Whether Berlanga’s clear advantage — access — will be enough to overcome his clear disadvantage — lobbying inexperience — remains a question for his clients to judge. In many ways, the point is moot. Increasingly, lawmakers are seeking to capitalize on their experience by peddling influence in the Capitol after they retire, making the Texas Legislature little more than basic training for an army of lobbyists.
Krusee has filed legislation during past several sessions that would mildly hobble the process, by imposing a two-year moratorium on lawmakers wishing to enlist for the lobbying corps. But Krusee, who has not made plans to introduce a similar bill this session, says he was motivated more by public opinion than by a personal conviction that legislators’ pursuit of lucrative lobbying contracts is wrong. “Rightly or wrongly, there’s a public perception that it kind of muddies the process,” Krusee says. “The public thinks it looks unseemly to have an interest in legislation in the name of serving the people one day, and then to have an interest in it the next day as a lobbyist.”
Not surprisingly, lobbyists themselves don’t tend to see it that way. Miller says that the legislature-lobbying track is a natural progression in the career cycle of a legislator. “If you play baseball, you usually go into management. The practice has been around since time immemorial,” Miller says. In Miller’s view, legislative experience is not so much an unfair advantage as “a marketable commodity.”
For his part, Berlanga thinks that as long as the market dictates a demand for lobbyists, those with legislative experience are going to fulfill the need. “You can put on a moratorium of two, five, 10 years, and it’s not going to make a difference,” Berlanga says. “There’s always going to be a need for that type of representation. People who understand the process are going to be more sought out because they understand the dynamics.”
This article appears in February 12 • 1999 and February 12 • 1999 (Cover).