April 23, 1975

Connally Trial Reveals Lobby Risk

Acquittal of John Connally, former secretary of the treasury, of charges that he accepted a payoff from an attorney for certain milk producers raises once again the propriety of that old American institution called lobbying.

I have had some small dealings with lobbyists over the years as journalist, political candidate and corporate public relations counsel.  On the whole they are a misunderstood lot - neither as influential as they, themselves, would have us believe; nor as evil as the public believes.

In today's complex world, lobbies perform a valuable service for legislators.  Special interest groups from labor unions to gun associations keep Congressmen and state legislators informed of the latest developments in their fields.

Without lobbyists, our law makers would flounder even more than they do.

But the ethical question remains: where does objective service end and corruption begin?

Connally's case is an example of the boggy ground office holders and lobbyists tread when they talk about government actions involving millions of dollars to favored constituents.

Back in 1971, the milk producers wanted higher price supports for their product.  To create a "friendly atmosphere" they showered cash on office holders from both political parties.

More went to Democrats than Republicans, but the latter were bigger guns - President Richard Nixon and Connally.

Jake Jacobsen, lobbyist for the milk producers, buttonholed individual office holders while prominent milk producers made a personal visit to Nixon in the White House.  Eventually the President recommended, and Congress adopted, the higher milk subsidies requested.

Part of the Watergate fall-out was an investigation of Republican involvement in milk lobby political contributions.

Jacobsen had gotten mixed up in a Texas bank swindle and faced serious federal criminal charges.  In return for immunity from the swindling charges, Jacobson agreed to testify on behalf of the Watergate prosecution of lobby contributions.

The testimony of Jacobsen and Connally is typical of a lobbying approach, though it must be emphasized that the jury decided in favor of Connally's version.

Said Jacobsen: "Mr. Connally told me how helpful he had been" and that he understood the milk producers were raising a lot of money for political contributions.  "Then, Mr. Connally said in effect why didn't I get them to raise a little money for him."

Said Connally: "I urged Mr. Nixon to raise milk-price supports on the merits of the case.  I never asked Jacobsen for anything at any time" and never received any money from him.

We are, assured that Connally was the victim of an unsupported smear.  Yet, his experience illustrates the risk a public official takes in dealing with a lobbyist.

Public officials have an obligation to hear viewpoints of citizens interested in legislation - and that includes paid, professional spokesmen representing groups of citizens.

In many instances the interest of the lobbying group would be reflected favorably in legislation simply because it was the right thing.  The lobbyist, of course, takes credit for the action on the basis of his personal influence.

Sometimes, however, an unscrupulous lobbyist will tell his client that a bribe of several thousand dollars is necessary to obtain a favor a legislator has already granted.  The client organization gives the supposed payoff money to the lobbyist who pockets it himself.  When the favor comes through, the special interest group is well satisfied with its investment, and the lobbyist salts away a tidy, tax-free sum for a rainy day.

Unscrupulous legislators, also, will sell their vote or accept recompense for actions they would take anyway.

Bribery, as legally defined, however, is an exception in the lobbying game.  Most lobbyists cultivate personal acquaintances with influential people simply to insure an attentive hearing, depending upon the merit of their case for acceptance.

To cultivate important people, lobbyists are quick to pick up dinner checks or send small, thoughtful gifts.  In the trade it's called "buying an ear."  An ostentatious show of expensive gifts - such as cash, vacations, or women companions - is suspect.

Campaign contributions are sticky wicket in almost all circumstances.

The law sets a limit of how much a candidate may spend on his campaign from his personal fortune.  Thus, a multimillionaire like Connally is still dependent upon the generosity of others for campaign funds.

It is a fact that special interest lobbies provide most of the money for political campaigns.  Those groups that give large sums are courted.

Political candidates resent this dependence, and most lean over backwards to make their decisions strictly on the basis of merit.  But, they do listen longer and more frequently to large contributors, the economic necessities of political life being what it is.

There is no question in my mind that Connally is innocent of payoff charges.  I don't think his soul can be bought for a ten thousand-dollar campaign contribution when he long ago gave up elective office.

Rather, there was a break down in the discrete understanding between office holder and lobbyist.

Maybe, some day, we will find a way to run the government without lobbies.

Author: Lindsey Williams