BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Five Reasons Defense Lobbyists Are Facing Harder Times On Capitol Hill

Following
This article is more than 9 years old.

It's turning out to be a tough decade for defense lobbyists on Capitol Hill.  Although lobbying is almost universally reviled in popular culture, it's an unavoidable facet of the marketing function when companies depend on the federal government for revenues.  At the very least, contractors need to field congressional operatives who can protect key franchises from the efforts of competitors to turn them into bill-payers for other priorities.  The legislative process is so baroque that it affords numerous opportunities for mischief.

(Disclosure: Several defense companies give money to my think tank; some are consulting clients.)

But some decades are more receptive to lobbying than others, and the current one is shaping up to be the least friendly since World War Two -- at least for those who represent defense interests.  After ten years of continuous war, military spending peaked just as the decade was beginning, thanks to the election of an administration more focused on domestic initiatives and the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq.  Then a resurgent GOP forced passage of the Budget Control Act capping defense and other types of discretionary spending through 2021.  Congress also banned earmarks, a longstanding mechanism for funding the pet projects of legislators.

It turns out that was just the beginning.  As the new Congress is seated, several other trends are becoming apparent that will make it harder to keep military programs on track.  Here are five of them.

Fewer veterans.  Legislators who have served in the military tend to feel more affinity for its needs.  But the number of members with military experience has been declining continuously for two generations -- from 73% in the early 1970s to 64% when Ronald Reagan took office to barely 20% today.  Veterans still gravitate to the committees that authorize and appropriate funds for defense, but they find themselves in chambers where relatively few members understand basic facts about the military.  So industry lobbyists can't count on legislators understanding why air superiority is important or how deterrence works.

Capitol Hill is becoming an increasingly chilly place to do business. (Retrieved from Wikimedia)

Newer members.  In a related trend, recent elections have seen considerable turnover in the makeup of both the House and the Senate.  In fact, nearly half of all members in the new Congress were elected in 2010 or later.  Many of these newer members don't just lack military credentials, they lack a detailed understanding of how the legislative process works.  When analysts talk about returning to "regular order" after years of turmoil on Capitol Hill, they are describing a time that half of the members don't even remember.  Thus defense lobbyists face an uphill battle in finding members who are sympathetic to their needs and also know how to help.

Divided majority.  One reason for all that turnover in legislative ranks is the impressive performance of Republicans in both mid-term elections during the Obama years.  In 2010 they took the House, and in 2014 they took the Senate.  Normally, that would be good news for defense lobbyists: GOP control of the government is closely correlated with increases in weapons spending.  But the recent ferment in Republican ranks has created a split between defense hawks and deficit hawks that will make it harder to get relief from the strictures of the Budget Control Act.  With two-thirds of all military cuts under the law coming out of weapons programs that's a top priority for defense lobbyists, but many GOP members are ambivalent about lifting spending caps.

Public indifference.  Although Congress is often depicted as being out of touch, in fact it is highly responsive to public opinion.  After all, the entire House and a third of the Senate faces elections every two years.  So if voters were deeply concerned about national security -- the way they were after 9/11 -- Capitol Hill would be falling all over itself to plus-up the Pentagon's budget.  But a Gallup poll released on January 2 found that national security ranked dead last among 20 issues troubling the public.  On average, only 2% of the public viewed national security as the most important problem facing the nation in 2014.  Faced with such complacency, Congress shows little sense of urgency about addressing flagging military readiness or modernization.

John McCain.  No member of Congress in either chamber has more credibility on defense issues with voters and the media than the senior Senator from Arizona.  Not only is McCain a war hero of extraordinary character and courage, but he has waged a sometimes lonely campaign for decades to assure that the world's sole remaining superpower steps up to its responsibilities in places like Ukraine and Syria.  However, McCain is no admirer of military contractors, so his elevation to the chairmanship of the Senate Armed Service Committee signals trouble for defense lobbyists.  McCain's increased legislative leverage, combined with his forceful personality, means that more discipline will be required in how weapons programs are bid and executed.

Military contractors owning extensive commercial operations such as Boeing, General Dynamics and United Technologies have options for dealing with this difficult legislative terrain that other defense companies do not.  But whatever their companies' circumstances may be, all defense lobbyists will find Capitol Hill a less congenial place in 2015 than it was only a few years ago.  Eventually some new threat will materialize to focus the congressional mind on the consequences of starving readiness accounts and delaying investment in new military technology.  For the time being though, the light snow falling on Capitol Hill bespeaks a winter of discontent for many defense lobbyists.