introduction lobbying

8/8/2019 Introduction Lobbying

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-lobbying 1/20

INTRODUCTION

The dictionary meaning of Lobbying (also Lobby) is that it is a form of advocacy with the

intention of influencing decisions made by legislators and officials in the government by

individuals, other legislators, constituents, or advocacy groups. Or in simple words it is using

personal contacts, public pressure, or political action to persuade legislators to vote in a

particular manner.

The cornerstone of Indian economic reforms is the gradual removal of the discretionary powers

of government through clearly laid down policies.. Unfortunately, even after more than a decade-

and-a-half of reforms, the government retains substantial discretionary powers. Discretion with

respect to quick (or slow) clearance of files, speed of license awards, higher or lower tax

imposition, smoother (or slower) loan sanction, and including rewriting of policy for entire

industries.

The Indian economy, by and large, functions around the government¶s discretionary powers.

Whenever government changes, the wielders of these discretionary powers also change, making

matters worse for corporate lobbyists. In most cases, businessmen hate political instability and

would prefer continuity. However, reform has the ability to effectively dilute the discretionary

powers of government through the establishment of independent regulators and a clear policy, as

witnessed in the telecom sector.

Irrespective of the level of reform, it is an accepted fact that corporate lobbying is a necessary

evil. It remains an integral part of the policymaking process of government at all times; only its

manifestations vary.

Lobbying goes on all the time, mainly because the state retains so much discretionary power. But

even a much-reformed state will offer scope for lobbying. Therefore, it is pertinent to ask, ³Why

not encourage an ethos that discourages behind-the-doors lobbying?´ The American experience

in this regard should be an eye-opener, as lobbyists in America are registered legal firms. Now, it

is for Indian society to decide whether we should allow covert backdoor lobbying or open

transparent lobbying as practiced in the developed world.



LOBBYING IN THE UNITED STATES

Lobbying in the United States targets the Senate, the House of Representatives, and state

legislatures. Lobbyists may also represent their clients' or organizations' interests in dealings with

federal, state, or local executive branch agencies or the courts.

Lobbyists use time spent with legislators to explain the goals of the organizations which they

represent and the obstacles elected officials face when dealing with issues, to clients. There are

over 17,000 federal lobbyists based in Washington, DC. While many of these lobbyists are

employed by lobbying and law firms and retain outside clients, others are employed by trade

associations, companies, and state and local governments.

Lobbying activities are also performed at the state level, and lobbyists try to influence legislation

in the state legislatures in each of the 50 states. At the local municipal level, some lobbying

activities occur with city council members and county commissioners, especially in the larger

cities and more populous counties. Local lobbyists can be asked to represent a variety of

organizations including charitable non-profits such as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporations. Many

lobbyists represent non-profits pro-bono for issues in which they are personally interested. Pro

bono publico clients offer activities to meet and socialize with local legislators on neutral

territory like fundraisers and awards ceremonies.

A number of reforms since 1995 have increased the level of regulation and required disclosure.

In 1995, the 104th Congress sought to reform Lobbying by passing the Lobbying Disclosure Act

of 1995 (LDA) which defines and requires lobbyists who are compensated for their actions to

register with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate semiannual reports of

activities. The legislation was later amended by the Lobbying Disclosure Technical Amendments

Act of 1998. These two pieces of legislation require a report containing an accounting of major

expenditures as well as legislation that was influenced. Wording of this legislation can be found

in 2 U.S.C. ch.26.

In sec 3 of the Act all the definitions are mentioned, it defines Lobbying contract as any oral or

written communication (including an electronic communication) to a covered executive branch

official or a covered legislative branch official that is made on behalf of a client with regard to²



(i) The formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal legislation (including legislative

proposals);

(ii) The formulation, modification, or adoption of a Federal rule, regulation, Executive order,

or any other program, policy or position of the United States Government;

(iii) The administration or execution of a Federal program or policy (including the

negotiation, award, or administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or

license); or

(iv) The nomination or confirmation of a person for a position subject to confirmation by the

Senate.

