came into force, followed by other regulations, the
most recent dated 2007. There had been number of researches and studies focussing on the
financial benefits of lobbying suggesting the ROI (on political lobbying expenditures in
relations to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 specifically) could go as high as
22,000%.3
Looking at taxes paid in 2010 among Fortune 100 companies, the ten that lobbied
paid an average effective tax rate of 17%; the 80 that lobbied least paid an average of 26%.4
The first spark that allowed for the spread of lobbying in the European Union as we know it
today was first direct election of the European Parliament in 1979 and then the next huge step
took form of Single European Act of 1986. Since then lobbying in the European Union grew
immensely in number of lobbyists but also in number of expenditure, as well as cultural
diversity especially with the EU enlargement in 2004. By the number of lobbyists Brussels
had outgrown Washington DC, there were 15,000 registered lobbyists in 2003 and as of 2014
1
Deanna Gelak (previous president of the American League of Lobbyists) mentioned this in her book Lobbying
and Advocacy: Winning Strategies, Resources, Recommendations, Ethics and Ongoing Compliance for
Lobbyists and Washington Advocates, TheCapitol.Net, 2008, LobbyingAndAdvocacy.com
2
Lee Fang, The Nation: Where Have All the lobbyists Gone? (Feb 19th
2014), Retrieved 6th
June 2014
3
Raquel Meyer Alexander, Stephen W. Mazza, & Susan Scholz. (8 April 2009). "Measuring Rates of Return for
Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Case Study of Tax Breaks for Multinational Corporations", Retrieved 1st
June 2014
4
The Economist: Grey Eminences (Feb 22nd
2014), Retrieved 6th
June 2014

2. Page 2 of 7 Regulating Lobbying in the Democracy
the number has doubled to around 30,000 lobbyists based in Brussels.5
There were roughly
2,600 groups holding permanent offices in Brussels, their distribution could be broken down
to European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%),
national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%)
and think tanks (1%), in 20036
, but the breakdown could still look similar today as in 2003.
Unlike the US the EU has not enacted lobbying other than by a non-binding Code of Conduct.
It could be stressed that as far as the European Parliament is concerned there is a low-
regulatory system in place (Rules of Procedure, 1996-1997) as for the European Commission,
this particular institution implemented self-regulatory approach.7
In the Czech Republic lobbying is a fairly unknown term. However, due to recent press
coverage of people working as lobbyists in the Czech Republic, the Czech public perceive
lobbying as a dirty word, sometimes even as a synonym of corruption.8
Despite this there had
been pressure on the Czech government to regulate lobbying within the country while a clear
definition of lobbying as an independent discipline has not yet been formulated.9
Therefore
talking about regulations of any kind for the lobbying in the Czech Republic would be really
premature. But the lack of any formal characterisation does not mean that lobbying as an
activity, including a paid one, is not taking place here. But, as it is not a legally designated
area and thus cannot be structured and controlled, it is very easy for lobbyists to move in this
legally grey area exposing themselves and their opposite parties to, as already mentioned
earlier, questionable press coverage and as a result, shedding a bad light on the whole
discipline.
If we take the most recent papers on lobbying as the most progressed and explicit, then
lobbying for the Czech Republic represents: “communication between the lobbyist and public
power holder whose aim is to influence the decision of a public power holder.” where
“Lobbyist is a person continuously conducting lobbying. Provided that a lobbyist conducts
more than three lobbying contacts quarterly or more than five lobbying contacts yearly it is
stipulated that such a person conducts lobbying continuously.”10
This definition takes into account only two parties, the lobbyist and the public power holder.
But in my view, this is rather narrow-minded especially for the democracy. The core of a
democracy is that each individual has a power over a public sector through one’s own right to
vote. The public power holders are being elected on a regular basis by these individuals
registered in each autonomic area, democratic states. In a sense it is each individual shaping a
public sector thus trying to influence only the currently-serving public power holder which
could be insufficient especially in a long-term view.
5
The Economist: Grey Eminences (Feb 22nd
2014), Retrieved 6th
June 2014
6
Lehman, Wilhelm (2003). "Lobbying in the European Union: current rules and practices" (PDF). Retrieved
29th October 2013.
Di Pier Luigi Petrillo (2013). “Form of government and lobbies in UK and UE. A comparative perspective”,
Retrieved 1st June 2014.
7
Liliana Mihut (Romanian Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2008). “Lobbying in the United States
and the European Union: New Developments in Lobbying Regulation”, Retrieved 1st
June 2014
8
“The lobbying is even generally perceived as a synonym to the corruption and bribing.” (Regulation of
Lobbying in the Czech Republic – History, Debate and Perspective, Radomír Špok, Tomáš Weiss, Jan Kříž,
Prague, October 2011)
9
“Even though every newly formed government declares its will to regulate lobbying in the Czech Republic
there was so far no bill on this issue prepared by the government itself.” (Regulation of Lobbying in the Czech
Republic – History, Debate and Perspective, Radomír Špok, Tomáš Weiss, Jan Kříž, Prague, October 2011)
10
Regulation of Lobbying in the Czech Republic – History, Debate and Perspective, Radomír Špok, Tomáš
Weiss, Jan Kříž, Prague, October 2011

