The Enron controversy that has commanded the attention of national and international media, the U.S. Congress, the White House, and millions of Americans underscores the title of my presentation: Washington Government Relations: the Power and Art of Influence and Affluence.

The people involved in the professional practice of government relations in Washington are generally called and defined as lobbyists. Even in America the word lobbyist is fraught with controversy.

Shakespeare once suggested killing all lawyers. There are some in the United States who would like to do the same for Washington lobbyists.

Because we represent different countries and cultures; because there are language differences and because words have different meanings to different cultural groups, let me first provide you with the American definition of a lobbyist.

The narrow, legal definition of a lobbyist, as prescribed by the U.S. Federal Lobbying Act, is one who "solicits, collects, or receives contributions where one of the main purposes is to influence the passage or defeat of congressional legislation and the intended method of accomplishing the purpose is through conversation with members of Congress."

Please note the suggested main purpose is through conversation with members of Congress.

Of course, there are loopholes galore in this legal definition. Although it is estimated that there are at least 100,000 people working directly or indirectly as lobbyists in Washington, only about 15,000 are actually registered.

Now, who are these lobbyists? They are former members of Congress, ex-White House staff, ex-cabinet members, and former chiefs of staff for members of Congress. They are former heads of powerful congressional committees and subcommittees, they are the issue experts who research and help write friendly congressional legislation-the emphasis is on friendly. They are the brightest lawyers, the most resourceful business and public relations executives, economists, educators, etc. They are a special, elite class who make big bucks, have huge spending accounts, and serve as the financial underwriters of Washington politics. Lobbyists, indeed, are the most experienced, high stakes political players in Washington.

Members of Congress need and depend on lobbyists…to satisfy their constituencies…to mount re-election campaigns…to respond to a wide variety of needs. and to provide great help in fulfilling their roles as lawmakers.

The fact that Enron contributed millions of dollars to an estimated two-thirds of the U.S. Congress is sensational only in its revelation. According to media reports, since 1989, Enron, its executives and employees have contributed $5.7 million to political parties and candidates.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, Kenneth Lay, former Enron Chairman, was one of the largest contributors to George W. Bush's campaign, and also donated $532,000 to the Democratic Party.

In A Washington Post article, dated February 19, 2002, the headline read: 'RIVALS BATTLED ENRON IN ENERGY LOBBYING'.

The article read, in part, and I quote: "Politically speaking, Enron's story is notable not because it gave millions of dollars to elected officials and party leaders, but because its financial implosion pulled back the curtain and exposed the corporate world's sharp-elbowed lobbying that usually remains behind the scenes."

This article pointed out the fierce rivalry among competing companies in certain industries, utility, energy, and telecommunications, for political access and influence through big bucks. The article indicated during the 2000 election, two of Enron's competitors in telecommunications, Bell-South and Verizon, contributed nearly $2.4 million in unregulated "soft money" to the Democratic and Republican parties, nearly double what Enron and Lay gave.

The article also revealed that from l996 to 2000, some of the biggest utilities in the South and Midwest spent $l7 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to bottle up Enron-backed legislation requiring states to allow non-utilities to compete with regulated power companies for retail customers. The Washington Post article also revealed that the top lobbyist for Southern Company is a former Republican National Committee chairman and that since l999 Southern Company's political action committee has spread more than $700,00 to candidates and parties, exceeding the $500,000 spent by Enron.

A front-page Washington Post article, dated Sunday, February 10, 2002, described how Enron lobbyists developed their own "matrix"---a computer program that brought a scientific dimension to Enron's effort to seduce politicians and sway bureaucrats.

According to the article, "With each proposed change in federal regulations, lobbyists punched details into a computer, allowing Enron economists in Houston to calculate just how much a rule change would cost. If the final figure was too high, executives used it as the cue to stoke their vast influence machine, mobilizing lobbyists and dialing up politicians who had accepted some of Enron's millions in campaign contributions."

Stated one observer, this was a new thing, the use of information technology, to be able to quantify the regulatory risk. So, we have come a long way from the background deals in a smoke-filled atmosphere to the luxurious executive suite and information technology.

The Washington Post article states: "The matrix illustrates the brash, calculating methods that Enron managers used to play Washington politics."

The Post article also indicated that Enron raised campaign cash not just on individual contributions from its executives but also on a well-funded political action committee that distributed money to candidates from both parties.