January 2004, the U.S. Senate considered S. 1, an omnibus "ethics reform" bill. This bill

contained a provision (Section 220) to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain

efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying." The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the

voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue

to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This

provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties

Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, who argued that

attempts by constituents to influence their representatives are at the heart of representational

democracy, and that neither such contacts nor efforts to motivate such contacts should be

considered "lobbying." On January 18, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 220

from the bill.

Due to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal which started in the 1990's and led to a guilt

plea in 2006 inspired the 'Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006' (S. 2349)

which was debated on the Senate floor in March 2006, the Senate passed legislation in the first

week of April 2006 to reform U.S. lobbying practices.



The Senate bill:

1. bars lobbyists themselves from buying gifts and meals for legislators, but it leaves a big

loophole: firms and organizations represented by those lobbyists may still dole out

freebies;

2. Privately funded trips would still be allowed if lawmakers get prior approval from a

commissioned ethics committee;

3. It would also require lobbyists to file more frequent, more detailed reports on their

activities, which would be posted in public domains.

And the exceptions to this under the Act are:

The term ´lobbying contact´ does not include a communication that is²

(i) made by a public official acting in the public official¶s official capacity;

(ii) made by a representative of a media organization if the purpose of the communication

is gathering and disseminating news and information to the public;

(iii) made in a speech, article, publication or other material that is distributed and made

available to the public, or through radio, television, cable television, or other

medium of mass communication;

(iv) made on behalf of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party and

disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.);

(v) a request for a meeting, a request for the status of an action, or any other similar

administrative request, if the request does not include an attempt to influence a

covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch official;

(vi) made in the course of participation in an advisory committee subject to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act;



(vii) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or task force of the Congress, or

submitted for inclusion in the public record of a hearing conducted by such

committee, subcommittee, or task force;

(viii) information provided in writing in response to an oral or written request by a

covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch official for

specific information;

(ix) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or otherwise compelled by statute,

regulation, or other action of the Congress or an agency, including any

communication compelled by a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or license;

(x) made in response to a notice in the Federal Register, Commerce Business Daily, or

other similar publication soliciting communications from the public and directed to

the agency official specifically designated in the notice to receive such

communications;

(xi) not possible to report without disclosing information, the unauthorized disclosure of

which is prohibited by law;

(xii) made to an official in an agency with regard to²

(I) a judicial proceeding or a criminal or civil law enforcement inquiry, investigation,

or proceeding; or

(II) a filing or proceeding that the Government is specifically required by statute or

regulation to maintain or conduct on a confidential basis,

if that agency is charged with responsibility for such proceeding, inquiry,investigation, or filing;

(xiii) made in compliance with written agency procedures regarding an adjudication

conducted by the agency under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or



substantially similar provisions;

(xiv) a written comment filed in the course of a public proceeding or any other

communication that is made on the record in a public proceeding;

(xv) a petition for agency action made in writing and required to be a matter of public

record pursuant to established agency procedures;

(xvi) made on behalf of an individual with regard to that individual¶s benefits,

employment, or other personal matters involving only that individual, except that

this clause does not apply to any communication with²

(I) a covered executive branch official, or

(II) a covered legislative branch official (other than the individual¶s elected Membe

of Congress or employees who work under such Members¶ direct supervision),

with respect to the formulation, modification, or adoption of private legislation

for the relief of that individual;

(xvii) a disclosure by an individual that is protected under the amendments made by the

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, under the Inspector General Act of 1978, or

under another provision of law;

(xviii) made by²

(I) a church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or association of churches that is

exempt from filing a Federal income tax return under paragraph 2(A)(i) of section

6033(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or

(II) a religious order that is exempt from filing a Federal income tax return under

paragraph (2)(A)(iii) of such section 6033(a); and



(xix) between²

(I) officials of a self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the

Securities Exchange Act) that is registered with or established by the Securities

and Exchange Commission as required by that Act or a similar organization that is

designated by or registered with the Commodities Future Trading Commission as

provided under the Commodity Exchange Act; and

(II) the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodities Future Trading

Commission, respectively;

relating to the regulatory responsibilities of such organization under that Act.