3. Page 3 of 7 Regulating Lobbying in the Democracy
I now aim to explain this, in my opinion, inefficiency, in the following two diagrams:
Lobbying, as defined earlier, happens only on one level. Lobbyists - working professionals
and experts themselves or someone else together with working professionals, experts and
academics try to influence the decisions of public power holders, labelled in this diagram as
Parliament. This process could be more or less vigorous depending on form and intensity.
The most effective are face-to-face meetings however there are other tools how to
communicate political positions. Politicians themselves do not rely on one information source
only. According to the analysis “A Guide to Effective Lobbying in the Czech Republic”11
the
political decisions are driven mainly by the politicians’ own researches and advice from their
fellow colleagues. Even though they tend to view the information provided by the lobbyists
as very subjective they still value these as detailed, qualified and professionally backed data.
Among most preferred ways of communication with the lobbyists the politicians cited face-
to-face meetings, written documents, conferences, production site visits and emails. When it
comes to regional reports, politicians consider these conclusive and tend to take the data
involved in the account when making political decisions. As for the Czech media, the most
reliable from the politicians’ point of view and at the same time the one that does play a
significant role as an information source regarding the political decisions was, according to
this survey, “Hospodářské noviny”.
11
A Guide to Effective Lobbying in the Czech Republic (Final report from a survey of Czech politicians),
Donath-Burson-Masteller, Factum Invenio, Jiri J. Sebek, Prague, March 2005
Parliament
Working professionals / experts / academics
Professional Community
General Public
Minority Groups

4. Page 4 of 7 Regulating Lobbying in the Democracy
Lobbying on one level seems to be straightforward even though it can get a bit extensive
should we implement all means of communication. But, effective lobbying takes more than
that. Lobbying in the US usually compares to PR and management consulting. It requires
same skills and those successful in PR and consulting fields might stand good chances of
succeeding in lobbying as well. Lobbyists need to possess excellent communication and
interpersonal skills, and must have knowledge of the legislative process as well as the
industry they represent. There are different ways to become lobbyists, in case of US some
start through working on Capitol Hill in congressional offices, others move from corporate
regulatory affairs jobs and last but not least, some of the ex-politicians profit from their
experience and network as newly turned lobbyists. There is no lobbying specific accredited
education required or currently offered, however in the US there is the American League of
Lobbyists offering the Lobbying Certificate Programme.12
As for the EU, as the lobbying
itself is not truly regulated, there are no specific requirements on people, education,
experience, etc. In other words the closer description of the lobbyist other than the really
wide world-spread used term that could fit most of industry jobs from PR, consulting,
regulatory affairs, government relations, international relations, etc. is non-existent. Thus
there is no need for this-field specific education.
But should we get back to the process of lobbying the approach described in the above graphs
presumes there is only one public power holder, the politicians. Even if we take this
assumption as a valid fact, the politicians especially in democratic states have more than the
lobbyists’ and their fellow colleagues’ positions and advice to embrace within their political
decision process:
12
About.com, Washington DC, “What is lobbyist”, Retrieved 1st
June 2014
Means of
Communication
Closed door
Meetings
Written
Materials
Conferences
Production
Site Visits
Emails

5. Page 5 of 7 Regulating Lobbying in the Democracy
As it is evident already from the above graph, politicians are looking for possibilities that
would ideally overlap all the agendas they are bounded by or willing to pursue. The most
important and the least flexible in the politicians’ lives is the Political Agenda that usually
corresponds with the Political Parties’ Programmes they belong to. For a politician it is
almost impossible to vote for a legislation that would be in direct or indirect controversy with
one’s own party specific political programme. Member who acts in contradiction with one’s
own political party could be subject to dismissal from such Party. Such decisions could be
therefore viewed as political “kamikaze” and all politicians are well aware of consequences
that non-alignment could mean for them on professional as well as personal levels. Other
obligations might be uncovered through their personal and professional commitments. “Tit
for Tat” is in a human nature and you can hardly find someone who would not be obliged to
someone either in their personal and/or professional lives wanting to return the favour.
Professional commitments could refer to their political colleagues, experts, academics, and
other professionals moving in the same circles. Personal commitments could be linked to the
Personal Agenda that could include political career goals or changing personal circumstances
within one’s family, etc. And last but not least there is a Public Opinion. In democracies
citizens elect politicians for the Parliament posts for a certain period of time. Those willing to
stay longer need to be elected again, it is therefore vital for political survival to be aware of
contemporary public opinion polls and reflect on these accordingly and timely.
But it is more important and also interesting to examine closer the sources of Public Opinion,
Personal and Professional Commitments and Political Agenda. The Public Opinion is
indisputably the easiest to point out as it is the General Public, the majority of voters that sets
the tone. The pre-election opinion polls play major role in setting the parties’ political
programmes. All of the political parties are more or less populistic nowadays where the
populism is considered a key ingredient to long political life but at the same time this strategy
Political Agenda
Public
Opinion
Personal Agenda
Personal and
Professional
Commitments

