By TERRY T. CAMPO

Lobbyists and how they work

TODAY, it would be difficult to find anyone in Illinois who does not have at least one association claiming to represent his or her interests in the state legislature. A cursory examination of lobby groups on file with the Secretary of State finds that, in addition to traditional business and labor groups, there are organizations to defend everything from welfare rights to park districts, as well as an Alliance to End Repression.

These groups have been formed by individuals and corporations which do not represent a majority of the voting public. Because they do not represent a majority, the associations cannot be confident that state government will protect and enhance their interests. It is this fact that causes them to dispatch their representatives to the Capitol to "lobby."

Most state legislatures meet only a few months each year. The Illinois General Assembly, however, is becoming more like the U.S. Congress with annual sessions that take up from 6 to 11 months of the year. This important structural difference affects the type of people who become lobbyists. In other states, only one out of four registered lobbyists works at lobbying full time. In Illinois, about 40 percent of those registered are full-time lobbyists. If most lobbyists are not actually full-time, professional lobbyists, where do these men and women who influence state government come from?

Nationally, they tend to come from three groups: executives and officers of associations (and corporations); attorneys; and public relations experts. In Illinois, lobbyists also come from a fourth group: former government offials. Lobbying might be considered a logical extension of each of these professions.

Association managers, attorneys and public relations staff tend to identify with the interests of the group they serve. But professional lobbyists — those whose chief income comes from the business of influencing legislators — may not be so closely identified with the interests of their organization. Often the professional lobbyist did not plan to be a lobbyist or to represent a particular association. In their 1969 study of lobbying of America's state legislatures, professors Harmon Zeigler and Michael Baer dubbed most lobbyists "drifters." They quoted one lobbyist's recollection of his entrance into the profession:

"I was running the public relations area of some insurance company, and as a result of this I was hired as an assistant executive secretary of the insurance association. Part of the job was, I subsequently learned, saving them from spending twenty-five hundred bucks for the lawyer they had on retainer. Prior to this, I had done some one-shot work in another state. If somebody had offered me a job as lobbyist, I would have told them they were out of their skull. I just kind of fell into it."

Ziegler and Baer have also concluded that lobbyists are less likely than legislators to be "self-starters." Legislators sought the office they hold, lobbyists were asked to join their profession. Many legislators sought office because of concern over a particular issue or group of issues; professional lobbyists seldom enter their jobs for the purpose of serving a cause. Despite this, legislators and lobbyists are part of the same "elite" group. In the four states featured in their study, Ziegler and Baer found that the median family income of legislators and lobbyists was nearly identical — and two and one-half times higher than that of the general population. They also discovered that lobbyists had a slightly higher education than did legislators, with 43 percent of lobbyists attending graduate school compared to 37 percent of legislators. Overall, lobbying was considered to be a stable profession, with fewer than 11 percent of Illinois lobbyists holding their job for less than two years.

Lobbyists are the intermediaries between their associations and government. This requires that legislators be willing to meet with the lobbyist to discuss the decision they must make. If the association represents an unpopular cause or has otherwise invoked the ire of the legislature, the best lobbyist may be unable to have a positive impact. In an extreme case, the American Nazi Party dispatched several of its uniformed leaders to the Capitol in the final weeks of the 1978 session to lobby against a bill restricting their activities. Many legislators literally hid in their offices to avoid meeting the Nazis.

An organization need not be as offensive as the Nazis to be a burden to legislators. Lobbyists for the Illinois Education Association (IEA) and the League of Women Voters are not welcome in the offices of some conservative lawmakers. One House leader often summarizes his vote: "If the IEA's for it, I'm against it." These lobbyists may even enjoy a personal friendship with such legislators, but the positions taken by the association and the legislator may be so diametrically opposite that any professional contact

June 1980/Illinois Issues/11

would be fruitless.

Conversely, an organization may be perceived so favorably that any of its lobbyists will have ready access to individual legislators. Under the marathon leadership of Maurice Scott, the Taxpayers' Federation of Illinois, an organization aimed at keeping state government's expenditures at a low level, acquired such a good name that it even had ready access to pro-spending legislators. When Scott retired and was succeded by Douglas S. Whitley, the Taxpayers' Federation continued its enviable role in the legislative process. Though Whitley has since proven himself an able lobbyist, he was not required to establish his personal credibility as a "freshman" lobbyist, but possessed that credibility by virtue of the organization he represented.

