Obama administration officials should think carefully about Sisyphus rolling a stone uphill before proceeding with a proposal to restrict political expression concerning the awarding of government aid under the economic stimulus program. If they proceed with the proposal, they will be taking a step that leads to Sisyphean misery. Here’s why: Administration officials seek to insulate the consideration of economic stimulus grants from political influence they deem improper. To achieve that end, they propose to restrict the conditions under which anybody outside of government is permitted to talk to officials within government who are responsible for making particular grant decisions. But contrary to appearances, this is not an innocent move to avoid questionable political influence in the awarding of federal stimulus dollars.
In a post on the White House blog Friday, Norm Eisen, special counsel to President Obama on ethics and government reform, described the administration’s proposal as meant to expand the restriction “on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.”
Administration defenders claim there is no restriction on political expression here because there are already procurement rules that prevent some people but not others from lobbying for a particular outcome on a federal contract or grant. And the restriction would only be against contact between the time a federal decision is proposed and when it is made. Before and after that period, there would be no restriction on political expression, except that registered lobbyists are required to disclose their contacts with government officials.
That sounds reasonable except for the camel’s nose under the tent. Whenever government starts making slight restrictions on political expression by individual citizens for any reason, it invites further restrictions. Consider campaign finance limits on how much and when individuals can contribute to favored federal candidates. Sooner or later, somebody will claim some unique circumstance to justify expanding those restrictions. Eisen gives the game away on stimulus lobbying by acknowledging the proposal seeks to cover every party seeking to influence a stimulus grant. Requiring government officials to disclose all persons who contact them is fine, but the First Amendment includes no exception permitting bureaucrats to say who is allowed to discuss publicly proposed official actions or when they can do so. That is, to use a quaint phrase, un-American.
