On lobbying


Lobbyists are like lawyers. Normally in return for coin of the realm they put forward their client’s case for or against a particular proposition. Clearly they cannot be relied upon to draw attention to any weaknesses in the point of view they are seeking to advance but if all sides of an argument are more or less evenly matched this might not be so important.

Thus lobbyists undoubtedly can help to improve the democratic process and this should lead to better decision-making all round. Certainly I know several Opposition MPs in the UK, and many Government backbenchers, who frankly acknowledge they could not do their job properly if lobbyists were not around to help them marshal all the relevant information. In other countries where elected officials are better resourced it might not be quite the same but here it is what it is and will not change any time soon.

Problems with lobbying only arise if it is done corruptly, covertly or if there is a significant lack of equality in the resources available to the various parties. Which, in a rather long winded way, brings me to the main point of this blog. The inequality can sometimes be stark, verging on overwhelming.

Lobbying in the USA

Because so many decisions taken in the USA affect how we and our children use the internet we most definitely have an interest in what goes on over there in relation to any and all matters affecting policy-making. In an article published earlier this week in the New York Times (NYT) the scale on which high tech companies are involved in lobbying was laid bare. Actually, that is not strictly correct. The article does not make this clear but I checked with the prime source: the exquisitely named Center for Responsive Politics. They run a web site called OpenSecrets.org.

The figures published by the NYT relate solely to lobbying US Federal Governmental institutions. The numbers shown do not cover lobbying in any individual States in America nor overseas (that’s us).

We learn that in 2011 the combined total spent on lobbying by “tech companies” was a record US$127 million. The NYT thinks 2012’s total will be larger, because it has been busier these past twelve months. Seemingly many other industries’ expenditure on lobbying is in decline, but not the tech companies’.

Hey big spenders

The biggest spender was Google at US$13 million by the end of the third quarter of 2012. That was more than double the next highest, Microsoft, at US$5.6 million. Facebook seems to be showing the largest rate of growth doubling up to a still comparatively modest US$ 2.6 million.

I am not entirely sure how the numbers are computed. If all that was involved was adding up the cash handed over to registered lobbying companies that would be easy, but I understand the cost of in house people is also included. And do the published figures include all the industry surrogates, trade associations and other activist bodies which are not formally aligned with any individual enterprise but which do their work at one remove or greater?

This matters because…..

This matters because we have civil servants and politicians sitting in the middle listening to all sides, but one particular side is fighting with an army behind it, with access to big budgets for research, for financing trips, entertaining, producing glossy reports and slick conferences. Then there’s us. How poor we are by comparison.

Every penny spent by a company on lobbying can lead directly to increased profits. They will think of it as an investment. Every penny spent by children’s organizations is or could be portrayed as being a penny not spent on helping a child or a family. It’s an impossible choice for most.

Running on air

I do not have to hand the comparable figures for spending on lobbying in any European country or at EU level. Maybe they do not exist. I am on the case.

However, it is likely that lobbying in Europe and at EU level will also be substantial, involving most of the same big US companies but also including many European concerns that may have minimal operations in the US.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of children’s organizations who have any kind of lobbying capacity and typically that would be less than a full-time position. Yet if the children’s organizations were able to up their game at the coal face of decision making, particularly in the high tech space, who is to say what dividends might be won for children as a whole? They might not easily show on anyone’s bottom line but they would be no less real for that.

The largest single campaigning body I know of in the space is the one I am associated with: eNACSO. The entire budget comes out at around 200,000 Euros per annum and by far the largest proportion of that goes on policy development and sustaining the network. Moreover, as with many EU-funded projects, typically the money is not guaranteed beyond two years.

Lost opportunities

I know with complete certainty that very many opportunities to influence public policy in the high tech space in favour of the position of children are lost to children’s organizations. They slip through our fingers for no reason other than we do not have the necessary human and other resources to do a better or more comprehensive job.

I am not suggesting children’s organizations should aim to match the likes of Google and Microsoft dollar for dollar in the lobbying stakes.  That would be ridiculous and probably also wrong. But the size of the difference equally is wrong. We need to narrow the gap.

We can be proud that we punch way above our weight but we are still not hitting all of the right spots in the most effective way. Worse, because we are constantly struggling just trying to keep up it is difficult to focus on the sort of strategic fundraising activities which could help us make a sustainable breakthrough, especially in these times of austerity.

Did I just use the word “austerity”? I think I did. Clearly it’s a relative term. High tech lobbying companies seem to be floating above it all. We are definitely not all in it together.

About John Carr

John Carr is a member of the Executive Board of the UK Council on Child Internet Safety, the British Government's principal advisory body for online safety and security for children and young people. In the summer of 2013 he was appointed as an adviser to Bangkok-based ECPAT International. Amongst other things John is or has been a Senior Expert Adviser to the United Nations, ITU, the European Union, a member of the Executive Board of the European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online, Secretary of the UK's Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety. John has advised many of the world's largest internet companies on online child safety. In June, 2012, John was a appointed a Visiting Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. More: http://johncarrcv.blogspot.com
This entry was posted in Internet governance, Regulation, Self-regulation. Bookmark the permalink.