The role of the lobbyist – Aaron McLoughlin

Recently, I’ve given some talks on the role of the lobbyist.

I give the talk through the lens of the practitioner.

I decided to put this concise version online so I can find it easily in future.

I personally don’t like powerpoint. But, I accept most people need it. So, in a concession to modernity, I use an image and speaking points.

A Common View

The common view of the lobbyist is not a positive one.

Nick Naylor, from ‘Thank you for Smoking’ is pictured as a merchant of death (MOD). He is characterised as a smooth talking voice, whose job is to cast doubt and to delay action. He is immoral.

Elizabeth Sloane is portrayed as the pill-popping corporatist lobbyist who switches sides.

Miss Sloane is both a strategist, advocate and spokesperson. She works the Hill and the Media to get her client’s law – gun control – passed. She creates opportunities to pass the law.

Sloane is portrayed as amoral. She works at the borderline of ethics and crosses over that line to win. But, she wins.

The real heroes in the movie, Lincoln, are the lobbyists. They helped get the 13th Amendment, the ban on slavery, passed. You may not like their methods, which at the time were mainstream, but without them, the amendment would not have happened.

My View

My view of the role of the lobbyist is different from popular culture.

I say this as someone who has worked for most sides of the table – all except for a national government.

For me, the job of the lobbyist comes down to:

1. Provide the key information, clearly presented, at the right time, to the right people, in the right way.

2. The need to like synthesizing gobbledegook into clear 1 pagers for the policymaker & influencer

3. Present what your target audience needs to hear and not what your client wants to talk about

A good lobbyist will act as your experienced Sherpa. Edmund Hilary got to the summit of Mount Everest in 1953 due to Tenzing Norgay.

To this day, many try to reach the summit unassisted by an experienced guide. Many perish trying to do so.

If you are looking to change or influence the adoption of a law or policy, you can try doing it on your own on bring in an experienced Sherpa to guide you.

To this day, many still feel confident to go it alone or take advice from those who have never been to the Summit and back safetly.

Lobbying can resemble a game of snakes and ladders. If you don’t know the rules, the chances of you getting to the end are going to be far lower. A good lobbyist will know the rules of the game, the unofficial rules of the game, and have a successful track record of playing and winning the game.

Some lobbyists seem to enjoy throwing the dice with the hope they’ll land upon the snakes head. They think they can re-write the rules of the game along the way. They don’t.

A good lobbyist will be able to look into the crystal ball and predict events, or at least votes. They’ll be guided by experience, gut feeling, and detailed analysis of historic votes on the issue. The latter can be divulged by the excellent VoteWatch.

Two colleagues used to complain of my ability to predict the outcome of votes on fisheries matters. They assumed I had unholy powers of persuasion or more occult powers. Sadly, 20 years following the area, helped me look for signs that the political tea-leaves were moving in one direction or the other. Gut feeling is an accurate guide. It’s important to listen to it.

A good lobbyist needs to be a honest broker between competing interests. They are not a hit man for hire. Rather, they are a peacemaker, who can bring understanding to all parties. Playing a zero sum game usually leads to little or nothing for all sides. An enlightened approach is to foster understanding and compromise.

It worked for the late Revd. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness. Comeptiting interests learned to work together on some things.

A lobbyist needs to guide you through the legislative and policy making process. The journey and map(s) you need to master are many.

Where was the action in 2016

2016 EU legislation and decisions output

Ordinary / co decision proposals

Proposed 116

Adopted 67

Secondary legislation adopted

RPS measures 108

Delegated Acts 140

Implementing Acts 1448

Most people focus on the big picture “legislation”. As these figures show, this is not where the ”action’ is. It is rational – at the very least – to be able to know: ordinary, secondary, decision making specific to your area, policy development and framing. Too many lobbyists focus on one or two areas and steps.

Yet, in 2006 in my own area – chemicals – ECHA , completed:

Substance evaluations (concluded) 46

Substance evaluation decisions – requesting new information 26

Substance evaluations started 39

Substance evaluations 2012-2016 182

SVHC substances included on Candidate List 173

SHVC added to candidate list 5

Proposals by MS for SHVC to be added to candidate list 5

(Commission did not act on 5)

Recommendation for SHVC to authorisation list (annex XIV) 9

Authorization request 77

Commission decisions restrictions 4

RAC Opinion CLP 108

RAC Opinions CLP PPP/Biocides 129

Many important decisions are taken by “agencies”. Above is a snapshot of ECHA in 2016. I suspect that other agencies have a similar output. Politicians and officials are reluctant to second guess the opinions of expert committees and agencies. And, whilst political scrutiny of opinions is available, you need to be involved from the very begining.

Some personal thoughts

People, process, policy, and ideas matter. Political change does not happen by accident. If you look behind events, you’ll find orchestrated actions by interests brought it about.

You need to understand the process for policy development and law making. All you need to do is step in at the right time, present the right case to the right person(s), in the right way. Most people step in too late, with long briefings, and not raise the points the decision maker/influence wants to know about. If you don’t know the process, or ignore it, your chances are at best low.

This chart from Daniel Guegen is well known. The degree of change from what the Commission puts out the door and what is adopted is at best 10%. For regulatory decisions, the time from the original idea to the final measure is around 10 years. You need to have a robust and up to date scientific and data-rich set of studies to feed into ‘preparatory’ phase. This is the best time to frame any future actions. Most people step in after the proposal is on the table. The odds of changing a proposal as time go along decreases substantially.

A good lobbyist will guide their client to be prepared, to step in early, and be realistic about what can be changed as time goes along.

You’ve got to be comfortable giving bad news. You’ve got to get used to letting people know that their case is not strong enough, the evidence not sound enough, and the political alliances not powerful enough to win. You’ve got let your client know that if they step in late – as many do – that the chances of getting what they want to diminish by the day. Some prefer to sugar coat things, I don’t.

I’ve often been asked if I believe all the interests I represent. I answer calmly that personal belief may well interfere in my ability to be a good lobbyist for the client. I’d get too passionate. My job, after all, is to myself in the head of the policy maker or influencer, and present the best case for the client.

If I choose to be a middle-aged and overweight male cheerleader, I may make my client happy, but I doubt it would do them much good.

I have had clients who use me as a sounding board. When I think a line of argumentation would work, they use it. And, when they use it, it works with the politician or official.

Finally, you are going to spend a lot of time in meetings and conference calls with clients clarifying the laws of political reality, or at least the policy process, and help your client put their best case forward, whether they want to or not.

1 thought on “The role of the lobbyist”