"Lobbying in politics refers to the act of influencing government officials, legislators, and policymakers to shape laws, regulations, or policies in favour of a specific interest group, organisation, or industry. Lobbyists may represent corporations, advocacy groups, unions, or other entities seeking to promote their interests," Cangik moved on. "In 'Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion' (2008, Harriman House), Lionel Zetter defines lobbying as 'the process of seeking to shape the public policy agenda to influence government (and its institutions) and the legislative programme.' He also refers to it as 'the art of political persuasion.' Zetter explores the origins and evolution of lobbying, noting that the term's exact beginnings are debated but are rooted in either Westminster or Washington. One account suggests that in the 1860s, individuals aiming to influence President Ulysses S. Grant would gather in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., seeking opportunities to present their cases to him. Another perspective traces the term to the United Kingdom, where individuals would wait in the lobbies of the Houses of Parliament to engage with Members of Parliament. Over time, lobbying has developed into a structured profession, playing a significant role in shaping public policy and legislation.
Zetter emphasizes that ethical lobbying is paramount for maintaining public trust and the integrity of political systems. He discusses the necessity for lobbyists to adhere to strict codes of conduct, ensuring transparency, honesty, and respect for democratic processes. Regulatory frameworks vary globally, but common elements include mandatory registration of lobbyists, disclosure of lobbying activities, and restrictions on gifts or incentives to public officials. These measures aim to prevent undue influence and promote accountability within the lobbying profession.
Zetter's work explores how lobbying activities are financed, highlighting that funding can come from various sources, including corporations, non-profit organizations, and industry associations. Zetter notes that while financial contributions are a legitimate means of supporting advocacy efforts, they must be managed transparently to avoid conflicts of interest. He also examines the role of political donations, discussing how they can be used to gain access to policymakers but also how they are regulated to prevent corruption and ensure that political influence is not unduly purchased.
Zetter's comprehensive analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the ethical and financial dimensions of lobbying, underscoring the importance of robust regulations and ethical practices to uphold the legitimacy of political advocacy.
Lobbying is important in many countries, particularly those with democratic systems where policymaking is influenced by various stakeholders. The U.S. has one of the most developed lobbying industries, with strict regulations requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their activities. It is essential due to the complexity of policymaking at the federal and state levels, with businesses, unions, NGOs, and advocacy groups influencing laws. Financial contributions to political campaigns and PACs (Political Action Committees) play a significant role in policy influence.
Lobbying is influential in the UK, particularly in Parliament and government ministries. Think tanks, trade unions, corporations, and advocacy groups engage with politicians to shape legislation. There are lobbying regulations, but transparency concerns have been raised regarding informal lobbying activities.
Lobbying is crucial in Brussels, where the European Commission and European Parliament make decisions affecting 27 member states. Corporations, NGOs, and industries influence EU policies on trade, environmental regulations, and technology. The EU has a transparency register to monitor lobbying activities.
Lobbying is a regulated profession in Canada, with the Lobbying Act requiring transparency. It is important in influencing government policies at both federal and provincial levels. Sectors like energy, healthcare, and technology engage in lobbying to shape regulations.
Lobbying is a significant part of Australian politics, particularly in industries like mining, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals. Transparency and ethical concerns have led to lobbying regulations requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their activities.
Germany has a strong corporate and industry lobbying presence, especially in sectors like automotive, energy, and finance. Trade unions and environmental groups also lobby to influence government policies. The country has recently strengthened transparency laws for lobbying.
Lobbying is gaining prominence in France, with companies, unions, and advocacy groups influencing policy decisions. There are legal frameworks requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their activities. Corporate lobbying is particularly active in industries like defence, technology, and finance.
While lobbying is not as structured as in Western democracies, it plays a significant role in Indian business and politics. Large corporations, trade associations, and political consultants influence government decisions. Concerns about lobbying transparency and ethics remain a challenge.
Official lobbying is limited in China, but influence occurs through government relationships, business networks, and state-affiliated organizations. Foreign companies and domestic businesses engage in indirect lobbying through industry associations and partnerships.