On 21 January 2009, the day after he took office, U.S. President Barack Obama signed two

executive orders and three presidential memoranda to help ensure his administration would be a

more open, transparent, and accountable government. These documents attempt to rein in the

influence of lobbyists, bring increased accountability to federal spending, and limit influence of

special interests; they include a lobbyist gift ban and a "revolving door" ban. In May 2009, a

Recovery Act Lobbying Rules set new limits on special interest influence.

Lobbying expenditure by sector

The top sectors and their total spending between 1998 and 2010 were:

Client Amount Spent Percentage of

Total

1 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $4,274,060,331 14.53%

2 Health $4,222,427,808 14.53%

3 Misc Business $4,149,842,571 14.11%

4 Communications/Electronics $3,497,881,399 11.89%

5 Energy & Natural Resources $3,104,104,518 10.55%



6 Transportation $2,245,118,222 7.63%

7 Other $2,207,772,363 7.50%

8 Ideological/Single-Issue $1,477,294,241 5.02%

9 Agribusiness $1,280,824,983 4.12%

10 Defense $1,216,469,173 4.13%

11 Construction $480,363,108 1.63%

12 Labor $427,355,408 1.45%

13 Lawyers & Lobbyists $336,170,306 1.14%

Note: These amounts do not include campaign contributions.



Lobbying In Other Nations

United Kingdom: A professional lobbying industry (also known as 'public affairs') has steadily

grown in recent years, and was estimated to be worth £1.9 billion and employ 14,000 people

approximately. It is recognized that funding political parties can also be an indirect form of

effective political influence. Following legislation of disclosure of contributions to campaigning,

donations to parties some were described as loans. Some contributions to party funds were being

used to 'buy peerages' allowing the person to participate directly in the legislative process.

Recently many recent MPs and in particular Ministers are recruited by lobby firms and lobbyists

have been recruited by ministers as 'special advisors' using what is termed the Revolving door of

influence. In 2009 the H

ouse of Commons Public Administration Select Committee recommended that a statutory register of lobbying activity and lobbyists would improve

transparency to the dealings between µWhitehall¶ decision makers and outside interest.

Parliament controversially responded to this recommendation by saying that self-regulation was

more practical.

European Union: Currently around 15,000 Brussels-based lobbyists (consultants, lawyers,

associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) seek to influence the EU¶s legislative process. Some

2,600 special interest groups have a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution is roughly as

follows:

1. European trade federations (32%),

2. Consultants (20%),

3. Companies (13%),

4. NGOs (11%),

5. National associations (10%),

6. Regional representations (6%),

7. International organizations (5%) and

8. Think tanks (1%)



The fragmented nature of EU institutional structure provides multiple channels through which

organized interests may seek to influence policy-making. Lobbying takes place at the European

level itself and within the existing national states. The most important institutional targets are the

Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament. The Commission has a monopoly on the

initiative in Community decision-making. Since it has the power to draft initiatives, it makes it

ideally suited as an arena for interest representation.

There are three main channels of indirect lobbying of the Council. First, lobbying groups

routinely lobby the national delegations in Brussels. The second indirect means of lobbying the

Council is for interest groups to lobby members of the many Council-working groups. The third

means of influencing the Council is directly via national governments. As a consequence of the

co-decision procedures, the European Parliament attracts attention from lobbyists who target therapporteur and the chairman of the committee. The rapporteurs are MEPs appointed by

Committees to prepare the parliament¶s response to the Commission¶s proposal and to those

measures taken by the Parliament itself.

Only countries where lobbying is regulated in parliament bills include:

y Israel (1994)

y Georgia (1998)

y Lithuania (2001)

y Italy (2002)

y Poland (2005)

y Hungary (2006).



