Business Daily Media

.

Why businesses want the ear of government and are willing to pay for it

  • Written by George Rennie, Lecturer in American Politics and Lobbying Strategies, University of Melbourne

Political donations and lobbying are a significant drain on the economy as it can damage competition[1], create monopolies and divert resources[2] to unproductive uses.

Every February, the Australian Electoral Commission releases data[3] on political donations for the previous financial year. The data routinely show that among the biggest corporate political donors[4] are mining, infrastructure and defence companies and groups.

These are also those with the most to gain from government contracts, and the most to lose from increased regulation or taxation.

Read more: A full ban on political donations would level the playing field – but is it the best approach?[5]

Corporations donate to politicians because of the access[6] that it brings. Some economists[7] have argued lobbying is actually good for society, as it allows smaller businesses to “free ride” on the political spending of larger businesses.

But this is predicated on the idea that whatever the big businesses want (whether this be tax cuts or reduced regulations) can benefit all companies.

In the 2015-16 financial year, the Liberal and Labor parties received approximately[8] A$30 million in political donations. But this amount is dwarfed by spending on other lobbying activities (funding industry and advocacy bodies, for example, as well as internal communications teams), which could exceed[9] A$1 billion each year.

The cost-benefit of lobbying

In economics, the role of governments is to set the “rules of the game” for markets. So, if you have the money or connections to do so, lobbying governments for regulation, tax arrangements and contracts that benefit you, or hamper competitors, can lead to a significant advantage in an otherwise competitive market.

Research[10] on lobbying in America has found that the return on investment can be as high as US$220 for every US$1 spent. This study investigated American firms that lobbied for a “tax holiday” in 2004, to allow them to repatriate profits at a lower tax rate that they had stored overseas.

So, the cost of lobbying the government (in terms of profits forgone) can actually be higher than not lobbying at all.

Read more: Lobbying 101: how interest groups influence politicians and the public to get what they want[11]

But lobbying has also been shown[12] to hamper competition from new companies and those just entering the market, by putting up barriers such as trade tariffs.

This means that companies often need to engage in political lobbying or risk ceding ground to competitors. Their competitors might have an opportunity to rig the rules of the game to their own benefit.

This can be seen particularly in the US, where the pharmaceutical[13] and tech lobbies[14] have been prolific in securing favourable regulations with regards to patent rules[15], net neutrality and government subsidy programs (such as with the cripplingly expensive[16] subsidised drug scheme).

Rent-seeking and monopolies

Another problem with lobbying is that it often leads to “rent-seeking[17]”. This is where companies (or people) attempt to generate wealth without creating any benefit for society (through grants, subsidies, or tax breaks, for example).

Through privatisation, rent-seeking has led to private monopolies in areas like major roads[18], electricity[19] and water infrastructure[20].

The cost of rent-seeking can be hard to quantifiy[21]. But research in Europe[22] suggests that the cost of rent-seeking (due to income transfers, subsidies and preferential tax treatment) is approximately 7% of all economic output in the Eurozone area.

Companies can also use political lobbying to get the government to pay for infrastructure[23], to get laws and regulators to prosecute rivals[24], or simply to ensure that the largest government contracts go to themselves[25].

Read more: Explainer: net neutrality[26]

The recent announcement that a Shorten-led Labor Party will implement a federal integrity commission[27], as well as an increased focus on the acceptability of large political donations[28], reflects the steady worsening of bad lobbying in Australia.

Lobbying needs to be taken more seriously than it has been. Distilled to its core, lobbying is the art of making government officials feel indebted[29] to a lobbyist and/or their sponsor.

If corporations are incentivised to try to exploit governments, and governments are both the rule maker and breaker, then relying on the electorate to police its worst excesses is naive. Instead, we need highly specialised and independent bodies to tackle the problem.

However, for the regulation of lobbying to work, it is first necessary to recognise why bad lobbying occurs, how it occurs, and what can be done about it. Understanding the economic imperative of market actors, and the human imperatives of government decision-makers, is critical to offsetting the worst of lobbying.

References

  1. ^ damage competition (link.springer.com)
  2. ^ divert resources (www2.aueb.gr)
  3. ^ Australian Electoral Commission releases data (www.aec.gov.au)
  4. ^ among the biggest corporate political donors (periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au)
  5. ^ A full ban on political donations would level the playing field – but is it the best approach? (theconversation.com)
  6. ^ because of the access (www.theguardian.com)
  7. ^ Some economists (ssrn.com)
  8. ^ received approximately (periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au)
  9. ^ could exceed (www.michaelwest.com.au)
  10. ^ Research (papers.ssrn.com)
  11. ^ Lobbying 101: how interest groups influence politicians and the public to get what they want (theconversation.com)
  12. ^ shown (link.springer.com)
  13. ^ pharmaceutical (www.politico.eu)
  14. ^ tech lobbies (www.nytimes.com)
  15. ^ patent rules (www.abc.net.au)
  16. ^ cripplingly expensive (www.motherjones.com)
  17. ^ rent-seeking (www.investopedia.com)
  18. ^ major roads (www.heraldsun.com.au)
  19. ^ electricity (www.smh.com.au)
  20. ^ water infrastructure (www.smh.com.au)
  21. ^ can be hard to quantifiy (cameroneconomics.com)
  22. ^ research in Europe (www2.aueb.gr)
  23. ^ get the government to pay for infrastructure (johnmenadue.com)
  24. ^ to prosecute rivals (www.doi.gov)
  25. ^ the largest government contracts go to themselves (blogs.bmj.com)
  26. ^ Explainer: net neutrality (theconversation.com)
  27. ^ implement a federal integrity commission (www.theguardian.com)
  28. ^ acceptability of large political donations (theconversation.com)
  29. ^ feel indebted (espace.library.uq.edu.au)

Authors: George Rennie, Lecturer in American Politics and Lobbying Strategies, University of Melbourne

Read more http://theconversation.com/why-businesses-want-the-ear-of-government-and-are-willing-to-pay-for-it-90688

Business Reports

I helped balance the federal budget in the 1990s – here's just how hard it will be for the GOP to achieve that same rare feat

Bill Clinton, at right, oversaw the first balanced budget since 1969, with some help from a bipartisan deal with Newt Gingrich.AP Photo/Doug MillsKevin McCarthy reportedly promised many things to Republican hardliners en route to ...

Coviu appoints Jenny Aiken as Director of Coviu Global in Australia

Previously holding healthcare, commercial and governance positions, Aiken brings over 30 years of experience to the role. SYDNEY, Australia - 1 February, 2023 — Coviu, an all-in-one virtual care engagement platform, today ann...

MYOB Belief Barometer finds 3 in 4 Aussies have had a business idea, but few have started one

Lack of self-belief is limiting potential Aussie business start-ups  New research from leading business management platform, MYOB, has revealed more than three in four Australians (76 per cent) have had at least one business...