New Europe, Alexander Stubb, 7/4/2008

Brussels nowadays plays host to around 15,000 lobbyists from 2,500 organisations; there are law firms, think-tanks, international companies and non-governmental organisations. There are lobbyists for producers and consumers, industrialists and green campaigners. You name it and someone is bound to be lobbying here on its behalf.
For some people, the term “lobby” still has negative connotations. They think it’s a shady activity carried out in smoke-filled rooms. This image is unfair and outdated. Today, most lobbyists are experts in their field who professionally represent their clients’ interests. They are part of our modern pluralistic democracy, keeping MEPs informed on subjects they might otherwise lack adequate knowledge about.
In the majority of member states there are no detailed rules on lobbying at the parliamentary or governmental level. On the other hand, in the US a lobbyist needs to read a 577 page manual to get everything right. The EU is somewhere in between. The European Parliament has a voluntary register of lobbyists and the Commission is due to publish one this spring. The Commission wants the two institutions to share a common register in future.
However, keeping in mind the fundamental differences between the two institutions, the implications of a common register should be carefully considered.
There is also a debate on whether registration should become mandatory. This has implications for the types of penalty that could be imposed on transgressors. In the current voluntary system, the highest possible sanction is expulsion; anything else – fines, for example – would require a legal base to enforce. While there is scope to improve the way that regulations are supervised, the argument between voluntary and mandatory registration is rather academic. Credible lobbyists register anyway.
The Commission’s new register will also introduce rules on disclosing financial data. Professional consultancies and law firms will be required to declare the turnover linked to lobbying EU institutions, plus the relative weight of major clients. “In-house” lobbyists and trade associations will have to estimate the costs associated direct lobbying of EU institutions. NGOs and think-tanks will need to disclose their overall budgets and a breakdown of their main sources of funding. It is true that we need to clarify what financial information is really useful to help us balance our judgments, but we should avoid the misconception that money equals influence.
Personally, I feel that transparency is a two-way street: if we require greater transparency from lobbyists, then we – as legislators – should be more transparent as well. That is why I have proposed that each piece of EU legislation could include a footnote naming all the organisations whom the parliamentary rapporteur has listened to when preparing that law. Critics of the idea say it would be difficult, if not impossible, to decide which lobbyist had actually been heard. In addition sometimes valuable information is provided confidentially. These, too, are all subjects for discussion.
However, debate over practical questions should not mask the underlying principle that whatever method of regulation we adopt, it must apply equally to all. It does not matter if someone comes from Greenpeace or McDonald’s, a trade union or employers’ federation, a think-tank or a firm of lawyers; when they are trying to influence an MEP’s position on a piece of legislation, they are all lobbyists.
Lobby groups can be seen as equals in another sense too: not one of them can take political responsibility away from parliamentarians. It is we who have the democratic mandate to decide whose information will influence our decisions. Lobbying, when done properly, is an essential part of the parliamentary process in Europe: the more transparent the system, the better for European democracy.