LOBBYING IN INDIA

Unlike in the West, lobbying is virtually unregulated in India, as in many other developing

countries. And even as institutions like the World Bank increase efforts to curb graft in

developing countries, ³lobbying will remain a gray area immune from equivalent scrutiny´, said

James Wolfensohn, a former World Bank president.

Lobbying in India is at a nascent stage. Until recently, it was rated equivalent to influencing

government policy with money. With increased transparency in governance, corporate entities

realized that a more legitimate method is needed to influence policymakers. Certainly, religion

and caste play an important role in Indian politics and are used to influence policy as more and

more politicians resort to vote-bank politics. Being politically savvy is considered an obvious

prerequisite to lobbying government effectively.

European lobbyists have been very active in India in recent times. Today, lobbying in Europe is a

highly specialised discipline, often regarded as a high-end management tool practised by

lawyers, retired diplomats and former politicians to further private and public interests with

policymakers. Nowadays, lobbying has gone global and today¶s lobbyists cannot act in isolation

any longer, when their clients¶ interests are rapidly expanding internationally.

Since the reforms cannot ensure substantial reduction in the discretionary powers of government,

Indian corporates have now started hiring professional lobbyists. Shadow warrior once, the

lobbyist is a front-man today, working the government to get corporate leeway.

The latest 2G scam has again heated the discussion regarding legalizing lobbying in India.

Supporters say lobbyists are helping to pry open closed industries. They are praised for

introducing fact-based analysis into the debate over liberalization, and for creating a cheaper

alternative to bribery. "To some extent, it will reduce corruption," said Abhijit Sen, an economist

who serves on the government's Planning Commission. "You can get certain things now for free

that you once had to pay for."

Where-as the defenders feel that, replacing one evil with another is not a perfect solution.

Lobbying itself is heavily regulated as it is very easy for a lobbyist to stray into bribery, the most



direct way to influence legislation, obviously, is to bribe enough law makers to ensure that the

bill you support passes

There have been many instances of lobbying which have come into public notice.

1. Deepak Talwar, a prominent Delhi lobbyist, represented Coca-Cola, which had been

accused of harming the environment. The company, which declined to comment for this

article, has denied the charges. Talwar's lobbying approach was to ensure, among other

things, that every government or private study accusing the company of environmental

harm was challenged by another study. In addition, Talwar said during an interview, he

lobbied high-ranking government officials to support the company's cause, in the hope

that their influence - in addition to the conflicting studies - might dissuade government

scientists from making a clear-cut judgment against the company.

Lobbyists say one secret of their craft is to invoke the public good in support of their clients'

interest.

2. When TetraPak, a European packaging company, wanted duties cut on a raw material, it

hired Dilip Cherian, a Delhi lobbyist who charges clients $100,000 a year. The company

came out with a statement criticizing the duties. But Cherian also attempted to create a

groundswell of support for a duty cut from milk farmers too destitute to buy the cartons at

present prices. TetraPak declined to comment for this article. Cherian's team traveled to

villages to persuade farmers' cooperatives to lobby their members of Parliament, who in

turn lobbied the finance minister. "What happens here is that actually policymaking is

much more democratic than it seems," Cherian said, when asked about lobbying's

influence on democracy.

Foreign companies seeking access to India's market often collaborate with government

officials to outline a deregulation approach that satisfies the company without marring thegovernment's political standing.

3. When the Italian clothier Ermenegildo Zegna wanted to open boutiques in India, it was

barred from doing so by law: India prohibits foreign investment in retailing, because of

fears of undermining millions of mom-and-pop shops.



But India's commerce minister, Kamal Nath, wanted to help Zegna and even wears its

suits, said Rahul Prasad, the designer's managing director for South Asia. So Zegna's

chief executive, Paulo Zegna, began discussing with Nath creative ways to alter the rules.

Then, in a letter to the government, Zegna suggested a compromise: Why not admit

foreign retailers selling only a single brand - approving firms like Zegna and Gap, but

excluding hypermarkets that would compete with small retailers? In January, the

government opened retailing to foreign capital for the first time - and solely for single

brands.