Few other associations possess such an advantage, and those which do often compliment it by hiring exemplary lobbyists. The Illinois State Medical Society, an association whose structure, leadership and connections (according to the Chicago Sun-Times) make it among the most powerful in the state, has as its chief lobbyist, Don Udston — considered the best contact man in Illinois.

In order to be effective, lobbyists must establish credibility for both themselves and their clients. It is not enough to be "one of the boys"; they must also be trusted by the legislators. A strong confidence-building arena is the political campaign. Just as business people who knew each other in college feel a certain kinship, so lawmakers react favorably toward lobbyists they knew when they were mere aspirants for political office. And in Illinois, many prominent lobbyists serve on the legislative campaign committee of their party.

While most legislators are willing to meet with lobbyists they do not know well, they try to avoid those they personally dislike. The least successful lobbyists are those who dislike "politicians" or are so committed to their group's cause that they recognize no legitimate role for opposing interests. Such persons will be hostile to legislators and the legislative process, and will therefore be avoided by lawmakers. Lobbyists who can be persistent without being tiresome have a better chance of gaining a legislative ear.

Lobbyists in modern state legislatures generally fit into one of four distinct categories: administrator, watchdog, informant, and contact man.

Lobbyists come in four varieties: administrators, watchdogs, informants or contact men

Administrator lobbyists speak with more authority than the ordinary lobbyist because they represent their associations. The administrator is likely to be the association's executive vice president with general responsibility for the group's activities. Relaxed and secure in their position, their appearance at the Capitol will convey the importance of the association's interest in a proposal. When an administrator lobbyist contacts a legislator and asks for his or her support, it will be considered a much more important request than one made by some other lobbyist.

Watchdog lobbyists are one-way communicators between the legislature and their associations. These individuals play a passive role in the lawmaking process. They seek to keep their associations informed on the actions taken by the legislature rather than persuade lawmakers to act on the group's behalf. Watchdog lobbyists will spend more time with other lobbyists than with legislators, developing contacts that can provide them with information on actions about to take place. While intelligence-gathering is the least glamorous aspect of the lobbyist's job, it is one of the most important. Without the information provided by the watchdogs, associations may devote their limited resources to the wrong battle — opposing legislation with costly mass mailings when it will be quietly shelved anyway, or organizing massive support for a proposal that has no chance of passage.

Informant lobbyists are also one-way communicators, but their communication is directed toward the legislature rather than their association. These lobbyists are much more familiar with the interests of their associations than with the complexities of the legislative process. They have spent many years in a specialized field, developing an expertise highly useful to legislators. But the informant lobbyist is of little use to organizations that deaf with nontechnical matters. In areas in which legislators or their committee staffs can become expert, legislators will not rely on informant lobbyists.

The final category of lobbyists -and the one synonymous with "professional lobbyist" in the public eye —is the contact man (or woman). Contact men interact most frequently with legislators and spend most of their time in the hallways and galleries of the legislative chambers. They will be highly familiar with the "perks" of the legislature and less familiar with the goals of their organizations. When it conies time for the association to "cut a deal" with a bloc of legislators, it will be the contact man who does it. Contact men are most effective after many years of experience. Their talents are particularly valuable during the final weeks of the legislative session when order breaks down. While they influence fewer legislators than the expert informants, contact men will be of more use to the association on controversial measures.

The fact is, the legislative process in Illinois is beyond the control of any single person, association, lobbyist, legislative bloc or political party. At present, the Illinois House has 88 Democratic members, 88 Republican members and one independent voting with the Democrats. But even when a party has a wider margin, it seldom wields absolute power. The sheer number of bills introduced each year makes it impossible for any group to guarantee passage of its proposals, any of which could easily go under in the inevitable legislative logjam.

Terry T. Campo is a legislative consultant with offices in Springfield and Chicago. He received his B.A. in economics from Sangamon State University and is attending Chicago-Kent College of Law.

12/June 1980/Illinois Issues