Defense lawyers say they merely represent the client because the client deserves representation and that it should not be presumed therefore that they believe in the client's innocence. GOP Senate candidate Dan Coats makes lobbyists sound like that -- just because we work for the client, that doesn't mean we agree with his agenda -- bue Democrats aren't buying it:
Indiana Democrats took their latest swipe at the lobbying career of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dan Coats on Friday, arguing that the former senator was paid to advocate for the carbon cap-and-trade proposal he opposes as a candidate.
Julian Robertson, a hedge fund manager and advocate for climate change legislation, hired the firm that employed Coats — King & Spalding — to lobby on his behalf.
Disclosure reports filed by the firm list Coats as having worked on the issue, and in a King & Spalding document, the firm lauded its work on Robertson's behalf to advance a cap-and-trade bill.
The Coats campaign says he simply provided legislative updates and never advocated for cap-and-trade — a Democratic agenda item he says would bring with it an energy tax that could cost Hoosiers jobs.
Give Democratic candidate Brad Ellsworth some credit for having a clear record on the issue. He voted for a lot of big government -- Obama's health care takeover and stimulus package, Bush's TARP and Wall Street bailout, cash for clunkers -- but he voted no on cap-and-trade, a bill that could devastate the Indiana economy. And Coats -- we can't be so sure. He now campaigns against cap-and-trade, but he worked for a firm that lobbied for its passage.
Do lobbyists generally lobby only for the causes they believe in or take on all comers? Neither is a reassuring prospect. If it's the former, then Coats' current position is suspect. If it's the latter, it still is. Can people go from values-neutral lobbying to content-based advocacy without skipping a beat?
I hasten to add that I'm more in agreement with the government philosophy of Coats than of Ellsworth, and Coats would be a much more dependable check on the growing appetites of the Obama administration. But the lobbying is troubling -- Republicans and conservatives should get no more of a pass on the "revolving door" issue than the Democrats and liberals. Lobbyists don't just thrive because government has become too big -- their work helps keep it too big.