In interviews, some of Delhi's leading lobbyists described their methods. When clients are

accused of breaking the law by an Indian government body, one strategy is to play that body off

against other bodies in India's labyrinthine federal system.

The most recent 2G scam wherein the exchequer lost Rs.170,000 crores

The art of lobbying too has changed²getting things done at any cost has become the way of life. That¶saltered the modus operandi of the lobbyists²with designations like ³external affairs´ and ³environmentmanagement´, lobbyists increasingly operate directly via PR outfits, discreetly servicing their client¶slobbying needs. Many companies even maintain dedicated teams for lobbying their cause with theauthorities. ³Corporate influence is becoming stealthier. A more powerful way of lobbying is emerging,´says Sunita Narain of CSE.

The spotlight on this otherwise hidden world comes thanks to a media report which published the tappedcellphone conversations of Niira Radia, a powerful lobbyist who manages both the Tata Group andReliance Industries, among other clients. The transcripts reveal the lobbyist-politician nexus, and alsoprovide a peek into the extent to which such lobbying can go and the levels at which it works. While it isnot completely clear who acted as the whistle-blower, Radia has obviously made enemies among someof India¶s top industrialists.

Subsequent transcripts, which surfaced in a section of the media, reveal that Radia was instrumental inensuring a cabinet berth for the DMK¶s A. Raja when the ministerial portfolios for UPA¶s second term werebeing decided. She lobbied with the Congress leadership to get him the telecom portfolio²against theother contender, the DMK¶s Dayanidhi Maran.

Maharashtraallotting grain toliquor in ¶07 was ablatant example of political-businesslobbies working



But there was another game at play. Tata Group head Ratan Tata hadallegedly put his weight behind Raja and wanted Maran out of the scene atany cost. In fact, he had in a handwritten letter to Tamil Nadu CM M.Karunanidhi in December 2007 reportedly praised Raja¶s ³rational, fair andaction-oriented´ leadership. To put the corporate battle in perspective,

Airtel¶s Sunil Mittal was unhappy with Raja in the seat. Also, by getting thePR mandate of Mukesh Ambani¶s business empire in 2008, Radia wouldhave found herself on the hitlist of Anil Ambani, who incidentally is also Tata¶s competitor in telecom.

What¶s worse is that the transcripts show Radia¶s alleged involvement in the much-debated 2G spectrumand licence scam where she is said to have helped some of the new telecom companies obtain their licences. The government, at that time, had maintained a stoic silence for retaining a price of Rs 1,650crore for a pan-India licence²a price set way back in 2001, when, even by the admission of the regulator,it should have been in the range of Rs 10,000 crore. Within weeks of getting their licences, two newlicencees sold out at a much higher value²the size of the scam is estimated at Rs 50,000 crore.

It remains to be seen how Radia prepares her defence to the charges. But one thing is clear: this episodeestablishes the big hand of lobbyists in business, and the role they play in pushing corporate interestscome what may. This unfortunately is evident in various other sectors²from retail, defence and mining to

agriculture, power and telecom²where armies of lobbyists are hard at work, trying to influence decisions.³However transparent the rules, there¶s always an element of subjectivity,´ says a senior lobbyist. Thatparticularly happens with the level of chief ministers of states.

Maharashtra¶s decision to allot foodgrain for liquor manufacturers in 2007 is a blatant example of howpolitical and business lobbies worked hand in hand. The prime mover was Amit Deshmukh, younger sonand political heir of Vilasrao Deshmukh who imagined this as the next logical step after owning andoperating sugar cooperatives. Amit networked with children of politicians across the political spectrum.BJP¶s Gopinath Munde¶s daughter Pankaja was a key ally, so was NCP¶s Govindrao Adik¶s son Avinashand Vimal Mundada¶s son Akshay.

