In defense of lobbying by government agencies
By Bill Settlemyer
A recent story and editorial in The Post and Courier reported on information recently released by the S.C. Policy Council about lobbying on behalf of state and local agencies, including municipalities and school boards.
The story was, by and large, “fair and balanced” (Oh gosh, Fox News, sorry to use your slogan), with one notable omission: The council is described as “a nonpartisan think tank,” which hardly tells the full story.
When people hear the word “nonpartisan,” they think “impartial” and “unbiased.” But the Policy Council’s Web site describes its mission as carrying out its founder’s vision of “providing state policymakers with the most credible and up-to-date research, ideas and analyses from a limited-government and free-enterprise perspective.”
Which is perfectly fine. The council is a conservative think tank, and, as long as its positions, statements and research are understood in that context, their work is useful to the dialogue in our state about how government should work and how much it should cost the taxpayer.
Now, on to the issue at hand. From my experience sitting on foundation boards at MUSC and Trident Technical College, I can say with complete confidence that these institutions need all the help they can get from the state to advance their extremely valuable missions.
In the fight for funding (it is a fight), these and other higher education institutions are at a tremendous disadvantage without representation at the Statehouse. It’s not just a matter of advocacy but also a matter of providing vital information to legislators and other officials as funding bills work their way through the Senate and House.
According to The Post and Courier, the president of the Policy Council disagrees, saying that “an elected official can get the same information for the good of the state from any local mayor, school board member or agency executive by picking up the phone.”
That statement is either incredibly naive or totally disingenuous. Every legislator and everyone involved in the process knows that, as legislation goes through the gauntlet of hearings, committee reviews, amendments and reconciliation of Senate and House versions of bills, you have to have “boots on the ground” in the Statehouse to ensure that your institution’s needs don’t fall by the wayside.
There are many avenues to communicate with legislators, and I know that members of the Charleston delegation are responsive. They listen, they learn, they ask questions, and they try to use their best judgment most of the time. But you can’t just “phone in” your case for funding while the legislators are in Columbia.
Without wanting to slight anyone, I would single out for praise three of our legislators, House Speaker Bobby Harrell, Sen. Glenn McConnell and Rep. Chip Limehouse. They have given thoughtful, frequent consideration to the ways in which our local state-funded colleges and universities promote economic development and advance the quality of life of our citizens.
They have often been supportive and ahead of the curve on critical issues.
Most likely, they would also tell you that, as the end of each session approaches, things become more frenetic in Columbia and the process develops its own momentum that no individual can control.
The Post and Courier’s editorial quotes Rep. Jim Merrill, an advocate for banning lobbying by state agencies, as saying the presence of lobbyists means it’s impossible “to contain the mission of any agency.” That a valid point, up to a point. If every lobbyist for every special interest who works the Statehouse got everything they wanted, the state would have an infinite budget. That doesn’t happen because of constitutional and budgetary limitations.
So yes, lobbyists for state colleges and universities, and for cities and counties, school boards and other entities increase the chance that more money will be allocated to their needs. Is that bad? If your political philosophy doesn’t support the notion that government spending and government programs can add value to our state’s quality of life and economic growth, then yes, it’s bad. But many people in politics and business in our state believe otherwise, and their views should count, too.
If a political bias heavily in favor of cutting taxes and spending was a superior strategy, South Carolina would be affluent relative to other states. That’s not the case, obviously. We would be worse off than we are without substantial investments in education at all levels.
You can’t have it both ways. Many business and civic leaders, including chambers of commerce, support increased spending on education. That requires an adequate tax structure and the capacity to make the case for education during the legislative session. The same goes for the pressing needs and interests of local governments. Everyone who understands politics knows you can’t represent anyone’s interests effectively by sitting at your desk waiting for the phone to ring. And I think the S.C. Policy Council knows that, too.
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version