Even with the possible pending passage by the US Senate of the campaign finance reform bill, banning unlimited "soft money" donations that corporations, unions and individuals give to political parties, there would still be wide-open competition for "hard money"---- individual contributions. One newspaper described President Bush as the uncontested champion of raising "hard money."

Election campaigns are so expensive that for members of Congress support of lobbyist is a matter of political life or death. In l994, expenditures for the average House election race approached $900,000.and for the Senate, nearly $9 million.

Giving money is only one part of the lobbying culture in Washington. The other is having lobbyists from an industry joining together to raise tens of thousands of dollars for an individual member of Congress. The average minimum fee for a fundraising reception for a member of Congress is $500. A fundraising dinner could vary from a minimum of $5,000 per table to $25,000.

One lobbyist was over heard bragging, and I quote: "Damn right I get in to see the Senator when I want to. I raised over $l60,000 for his reelection last year."

The growing power of lobbies in Washington is illustrated by the tendency of Congress to organize itself into interest group caucuses…such as Footwear caucus, Soybean Caucus, Sweetener Caucus, Mushroom Caucus, etc.

There are many categories of lobbyists:

Contract Lobbyists: Law firms or lawyers who do their work for a fee;
Corporate: Most of the nation's Fortune500 firms have government relations representatives in Washington to monitor legislative issues and bills of benefit or detriment to them;
Business and Professional Association: There are thousands of trade associations of all kinds in Washington;
Public Interest Groups: From advocates for the environment, civil liberties, pro-life, planned parenthood, gun control, defenders of wildlife, global climate, drug and smoke-free workplace, etc.
Labor Unions: The AFL-CIO is the most powerful labor lobby with more than l00 different affiliated unions, representing many millions of workers;
State, County, and Local Governments: Most of the 50 states have lobbying offices in Washington, along with many cities, including the Conference of Governors, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities;

Lobbying is a very expensive venture. A survey by the Center for Public Integrity in l994 indicated that at least $100 million had been spend by interest groups.

In a report identifying $25 million in health-related campaign contributions, 97 firms were hired to lobby on the issue, and 181 congressional trips were sponsored by health companies.

According to industry experts, hiring a public relations firm to lobby could cost from a minimum of $5,000 to $30,000 a month. Running a full-page ad in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or New York Times could cost more than $100,000. And millions are spent on television commercials.

I remember the old days when I served on the staff of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, when rules of ethics were more flexible and there was more freedom. I remember how Mr. August Bush, owner of Budweiser beer, sent his private jet to Washington to pick up the Vice President and a party of l0 to take us to the World Series in Detroit, involving the St. Louis Cardinals and the Detroit Tigers. I recall the President's yacht, the Sequoia, and how President Johnson would entertain his business friends and guests royally cruising up and down the Potomac River. The President had free use of the Sequoia. Any time we needed anything, there were our friends in business, corporate representatives, who were there to respond, to underwrite a dinner, a vacation, etc.

Personal favors represent a special category for lobbying, ranging from getting a Congressman's son or daughter into a college of his choice, identifying scholarship funds, finding jobs for relatives and friends, obtaining tickets to major entertainment and sports events, obtaining membership in exclusive golf clubs, etc.

In my research, I found an interesting example of an innocent favor involving the late Andy Biemiller, a congressman who became a very popular and effective congressional lobbyist. Biemiller knew that a certain congressman was faced with a serious operation, Biemiller knew that the AFL CIO president George Meany had needed the same operation and found an outstanding doctor who successfully performed the difficult surgery.

Biemiller referred the congressman to this doctor, who again worked his medical magic. Mr. Meany followed up with a personal call to the congressman. The result: the congressman, who had always voted against labor before be became ill, voted with labor on an important measure that came up just after he left the hospital. It's likely that this personal favor was done out of a genuine desire to be helpful as well for the opportunity of winning and influencing an important friend in congress and gaining access…..gaining access.

(Story about congressman on first golfing outing, subsidized by an affluent lobbyist.)

My somewhat objective conclusion is this: lobbying in Washington has become as much an American habit and lifestyle as ice cream and cake. However, ice cream and cake may not be good for you if you have a weight problem, or high cholesterol, or allergic to milk. Thus, it's all a matter of special interest and perspective.