Lobbying is important in shaping government policies, especially in sectors like agriculture, energy, and finance in Brazil. While lobbying is legal, there are concerns about corruption and lack of transparency. Recent reforms aim to improve accountability in political lobbying.
Governments rely on expert input from businesses, NGOs, and advocacy groups. Various stakeholders (corporations, workers, environmental groups, etc.) ensure their concerns are heard. Well-regulated lobbying can help ensure fair representation rather than backroom deals. Industries lobby for regulations that affect trade, labour laws, environmental policies, and taxation.
Though it is not as institutionalized or transparent as in countries like the United States or the European Union. Instead, lobbying in Indonesia often operates through informal networks, personal relationships, and business-political connections rather than formal lobbying firms or associations.
Lobbying in Indonesia is deeply tied to nepotism and patronage networks, where businesses, political elites, and interest groups influence decision-making through personal connections. Large companies, particularly in sectors like mining, palm oil, energy, and telecommunications, engage in lobbying to secure government contracts, permits, and favourable regulations.
Although political donations are regulated, businesses often support political parties or candidates in exchange for influence over economic and policy decisions. Organizations like KADIN (Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry) and APINDO (Indonesian Employers Association) act as lobby groups representing the private sector’s interests. International businesses and investors lobby the Indonesian government, often through diplomatic channels, consultants, or joint ventures with local companies.
Palm oil companies lobby against strict environmental regulations and seek subsidies. Companies in coal, gold, and nickel mining lobby for export policies and mining permits. Tech companies lobby for regulations affecting digital taxation, e-commerce, and data protection. Government infrastructure projects are heavily influenced by lobbying from large construction firms.
Unlike Western countries, Indonesia does not have clear lobbying laws, leading to a lack of transparency in how businesses and politicians interact. Indonesia has faced several high-profile corruption cases where lobbying efforts involved bribery and kickbacks rather than formal negotiations.
Some of the most influential industries in lobbying include the Palm Oil Industry, Influencing environmental regulations, export policies, and deforestation laws; Mining & Natural Resources, securing mining permits, negotiating tax breaks, and shaping energy policies; Technology & Digital Economy, Influencing internet regulations, data protection laws, and foreign investment rules; Infrastructure & Construction, lobbying for government contracts and public-private partnerships; Pharmaceutical & Healthcare, shaping policies on drug pricing, healthcare access, and foreign investment in hospitals; Tobacco Industry, influencing cigarette taxation and advertising regulations; Banking & Finance, lobbying for financial regulations, fintech policies, and foreign ownership laws.
Lionel Zetter examines lobbying practices across various regions, including the Middle East. While his work provides a comprehensive overview, specific details about lobbying in the Middle East are limited. However, it is noted that lobbying in this region often operates through informal networks and personal relationships, given the unique political and cultural landscapes. The absence of formalized lobbying frameworks, as seen in Western democracies, means that influence is frequently exerted through direct interactions and established connections within ruling elites and business communities.
Although Indonesia has an anti-corruption commission (KPK), enforcing transparency in lobbying remains a challenge. Efforts to increase transparency through public disclosure laws could formalize lobbying. Strengthening anti-corruption measures could help regulate how lobbying influences political decisions. Businesses may adopt more ethical lobbying practices as Indonesia integrates further into the global economy.
'Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (and How They Try to Get It)' by Anthony J. Nownes (2006, Cambridge University Press) offers a scholarly yet accessible overview of the role of lobbying in American politics, drawing upon existing research and original data from interviews with numerous lobbyists across the United States. The work describes how lobbyists operate within all branches of government at the national, state, and local levels, providing a comprehensive view of lobbying beyond what is available in much of the existing literature.
Nownes defines lobbying as 'the process by which individuals and groups attempt to influence government decision-making.' This definition underscores that lobbying is not limited to professional lobbyists but includes various actors, such as businesses, interest groups, and even ordinary citizens who seek to shape public policy.
