[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E941-E942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    STATEMENT BY A.J. FERRITER REGARDING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 29, 1996

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would 
like to have printed

[[Page E942]]

in the Record this statement by A.J. Ferriter, a high school student 
from Thetford, VT, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on issues 
facing young people.

       For the last few months, I've been investigating lobbying 
     in Vermont, and found, much to my surprise, and delight, a 
     healthy lobbying system. The Disclosure Act purged many of 
     the ills affecting lobbying within Vermont, by virtually 
     stopping all underhand deals, while, at the same time, not 
     infringing upon our rights as Vermonters and U.S. citizens.
       Yet we should not be content; problems still plague our 
     lobbying system. Fortunately, my investigations have brought 
     me in contact with district Representatives and state 
     Senators throughout Vermont, and without leading them on, 
     each district Representative and state Senator I spoke with 
     expressed one common concern: lobbying groups using tax 
     dollars to support themselves. This is not a problem with 
     profit-making organizations (which is businesses), because 
     they support themselves. It is a problem among non-profit 
     organizations . . . whose promoters are given the title, 
     ``advocate,'' instead of ``lobbyist.''
       I am concerned with two issues in the way advocates use tax 
     dollars. The first is the use of financial support. Although 
     many groups use their funds properly, many do not. Instead of 
     using tax dollars to support their cause, the money is used 
     to support themselves. In other words, this money is given to 
     these organizations to support more administrative positions, 
     and more lobbyists. This money was given to aid a public 
     cause, not to support lobbyists.
       Tax dollars paying for lobbyists' salaries is an alarming 
     issue. Even if the tax dollars are being used properly, ``is 
     it right,'' in the words of one state Senator, ``to use our 
     tax dollars against us?'' I do not believe it is. Take for 
     instance, community mental health, a group whose objectives I 
     support. Hypothetically, though, let's say I don't. If I 
     don't, then I am not going to want my money supporting their 
     programs; and if I speak out against them, they will just use 
     the money I pay the state in taxes to further support 
     lobbyists to speak out against me. So the more I speak out, 
     the more money I am eventually giving to lobbyists I'm 
     speaking out against. This is not encouraging.
       Now, I'm not saying I am completely adverse to advocates, 
     and forcing them to have the same nominal status as 
     lobbyists. If they did, they might not receive the necessary 
     funds they need to stay alive and support the crucial issues 
     that they promote. Yet, if these human service, non-profit 
     groups were forced to have the same status as lobbyists who 
     represent profit-making organizations, then our tax dollars 
     would no longer be used to support their lobbyists.
       I say, use our money to support their policies, but find 
     donations or something else to support your lobbyists. I 
     cannot stop the government from spending my money on programs 
     I'm not in favor of, but I should be able to stop the 
     practice of giving my money to support lobbyists, whether I 
     agree with their views or not. I believe a line must be drawn 
     somewhere. Thank you.
       Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much, A.J. That's an 
     interesting presentation, and it's an issue that's being 
     dealt with in Congress, and in Montpelier as well. Let me ask 
     you a question: if I represent the tobacco industry--we heard 
     a presentation earlier about the problems of young people 
     smoking--and I represent the large cigarette companies that 
     have billions of dollars in resources, and I hire some of the 
     most sophisticated lobbyists in the country to knock on the 
     doors of members of Congress, or in the statehouses 
     throughout this country. I have plenty of money to do that, 
     okay?
       Answer. All right.
       Congressman Sanders: And I don't get any taxpayer dollars 
     to do that--I do that privately, all with the company's own 
     money. Then on the other hand, we have a group of young 
     people, say, who are concerned about the problems of smoking; 
     they also want to lobby. One has billions of dollars in 
     resources, the other side has very little money. How would 
     you deal with that issue, so that both sides have a short at 
     having their voices heard?
       Answer. Would it be all right if you . . . rephrase your 
     question? I kind of got lost in there.
       Congressman Sanders: Okay. Here's the problem that I want 
     to throw at you: He represents (he doesn't really) but let's 
     say hypothetically he's the head of a large tobacco company--
     Philip Morris--and he has billions of dollars in resources. 
     He wants the U.S. Congress to not do anything to limit the 
     ability of the tobacco companies to make a lot of money. We 
     have another group of young people, who are concerned about 
     the impact of smoking on the health of their friends. They 
     also want to get involved in the political process. They 
     certainly don't have the resources--how do you deal with that 
     issue?
       Answer. I mean, that's obviously a concern, that I feel is 
     valid. But I feel like if the young students are going up 
     [against] a tobacco giant here, they have to have some way of 
     being able to gain support throughout their communities. I 
     don't know if it would be sending letters out; I don't know 
     if it's public speaking. I'm not sure what it would be, but 
     it has to be something--obviously, they can't do it through 
     money, and . . . you bring up a good argument to my case. But 
     the thing is, the tobacco industries do have the money, and 
     it's a basic right to be able to lobby for what you want; and 
     so we cannot restrict that.
       For these students, though, like I said . . . one of the 
     problems, I think, with lobbying is that a lot of it is not 
     made public. With some of the public hearings we've got 
     happening in Montpelier, there will be, let's say, an issue 
     on tobacco. And what will happen is that there will be a 
     lobbyist within the room so that he can tell his friends to 
     garner support for the lobbyists, and show up at the public 
     meeting. And the meeting is only 24 or 48 hours later, so 
     that way people don't advocate tobacco don't have the time to 
     just pick up their stuff and find an argument to oppose the 
     tobacco arguments.
       Congressman Sanders: You make a good, an interesting point. 
     A lot of members of Congress and the legislature feel 
     resentful when publicly supported institutions then come and 
     lobby them, and that's the point that you're making. The 
     other side of the story is, that groups that do not need 
     public support--like the tobacco industry, or the chemical 
     companies--they have huge amounts of resources to lobby, and 
     in many ways therefore have an unfair advantage in terms of 
     people from the other point of view. So those are the two 
     sides of that argument.
       Answer. Yeah, like I said . . . in the speech, we have to 
     support their cause, but I don't feel like--if I don't agree 
     with what these youngsters are saying, I don't want to have 
     my money going to support their lobbyists. Fine, the cause--I 
     can't control that, but control the lobbyists.

                          ____________________