High stakes are involved and the people - including utilities -- have the constitutional right to petition their government. But, politics is the art of compromise and the crafting of public policy should therefore be an inclusive effort. Republicans hold the Executive Branch while the Democrats control the Legislative Brach - a situation that necessitates the two sides meet in the middle if any comprehensive package is going to pass.

Government's job is to ensure the health, safety and well being of citizens. The interpretation of this mission can vary within the energy component. Some lead more toward protection while others emphasize the effect on energy costs and the implications to the economy as a whole. And, certainly, industry and opposition groups attempt to influence the process by lobbying and providing financial aid to candidates that are sympathetic to their causes.

Congress, of course, is sensitive to the people's complaints that it caters to special interests. It has attempted to quell those gripes by enacting laws that limit the amount of political contributions, requiring anyone who professionally lobbies to register and requiring all entities to clearly detail their efforts.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the electric utility sector spent more than $111 million to lobby Washington since 1990. That has made it one of the most generous lobbies in Washington. The top givers among companies: Southern Co., Pacific Gas & Electric, Xcel Energy, FPL Group and TXU Corp. The Edison Electric Institute that represents investor-owned utilities also gives a big chunk, as does the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and lobbyists representing nuclear interest.

Some tough issues are on the table. Oil and natural gas companies want greater drilling rights. Renewable energy groups want utilities to provide more green options. Coal interests want more federal support if the industry is to provide cleaner and more versatile options. Environmental groups want the auto sector to make cars that get more miles per gallon. Industrial associations want new laws to keep carbon dioxide off the list of pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. The list goes on. "This is going to be the mother of all bills," says former Democratic Senator John Breaux, who is now a lobbyist for a private equity group. In a previously published news report, he went to say that, "By that I mean, any one portion of it is important enough to affect completion of the whole bill."

Big Money

Corporate America has the upper hand. But, if federal assistance is involved, the various factions are all competing for a bigger slice of the pie. Grassroots organizations, meantime, are also making their sentiments well known. Altogether, special interests lobbied the Hill last year to the tune of nearly $2.6 billion, says CQ Moneyline. That's up 10 percent from the year before. And 2007 promises to be an even more robust year.

In one of the Democratic presidential debates, a question arose over the role of lobbyists. One of the contestants asserted that the average American does not have professionally groomed teams roaming the halls of Congress to pitch lawmakers whereas another responded that lobbyists represent real people with legitimate concerns. Both are valid points. But the real query is the extent to which the level of influence alters the balance of power and to which it might be construed as corrupting.

To deal with the criticism, the House and Senate have each passed separate measures that try to make the process a little fairer. Both would require interest groups to disclose exactly the level of fundraising that they are doing for individual candidates. The Senate, meantime, has voted to extend the waiting period before its brethren could lobby the Hill from one to two years. And, each body is considering provisions that would force lawmakers to publicly highlight the earmarks within bills to avoid "surreptitious" - and often self-serving -- benefits.

"They've started to drain the swamp .," said Bob Edgar, the new president of Common Cause. "But there's still a lot of work to do to prove that this Congress is serious about cleaning up Washington."

But let's be clear: A huge difference exists between trying to educate policymakers on an industry's position versus being seen as trying to buy them off. Both are big targets. History has proven, however, that favoring one small constituency to the detriment of the greater good is a formula for failure. All stakeholders are important.

Utilities, for example, are right to be concerned over new clean air laws that would regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Likewise, green groups are justified in pursuing aggressive environmental protections. After fierce debate, lawmakers must come to a reasoned conclusion - one that balances the competing interests.

It's the American way. It's also protected as political speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "Lobbyists provide an indispensable element of the legislative process - communication of people's needs and wishes to their legislators," writes Colorado District Judge Christina Habas, in an order dealing with gift bans there.

Corporate interests certainly have more money than grassroot organizations - a statement that rings true in the energy sector. The more pertinent discussion, though, is whether that influence drowns out the voices of others. Money does talk. But, lawmakers can't risk being perceived as lapdogs for special interests. While strong principles are noble, the middle is where the winner's circle is located.

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.