Because it encompasses a wide range of activities, strategies, and actors operating at different levels of government, Nownes describes lobbying as a complex phenomenon. He highlights that lobbying is not a single, uniform process but varies depending on the political environment, the policy issue at hand, and the resources available to lobbyists. His work also notes that lobbying occurs across all branches of government—legislative, executive, and even judicial—further adding to its complexity.
Nownes identifies multiple strategies that lobbyists use to influence policymakers. These strategies can be broadly categorized into direct lobbying and indirect (or grassroots) lobbying. In Direct Lobbying (Inside Strategies), lobbyists engage in face-to-face meetings with policymakers to present arguments, provide research, and advocate for specific policies. Interest groups and lobbyists often testify before legislative committees to shape policy discussions. Lobbyists sometimes write bills or amendments and provide them to legislators to introduce. They cultivate long-term relationships with lawmakers, staffers, and agency officials to gain influence over time.
In Indirect Lobbying )Outside Strategies), Lobbyists encourage the public to contact their representatives through phone calls, emails, petitions, or protests. Using advertisements, social media, and news coverage to sway public opinion and, indirectly, political decisions. Lobbyists often form alliances with other interest groups to amplify their influence. They support candidates financially or through endorsements to gain political leverage.
Nownes emphasizes that the effectiveness of these strategies depends on the political context, the issue being lobbied, and the resources available to lobbyists.
Nowness explores the effectiveness of lobbying by examining different factors that determine how much influence lobbyists can exert on policymakers. When an issue is not widely known or controversial, lobbyists can have a greater impact because there is less public scrutiny and opposition. Well-connected lobbyists who have relationships with lawmakers or government officials tend to be more successful. Organizations with significant financial resources can fund research, hire skilled lobbyists, and sustain long-term lobbying efforts, making them more effective. If an issue gains media attention and public support, lobbyists can use it to pressure politicians. However, if public opinion is strongly against a lobbyist’s goal, it can backfire. Knowing when to lobby—such as during the early stages of policy formation—can increase the chances of success.
Nownes also acknowledges that while lobbying is powerful, it is not all-powerful—policymakers have their own interests, constraints, and pressures that shape their decisions.
Nownes presents several key findings about lobbying in the United States, emphasizing its complexity, strategies, and impact. Lobbying occurs at all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and across all branches (legislative, executive, and even judicial). It involves a wide range of actors, including professional lobbyists, businesses, interest groups, unions, and even private citizens. There is no single way to lobby—it is highly adaptable and varies depending on the issue and political environment. Direct strategies (inside lobbying) include personal meetings with policymakers, testifying before legislative committees, drafting legislation, and maintaining long-term relationships with officials. Indirect strategies (outside lobbying) involve mobilizing the public, media campaigns, coalition-building, and influencing elections through endorsements and campaign contributions. The choice of strategy depends on the nature of the policy issue, available resources, and political timing.
Lobbying is most effective when the public is not paying attention, as policymakers face less pressure from constituents. Lobbyists with personal connections to legislators and bureaucrats have a significant advantage. Groups with more money and expertise (e.g., corporate interests) tend to be more successful in influencing policy. Lobbying early in the policy process, especially in the drafting stage, increases the chances of success.
While some view lobbying as corrupt or manipulative, Nownes argues that it is a normal and necessary part of democratic politics. Not all lobbying is about corporate influence—many advocacy groups lobby for public interest causes, such as environmental protection or civil rights. Despite common beliefs, money does not always guarantee success—lobbyists still face political and institutional constraints.
Legislators and government officials are not easily swayed by lobbying alone—they balance multiple factors, including party loyalty, public opinion, and personal beliefs. Lobbying is one influence among many in policymaking, but it does not dictate decisions outright. Policymakers sometimes use lobbyists to gain expertise, research, and policy proposals, making lobbying a two-way exchange.
In highly technical issues (e.g., tax policy, healthcare regulation), lobbyists with expertise can have a greater impact since legislators rely on their knowledge. In highly visible and controversial issues (e.g., abortion, and gun control), lobbying is less effective because politicians prioritize public opinion and party alignment over lobbying pressure.
