It is no secret that lobbyists’ money talks in the halls of power in Washington. While politicians are not supposed to grant legislative favors in exchange for campaign contributions, lobbyists obviously would not shower millions of dollars on lawmakers if they did not think they would get something in return.
The public vaguely understands that this kind of thing goes on, but it is still disturbing when we see it in the form of a direct request by a politician for a contribution.
Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C., is not technically a “representative” in the U.S. House of Representatives, because under our Constitution, representatives may come only from the 50 states, not from the District of Columbia. But she is a so-called “delegate” in the House, and that entitles her to vote in committees of that body.
Recently, a voice mail that she left for an unnamed lobbyist was made public. On it, she brazenly expressed disappointment that the lobbyist had not yet donated to her.
After pointing out that she is chairwoman of a powerful House subcommittee, she said this on the voice mail: “I was frankly surprised to see that we don’t have a record so far as I can tell of your having given to me despite my long and deep work. In fact, it’s been my major work on the committee and subcommittee has been essentially in your sector. I am simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As a senior member of the committee and a subcommittee chair, we have obligations to raise funds. And I think it must have been me who hasn’t frankly done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier, so I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now when we particularly need contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and the chairmanships and are in a position to raise funds.”
Asked about the unseemly voice mail, she defended it as a “standard request.”
It should be noted that she did not directly promise favorable legislative treatment in return for a contribution. Still, she threw around her authority and her seniority as if to suggest that she was in a position to help the lobbyist.
Is she the only person in Congress who has done so? Certainly not. But do you not find her crass request for a contribution improper, to say the least? Does it not suggest that she has something other than her constituents’ best interest at heart?