Stop pledging to have the most ethical administration in history

Politicians frequently come into power promising that they will bring ethics to their administration. Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi demonstrated how empty such promises to have the most ethical administration or House in history. We're still waiting for the Ethics Committee to report back to us about Charlie Rangel's tax problems. Meanwhile he sits as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee writing our tax laws.

Barack Obama campaigned strongly on the ethics rules that he was going to demand in his White House and an executive order establishing those rules was one of his first signature acts as president. However he's now finding, as the New York Times writes, that it is a lot easier to campaign about ethical changes than to actually carry them out in real life. But banning all lobbyists from his administration turned out to be harder in reality.

In the campaign, Mr. Obama assailed Washington’s “entire culture” in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” He vowed to “close the revolving door” and “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.”

The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hired them. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employment and did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name.

Mr. Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including some in the health industry. Mr. Obama also gave himself the right to grant waivers in cases he deemed exceptional, most prominently to William J. Lynn III, an ex-Raytheon lobbyist he nominated as deputy defense secretary. Others were lobbyists more than two years ago, and therefore not covered by the Obama rules.

Some who worked as lobbyists have found places in the administration, including Mark Patterson, who represented Goldman Sachs and is now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. William V. Corr, who lobbied for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has been selected as deputy health and human services secretary.

Obama advisers said that the exceptions were minimal given the thousands to be hired and that appointees would be barred from work on issues they lobbied on in the last two years. The exceptions, they said, were needed for particular skills and experience.

What this really means is that the Obama administration finds that some lobbyists are better than others. Having the blanket condemnation against all lobbyists was short-sighted. Lobbyists are actually helping interests fulfill their First Amendment rights to petition the government. They often know more about their particular issue than almost anyone else because information is their stock in trade. Ban corrupt lobbyists, but don't assume that any lobbyist is corrupt.

And don't tell us that all lobbyists are too corrupt to work in your administration and then tell us that it's okay to grant waivers for particular experts that you want to have work for you. This is what happens when you have these broad, unnuanced condemnations of a whole group of people.

It was never practical to say that you weren't going to hire any lobbyist. But it wouldn't have made such an appealing campaign process to proclaim that you were going to limit your hiring of lobbyists to those people you really wanted to work for you.

There is more to ethical reform than demagoguing against the entire class of lobbyists while waiving through exceptions. Sure it made a nice campaign promise and photo op but the fact is that in order to stock any administration with experienced people in these policy areas, you're going to end up with people who have done some lobbying in their past. They're not evil or unethical unless there is something in their individual records that indicates they were. Base your choices on those individual records rather than on broad accusations.