The policy may have been still in the making had it not been for another group¶s involvement. A handful of men, all powerful in the state¶s distilleries business, saw foodgrain-based liquor as the best way out of a

likely molasses shortage. ³At one point, it was difficult to tell who was talking whose language²politicalsons were talking like industrialists and vice versa,´ recalls a senior bureaucrat who sat in on thepresentations. While there is an agitation against the policy, production worth an approximate 110 crorelitres per year of alcohol²the equivalent of 14 lakh tonnes of foodgrain²has been sanctioned.

In another, more positive example, 29-odd MPs made a pitch in December 2007 for biscuits (instead of hot-cooked meals) to be served as lunch to schoolchildren as part of the mid-day meal scheme. Using theMPs as an instrument was nothing but a pitch by the biscuit manufacturers¶ association to influence thecourse of the Rs 5,000-crore scheme launched to tackle malnutrition and absenteeism amongschoolgoing children. Despite using all kinds of pulls and pressures²including the good offices of thedaughter of a once formidable minister in the UPA¶s first edition²the hot-cooked meals stay. For now.

Such instances unfortunately seem to be the exception as the lobbying interests gain in power and

patronage. While counter-lobbying by civil society is building up to an extent, there¶s a lot to be afraidabout the powerful moneybags that seem to be running the emerging market that is India.

Industry Lobbyists

They know the pulse of the government²and know just where to apply pressure. Apex industrychambers FICCI and CII are the big fish and the most powerful. There are also smaller, but effective

together. You didn¶tknow who wasspeaking whoselanguage.



bodies²like ASSOCHAM, NASSCOM for infotech, FIEO for exporters, SIAM for car makers²that lobby furiously for duty cuts or policy changes. Then there are icons like CII¶s Tarun Das and FICCI¶s Amit Mitra who have established a sophisticated and organised approach to lobbying that

draws on top CEOs, government and politicians.

Legal Lobbyists

Lobbying may not be part of their official brief, but legal firms are the crucial cog in helping companiesdeal with regulatory boards and government-appointed commissions. Firms like Dua Consulting, for instance, which are offshoots of their legal practice, do lots of regulatory work, particularly in the telecomsector. The ability to walk the talk in the corridors of Delhi is a preferred USP for top corporate lawyerslike Zia Mody, Ryan Karanjawala and Shardul Shroff . In fact, many foreign consultancy firms also hire

lawyers by the dozens to help clients lobby. Nothing attracts power more than the felicity of words.

Foreign Lobbyists

There is no way you can discount the role and sheer access of top international lobbyists. Be it FrankWizner of Patton Boggs, a firm that lobbies for India in the US, who supported India¶s ³sovereign right´ tonuclear enrichment and reprocessing technology. Or Richard Celeste, also formerly a leading diplomat,

who encourages trade between India and the US. Or, for that matter, WilliamCohen, a former USsecretary of defence and now a businessman and frequent speaker. Ron Somers of the US IndiaBusiness Council and numerous trade missions controlled by embassies in Delhi add to the growingnumbers that have put India on the global lobbying map.

Niira Radia, Vaishnavi, Neucom, Noesis

Though she lobbies for a few percentage points of India¶s GDP,

it took 15 years for the mystique around Niira Radia to unravel. For someone whose strengths are described as ³commitment levels´,an excellent network of contacts and ³knowing which button topress´, that¶s no mean achievement. Till the phone-tappingcontroversy, Radia had always been behind the scenes²barringthe lavish annual bash at her farmhouse in Delhi, where cherry-picked invitees from bureaucracy and media are present.Generous to a fault, this British passport-holder assiduously builtrelationships with top print and TV editors and political parties,particularly the Congress and the DMK. Earlier, she was known tobe extremely close to the BJP¶s Ananth Kumar and built up aninterest in aviation. It wasn¶t enough, however, for her low-costairline Magic Air to take off in 2005.