While lobbying focuses on influencing policymakers after they are elected, interest groups also try to shape who gets elected through campaign donations, endorsements, and political advertising. This creates a cycle where elected officials may be more receptive to those who support their campaigns.
Nownes concludes that lobbying is a pervasive and necessary feature of American democracy. While it is often seen as a tool for the wealthy and powerful, it is also used by public interest groups and grassroots movements. The effectiveness of lobbying depends on timing, relationships, resources, and the nature of the issue being lobbied.
Nownes defines interest groups as organized entities that seek to influence public policy in ways that benefit their members or advance their causes. These groups can represent businesses, labour unions, professional associations, ideological movements, or public interest causes.
Lobbyists are often hired professionals who work for interest groups, but the two are not the same. Interest groups engage in many activities beyond lobbying, including public education, grassroots mobilization, and electioneering. Why do Interest Groups matter in politics? Interest groups bridge the gap between citizens and government by organizing collective action. They provide expertise and information to policymakers, influencing policy decisions. Through campaign contributions and endorsements, they shape who gets elected and re-elected. Interest Groups may use some tactics: meeting with policymakers, drafting legislation, testifying at hearings (direct lobbying); Mobilizing members to contact officials, protesting, or petitioning (Grassroots lobbying); using advertisements and news coverage to shape public opinion (media campaigns); contributing to candidates, endorsing political figures, running political ads (electioneering).
Nownes argues that while interest groups have significant influence, they do not always get what they want. Their effectiveness depends on resources, public opinion, political timing, and institutional barriers. While some criticize interest groups for distorting democracy in favour of wealthy elites, others view them as essential to democratic participation.
In The Lobbying Strategy Handbook: 10 Steps to Advancing Any Cause Effectively (2021, Oxford University Press), Pat Libby distinguishes lobbying from advocacy, emphasizing that while they are related, they are not the same. Advocacy is a broad term that refers to any effort to influence public policy, raise awareness, or promote a cause. It includes activities such as public education, media campaigns, and community organizing. Advocacy is generally unrestricted and can be conducted by nonprofits, individuals, and organizations without legal limitations. Advocacy includes a wide range of activities such as writing opinion pieces, organizing protests, or educating the public. Advocacy often aims at the general public to build awareness and mobilize support for an issue.
Lobbying is a specific type of advocacy that involves direct communication with government officials to influence legislation or policies. Lobbying is regulated by law, particularly for nonprofit organizations and registered lobbyists, who must follow reporting requirements and restrictions (such as limits on political campaign involvement).
Lobbying specifically involves direct efforts to influence lawmakers, such as meeting with legislators, testifying at hearings, or pushing for specific legislative changes. Lobbying targets government officials and policymakers to push for concrete policy changes.
Pat Libby emphasizes that all lobbying is advocacy, but not all advocacy is lobbying. Advocacy is a broader concept that encompasses various ways to push for change, while lobbying is a more focused, legal, and policy-driven effort.
'So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government' by Robert G. Kaiser (2009, Alfred A. Knopf) delves into how the rise of lobbying has led to the erosion of democratic processes in the United States. Kaiser, a seasoned journalist, provides an in-depth narrative on how lobbying has become a pervasive force, often leading to policy decisions that favour special interests over the public good. Kaiser highlights specific cases where lobbying efforts have resulted in significant legislative outcomes, raising concerns about the integrity of governmental institutions.
Kaiser, a veteran journalist, examines the rise of lobbying in the United States and its corrosive effects on democracy. He traces how lobbying has grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry, shaping policies to benefit special interests at the expense of the broader public.
Kaiser argues that lobbying has reshaped the priorities of Congress, shifting legislative focus away from public interest issues (such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure) and toward corporate and special interest agendas. This leads to policies that serve the wealthiest and most influential entities rather than the general population.
Since the 1970s, lobbying has expanded dramatically, with corporations and trade associations investing vast sums to influence lawmakers. Lobbying has become a profession, with firms specializing in policy manipulation, creating a self-sustaining industry that thrives on insider access and influence.