6. Page 6 of 7 Regulating Lobbying in the Democracy
gives even bigger power to the voters, the General Public. Personal and Professional
Commitments are, as already stated before, linked and inter-linked with working
professionals and could overreach to professional community. Looking at Political Agenda
we come through the same loop back to General Public as the biggest stakeholder considering
elections. However the political agenda also entails working professionals, usually political
advisers and professional community. Each of the parties relies on professional community
more or less depending on whether they target this group directly as their potential voters,
supporters or not.
This is a key of democracy where all the citizens have the same rights, and through
exercising their right to vote they help shaping the political scene in their own town, region
and country. Democracy, as explained by the Stanford lecturer consists of four elements:
1. A political system for choosing and replacing government through free and fair
elections.
2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.
3. Protection of human right of all citizens.
4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.13
Should we implement all of the above to the first graph in order to see what levels of
country’s population need to be targeted in order for lobbying to become even more effective,
we come up with the following:
The biggest political pressure and maybe also the most natural one comes from the general
public, then working professionals/experts and academics who are closest to the politicians,
later on professional community and sometimes, mainly through strong national campaigns
13
“What is democracy”, Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies, Jan 21st
2004, standford.edu,
Retrieved 6th
June 2014
Parliament
Working professionals / experts / academics
Professional Community
General Public
Minority Groups

7. Page 7 of 7 Regulating Lobbying in the Democracy
could be from minority groups. These however due to their weak presence do not usually get
much noticed unless there is a politician in a regionally repressed area with a strong minority
groups’ presence willing to take up a post on a regional level.
PR is therefore a very powerful tool that could have a huge impact on lobbying results.
Lobbying as it is defined today is very narrow and open at the same time. Narrow in a sense
that it excludes all the activities that are very important to lobbying such as PR, event
organizing – conferences, press releases, publication of researches, reports, other media
coverage, even charity work (this is also labelled as outside lobbying in the US). And open in
a sense that it does define that it is an activity where an individual or a specific group of
individuals is trying to influence public power holders’ decisions (this is labelled as inside
lobbying in the US). But it does not state how and here we are getting back to the disciplines
and activities that are at the same time excluded from the lobbying as we understand it today.
This kind of definition of lobbying and therefore lobbyist within the regulation could be a
mistake backfiring in the same way it is in the US nowadays.
US as the first one acknowledged lobbying as a discipline, recognised its importance, as it
also ensures that the qualified information gets to laymen holding the power over legislative
decisions in that specific area. It also enables exchange of experience, feedback as to how the
regulations have been implemented and could point to drawbacks that need to be remedied.
As the first it decided that due to rising power and unethical practices it would regulate
lobbying, thus make it more transparent and at the same time more trustworthy towards the
public. This worked at the beginning but today the US witnesses the growth of, what is
perceived as, unethical practices. Thanks to imprecisely defined lobbying, unwisely set the
rules for registration under the LDA (these legislative loopholes), US is experiencing false
shrinking of the registered lobby industry but in reality growth of grey eminencies ruling the
industry. The discrepancy between the registered number and the actual one is more than
trifold. In case of number of lobbyists, the registered number shows around 12,000 but in
reality the number of people exercising lobbying in the Washington DC is estimated at
100,000. The industry represented in billions of USD as registered stayed at $3bil. however
the experts estimate the real figure at $9bil.14
It may seem that it is much better to not to regulate the lobbying at all rather than doing it
poorly. But the right formulation is only the beginning. All the regulations to work effectively
need to be implemented, enforced and non-compliance needs to be adequately prosecuted. To
do these correctly and efficiently it is necessary to employ well educated and trained
appropriate workforce, what is usually the biggest obstacle due to insufficient resources
allocated for this particular job.
14
Lee Fang, The Nation: Where Have All the lobbyists Gone? (Feb 19th
2014), Retrieved 6th
June 2014