By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, The Washington Post, February 6, 2006

6 Feb 2006 // Lobbying legislation will proceed one of two ways this year: a bidding war or a slow walk.

If disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff drops the dime on a bunch of lawmakers and several of them are indicted, Congress won't be able to say no to even the harshest anti-lobbying measures. That would produce a bidding war to see which political party and which chamber of Congress could get tougher on lobbyists.

But if Abramoff dawdles and not much happens, lawmakers will take their sweet time moving legislation through committee. The longer the process takes, the weaker the legislation will be. Recent bold calls for "reform" by party leaders would then be slow-walked into not much change at all.

Nobody knows which way things will go (though the betting leans toward the latter).

Already, the new House majority leader, John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), has proposed backing off such strict sanctions as bans on privately paid meals and travel, substituting extra disclosure instead.

In the meantime, plenty is going on.

Since Abramoff pleaded guilty a few weeks ago to trying to bribe public officials, lobbyists have gone from lawmakers' comrades-in-arms to their worst enemies. Dozens of congressional offices have barred staffers from eating with lobbyists -- once a regular occurrence. Trips paid for by lobbying groups for members and their aides have been canceled or have been wanting for participants. And once-routine meetings between lawmakers and lobbyists have been terminated for appearances' sake.

Lobbyists have also developed a larger-than-usual aversion to journalists. Not many ever have been eager for publicity. But a lot of lobbyists don't see how getting their names in the newspaper could help them during this sensitive period.

So here are a few glimpses of what's going on behind the scenes -- offered by participants on condition of anonymity.

One lobbyist for health-related industries told me he's giving up seats to Nationals baseball games because he doesn't expect congressional staffers or members of Congress to be able to use them.

Another lobbyist for a variety of industries, who is accustomed to picking up the tab for fine dining in downtown D.C., accompanied a tax staffer to lunch in the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria -- and they went Dutch.

A third lobbyist told the board of his organization that it ought to be glad that it never set up a political fund for lawmakers because these days, he said, "PACs are guilty until proven innocent."

Indeed, the mere prospect of a gift ban has hurt the economics of entertainment in the District. Restaurants, especially on Capitol Hill, are suffering a little already and might suffer a lot if a ban is passed. I also wonder if the assumptions about revenue are realistic for the Nationals' new stadium if lobbyists are unwilling to lease those fancy skyboxes.

The threat of new lobbying laws also will alter the makeup of Congress. Veteran aides, now counting on lucrative post-government employment on K Street, are likely to leave their jobs in droves in anticipation of legislation that would double to two years the period before which they can return to Congress and lobby their former colleagues.

Several of the leading lobbying proposals would impose the extra year of banishment. To avoid that burden, "multitudinous" staffers will rush downtown in the next couple months, according to James W. Dyer, former chief of staff to the House Appropriations Committee and now a lobbyist. One year is bad enough, he said, but two years of prohibition against direct lobbying could kill off many lobbying careers.

If Congress expands the so-called cooling-off period for ex-staffers, Dyer predicted, "a lot of talented people will be forced off the Hill."

Some longtime lobbyists claim they aren't worried about what the legislation will do. In fact, they say, the tougher it is, the better. The stricter the bans on meals and travel, they assert, the harder it will be for freshly minted lobbyists to enter the market and compete with them for clients. Only lobbyists with established relationships with lawmakers will be able to survive in the post-Abramoff world.

J. Steven Hart, chairman of Williams & Jensen PC, one of the city's oldest lobbying law firms, said he favors "draconian ethics reform because it will eliminate my younger competition."

I'm not sure he's completely right. Any lobbyist's contacts fade with time. Besides, the best opportunity to make friends and influence lawmakers comes during campaign fundraisers, not social encounters, and it looks like they'll continue unabated even after ethics "reform." Anyone with access to big dollars will be able to play the game.

Certainly fundraising hasn't fallen off. Lobbyists are receiving their usual boatload of invitations to donate money to lawmakers. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is seeking $500 per individual and $1,000 per PAC at a lobbyist-hosted fundraiser in March that will feature "Laser Shot shooting" (simulated hunting and shooting with laser-equipped weapons) and "friends, food and fun." Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) scheduled his Annual Thad Cochran Golf Tournament for April at the Old Waverly Golf Club in West Point, Miss. The list goes on and on.

On the margins, however, if direct lobbying is stunted (at least for a while), indirect lobbying will probably increase. Other activities such as advertising, public relations, telemarketing and e-lobbying will probably get more business as a way to persuade lawmakers to adopt interests' causes.

"Clients aren't going to stop making direct contact [with lawmakers] when it's necessary, but they are more receptive than they have been in the past to doing things a little differently," said Stanley Collender, Washington managing director of Financial Dynamics Ltd., a public relations firm.

Democrats also are benefiting. Since the Abramoff affair appears so far to mainly touch Republicans, Democrats could gain an electoral advantage and eventually boost their share of seats in Congress. Money always flows to winners -- and Democrats have a chance to gain control of at least one chamber of Congress this year -- so campaign givers who have long favored Republicans are starting to hedge their bets. According to John F. Jonas of the lobbying and law firm Patton Boggs LLP, "It seems to be a little bit easier to get money for Democratic candidates than it was a few months ago."

In addition, and for the same reason, Democrats are having a slightly easier time finding lobbying work. "Clients are beginning to be more receptive to hiring Democrats," said Nels B. Olson, of Korn/Ferry International, a company that searches for people to lead trade associations and head corporate offices in Washington.

Lobbyists -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- are feeling abused by the whole situation and are fighting back. "I'm disappointed you don't hear lawmakers saying that much of this problem lies with the Congress itself and that they need to clean up their own act," said Douglas G. Pinkham, president of the Public Affairs Council, an educator of corporate lobbyists. "For members to point the finger at lobbyists, that won't fix the problem; it will just make it more difficult for people to communicate with their members of Congress."

Some lawmakers like Boehner share that view and, are considering watering down the most restrictive proposals before them. In the end, said Burdett A. Loomis, a lobbying expert at the University of Kansas, "Congress could pass something pretty modest, claim victory, and move on."