Lobbyists and interest groups funnel money into political campaigns, making elected officials increasingly dependent on special interest funding. This creates a system where politicians prioritize donors over voters, undermining democratic accountability.
Many former lawmakers and government officials become lobbyists after leaving office, leveraging their insider connections to influence policy. This 'revolving door' fosters a cycle of influence-peddling, where policy decisions are shaped by former insiders rather than the electorate.
Lobbyists often work to weaken regulations in industries like finance, healthcare, and energy, leading to deregulation that benefits corporations while increasing risks for ordinary citizens. Kaiser highlights how the financial sector’s lobbying efforts contributed to the 2008 economic crisis by pushing for lax oversight.
Special interest groups often dictate policy priorities, sidelining issues that do not align with their financial or political objectives. Kaiser describes how pharmaceutical companies, for example, influenced healthcare policies to protect high drug prices.
Large corporations craft legislation and push it through Congress with minimal public scrutiny. Kaiser details how telecom and energy companies have shaped policies to secure monopolistic advantages, often at the expense of consumers. He argues that lobbying exacerbates political polarization, as interest groups push lawmakers toward extreme positions that benefit their agendas rather than fostering compromise. This contributes to legislative gridlock, where meaningful reforms fail due to intense lobbying pressures.
Kaiser presents lobbying as a pervasive force that distorts democracy, making government more responsive to money interests rather than the needs of ordinary citizens. He argues that this system undermines public trust in government and calls for greater transparency and reform to reduce the dominance of special interests.
In Overview of Soft Corruption: How Unethical Conduct Undermines Good Government and What To Do About It (2017, Rutgers University Press), William E. Schluter, a former New Jersey state senator, explores the subtler forms of corruption that erode good governance. Unlike outright bribery or criminal misconduct, which are easily identifiable, soft corruption refers to legal but unethical practices that distort policymaking, often benefiting powerful interest groups at the expense of the public.
Lobbyists use legal but ethically questionable tactics to sway lawmakers, such as lavish gifts, free trips, and exclusive events that build personal relationships with legislators; Revolving door politics, where government officials become lobbyists after leaving office, using insider knowledge to shape policy; Ghostwriting legislation, where corporate or industry lobbyists draft bills that legislators pass with little scrutiny; Legal loopholes allow wealthy donors and corporations to exert disproportionate influence over elections and policy decisions; Super PACs (Political Action Committees) and dark money groups fund political campaigns, making politicians more accountable to donors than to voters. Public officials reward political allies with government contracts, jobs, or favourable regulations, even when they are not the most qualified candidates (Cronyism and Patronage). This leads to inefficiency and undermines merit-based decision-making. Legislators and policymakers own stakes in the industries they regulate, allowing them to pass laws that benefit their financial interests, Some lawmakers accept lucrative private-sector jobs after leaving office in exchange for favourable treatment while in power (conflicts of interest); Some politicians intentionally stall legislation or block reforms that would hold lobbyists and donors accountable. Gridlock often favours the status quo, which benefits entrenched interests over public needs.
According to Schluter, soft corruption refers to legal but unethical behaviour that distorts government operations, policymaking, and democracy. Unlike hard corruption, which involves illegal activities such as bribery and fraud, soft corruption operates within legal boundaries but undermines public trust and good governance.
Soft Corruption will erode public trust in government institutions; prioritize special interests over the general welfare; reduce accountability, as unethical but legal practices persist unchecked; weaken democracy by making elected officials more dependent on wealthy donors than on ordinary voters.
Schluter argues that while hard corruption (like bribery) is illegal, soft corruption is more insidious because it is harder to detect and legal in many cases.
Soft corruption does not violate laws outright but exploits loopholes in the system. Examples include excessive lobbying influence, political patronage, and conflicts of interest. Instead of paying bribes, special interest groups use campaign donations, favours, and networking to influence politicians. Legislators may prioritize donors’ interests over voters’ needs, shaping policies that benefit corporations and elites rather than the public.
Public trust in government declines when citizens perceive that politicians serve wealthy donors rather than the electorate. Government decision-making becomes biased toward powerful entities, reducing fairness and accountability.
