Search results

A communication (comm) model is chosen as best explaining the lobbying process. All lobbyists send messages but comm is not necessarily complete when stimuli have been presented; they must also attempt to gauge the receptivity of the decision maker & get the message through to him. The lobbyist cannot control the workings of the decision maker's mind unless he can remake his personality or, alternatively, get him removed from office. 100 Washington lobbyists, selected randomly, were interviewed concerning the tactics they favor in communicating with gov'al decision makers. R rating of 14 comm tactics showed that lobbyists prefer face-to-face conversations for the comm of facts & the arguments which support them. However, competition for the limited attention of decision makers in recent yrs has forced lobbyists more & more to work through intermediaries in seeking receptivity for their comm's. The constituents of elected officials are esp sought out as intermediary channels of comm. To ensure receptivity, lobbyists also attempt in other ways to communicate subtly the pol'al power behind their groups. Preservation of open comm channels to decision makers is of such prime importance to lobbyists that the possible cutting off of access can be used as a sanction forcing lobbyists to behave in ways that decision makers find desirable. AA.

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press's mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1964.

Although the need for such action had long been apparent in Washington, it was not until 1946 that a federal statute was enacted for the regulation of general lobbying activities. Prior to that year, Congress had, on a number of occasions, investigated lobbying practices, and as a result had enacted measures which reached a limited number of groups engaged in them. The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the congressional act in 1936 affecting the shipping interests, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 were important regulatory measures, but they reached only a few of the groups exerting direct and continuous influence in Washington. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of August 2, 1946, is more general in its coverage; and it has been in force long enough for its effectiveness to be tested.In this article, it is my purpose (1) to supply a brief historical background for the measure referred to; (2) to examine the statute's provisions; (3) to appraise the objections raised to it; (4) to examine the actual administration of the act and point out the difficulties of enforcement, particularly during its first year; and (5) to offer recommendations for strengthening the law.

pt. 1. The role of lobbying in representative self-government March 27, 28 and 30, 1950 -- pt. 2. Housing lobby April 19-21, 25-28, May 3, 5, and 17, 1950 -- pt. 3. Contingent fee lobbying May 18, 1950 -- pt. 4. Lobbying, direct and indirect, National Economic Council, Inc. June 6,20,21, and 28, 1950 -- pt. 5. Lobbying, direct and indirect, Committee for Constitutional Government June 27-29 and August 25, 1950 -- pt. 6. Lobbying, direct and indirect, Americans for Democratic Action July 11-12, 1950 -- Lobbying, direct and indirect, Public Affairs Institute July 14, 1950 -- pt. 8. Lobbying, direct and indirect, Foundation for Economic Education July 18, 1950 -- pt. 9. Lobbying, direct and indirect, Civil Rights Congress August 3-4, 1950 -- pt. 10. Legislative activities of executive agencies, Bureau of the Budget, General Accounting Office, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Department of Agriculture, Federal Security Administration, Department of State March 30, May 5, July 26 and 28, 1950. ; Mode of access: Internet.