If some old-timers say Radia is ³pushy, on the make´, it mirrors some amount of envy about her absolutehold on Ratan Tata, who ³won¶t hear one wrong word´ about her. The stakes became bigger when shebrokered Mukesh Ambani¶s open support for Tata in the Singur controversy. Apart from Reliance, shealso has clients from the Vedanta group and some of the new telecom licensees. ³She¶s gone through alot in the past 15 years, she¶s got grit,´ says a colleague, who insists she ³will survive a valuations game´.Whether this heady mix of politics and business has made her ³an obvious target´ or not, Radia can¶toperate from the shadows any longer.



Necessary safeguards need to be taken to ensure that lobbyists should not double up as MPs and

get free access to ministers who formulate important policies.

Moreover, a realisation should emerge within the social and political spectrum that the Indian

democracy has reasonably matured and lobbying needs to be recognised as an integral part of the

policymaking process. It needs to be regulated and professionally managed for the betterment of

everyone.



Corruption is something which every Indian is familiar with, just like his mother tongue. Now,

when I say lobbying and its increasing effect on policy making in the country, surely a

questioning eye brow and a sharp stare will barge in from here and there. But before we give a

thought about lobbying as a practice which can check a corrupt democratic setup like ours, we

should definitely understand the contours at which corruption and lobbying differs.

Though used interchangeably with corruption, it can refer to a form of advocacy with the

intention of influencing decisions made by legislators and officials in the government by

individuals or groups. Indeed one could argue that lobbying is just a special form of corruption

focused on legislative bodies or some other rule-making agency. However, there are some

important differences between lobbying and corruption. They centre on the notions that corrupt

practices are illegal, that corruption activities tend to involve bribes or illegal payments and,

arguably the most important difference, that corrupt practices tend to directly benefit a small

number of 'users' (often one individual) while lobbying activities are carried out in order to

benefit a group of users that share a specific interest.



As global corporations woo a billion customers, there are tax breaks and contracts to be wrested

from Indian officialdom. Some companies still get them by corrupt means, covering their tracks

with middlemen, as some foreign managers acknowledge in private and as high-profile Indian

media investigations have alleged.

In Washington, lobbying is a huge, established industry and, of late, a source of controversy. But

in India, where there is a long tradition of outright corruption, lobbying is regarded by many as a

lesser evil.

"The earlier efforts of lobbying in the developing countries was really writing checks to the

parliamentarians and officials," he said by telephone. "And we were focusing on that much more

than on hiring a lobbyist to promote the interests of Boeing in India."

But the rise of lobbying here has generated critics, who call for more scrutiny. Consumer groups

contend that Washington-style lobbying can veer into manipulation, with fact-filled presentations

supplemented by other practices like planting misleading news articles and disguising lobbying

campaigns by multinational companies as indigenous grass-roots initiatives. Many of these

practices, to which some of the lobbyists freely admit, are within the law, but critics say it can be

harder to counter these tactics than more straightforward lawbreaking.

Sunita Narain, a well-known Indian environmentalist, describes the new lobbying as corruption

by other means.

"I'm not very happy with this legalized corruption," said Narain, who for years has battled

against the practices of multinational companies in India. "Give me old-fashioned Indian

corruption. Yes, it stinks. But it's a stink that everyone knows."

Defenders of the lobbying say it signals a new partnership between the state and business in

India. In the decades after independence in 1947, India was a socialist republic notorious for its

"License Raj" - the lumbering bureaucracy that parceled out permissions needed to start, operate

and close businesses.



Being a lobbyist meant begging for exemptions from a system that stifled entrepreneurship.

Today, the lobbyists no longer have to beg.

"You have in the government and in the bureaucracy people you don't have to convince," said

Prakash Karat, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). "They arethemselves clear that you have to implement policies in favor of the corporations."

So sympathetic are many bureaucrats that they often copy and paste language from lobbyists'

presentations into government reports that grant the lobbyists their wishes. Sen, the economist,

said that in a country that lacks world-class research centers, officials have little choice but to

rely on the fact-filled presentations that the lobbyists provide.

introduction lobbying

Documents