Schluter argues that soft corruption is more dangerous than outright criminal corruption because it is harder to detect and remains legal. It leads to government inefficiency, favouritism, and policies that serve special interests rather than the public good. He mentions some examples of soft corruption: Lobbyists write legislation on behalf of corporations, which lawmakers pass with little scrutiny; Former government officials become lobbyists (revolving door politics) and use their insider influence to benefit private interests; Wealthy individuals and corporations donate large sums to politicians, ensuring favourable policy decisions; Super PACs and dark money groups allow anonymous influence over elections, reducing transparency; Public officials reward friends, family, and political allies with government jobs and contracts. This prioritizes loyalty over merit, leading to inefficient governance; Politicians delay or block reforms that would limit lobbying power, strengthen ethics rules, or increase transparency.
Schluter argues that soft corruption is more dangerous than outright criminal corruption because it is harder to detect and remains legal. It leads to government inefficiency, favoritism, and policies that serve special interests rather than the public good.
Schluter defines 'revolving door politics' as the movement of individuals between government positions and the private sector, particularly lobbying and industry roles, in ways that create conflicts of interest and undermine good governance. It refers to a cycle where public officials leave government jobs to work for private companies that seek to influence government policy—or vice versa. This practice allows corporations and special interest groups to exert undue influence over policymakers by leveraging personal connections and insider knowledge.
Many retired or resigned government officials take high-paying jobs as lobbyists, consultants, or corporate executives in industries they once regulated. These individuals use their insider connections and knowledge to influence their former colleagues and push corporate agendas. For example, a former senator joins a pharmaceutical lobbying firm to advocate for drug price regulations that favour large companies.
Corporations often place their executives into government positions, ensuring policies favour their business interests. Example, a former oil company executive becomes the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and weakens regulations on pollution.
Since former government officials often work in the industries they once regulated, they are less likely to enforce strict rules or push for reforms that hurt their future job prospects. This creates a conflict of interest, where decision-makers prioritize future career benefits over public service.
When the public sees government officials cycling between regulatory agencies and the industries they oversee, they lose confidence in the impartiality of government decisions. This leads to a perception that corporate interests control policy instead of voters.
The phenomenon of 'revolving door politics'—where individuals move between roles in the public sector and private industry, leading to potential conflicts of interest—is also present in Indonesia.
A 2018 Greenpeace report highlights how politically exposed persons (PEPs) in Indonesia often hold leadership positions in coal companies. This overlap between political roles and business interests can lead to conflicts of interest and policy decisions that favour the coal industry over environmental concerns.
Transparency International Indonesia has reported on the "revolving-door phenomenon" in the palm oil industry, where officials responsible for regulating the sector transition into roles within the industry, and vice versa. This movement can result in regulatory capture, where industry interests dominate policy decisions, potentially at the expense of environmental and social standards.
These instances illustrate how the interchange of personnel between public office and private industry in Indonesia can lead to policies that prioritize corporate interests, raising concerns about governance and public trust.
The Indonesian military has historically maintained a significant presence in state affairs, a legacy from the New Order era (1967-1998) when the armed forces were deeply embedded in political and social spheres. Despite reforms aimed at professionalizing the military and reducing its direct involvement in politics, retired military officers continue to occupy influential positions in government and political parties. For instance, since the democratic transition, several presidential tickets have featured former military generals, reflecting the enduring influence of military figures in politics. At the local level, retired officers have also pursued political office, though with varying degrees of success. Political parties often recruit these retirees, integrating them into civilian political structures.
This movement between military service and political roles exemplifies revolving-door politics, where the expertise and networks of retired officers are leveraged within civilian governance. While this can enhance security sector insights in policymaking, it also raises concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest and the militarization of civilian institutions.
In summary, revolving door politics in Indonesia manifests through the interplay between state-owned enterprises and political interests, as well as the transition of retired military and police officers into civilian governmental roles. Addressing these dynamics requires strengthening governance frameworks, enhancing transparency, and ensuring clear delineation between military and civilian spheres to uphold democratic principles."
