EU Telecom Lobbyists Welcome Efforts to Avoid Abramoff-Style Scandal

European lobbying differs from the American variety in a key respect: Campaign donations are verboten at the EU level and in many member states. Candidates get financing via public funds, so trade groups, civil organizations, law firms and others spend money on non- political persuasion. European Parliament (EP) members must be wooed with skilled argument, not campaign contributions, said Alain Strowel, an attorney with Covington & Burling in Brussels and vice-chmn. of the Intellectual Property (IP) Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce in the EU. European Commission (EC) staffers look for interesting arguments and solid data.

Lobbyists must negotiate a maze of EU-level decision- making bodies -- the most important being the EC, EP and Council of Ministers. On telecom and Internet issues, the Parliament has co-decision making powers, which it has used more frequently as e-communications issues have multiplied, said a spokesman for the European Telecom Network Operators’ Assn. (ETNO). MEPs also increasingly are consulted on legislative proposals in which they have advisory rather than co-decision powers, requiring trade associations to devote more time to lobbying them, he said.

A recent high-profile fight came up over communications traffic data retention. For the first time, that allied the sector’s main players -- ETNO, the European Competitive Telecom Assn. (ECTA), GSM, the European Internet Services Providers’ Assn. and the European Cable Communications Assn. (ECCA) -- in a concerted but ultimately vain effort to defeat the measure.

The focal point for e-communications legislation is Brussels, said Mark MacGann, dir.-gen. of the European Information, Communications & Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Assn. (EICTA). Most telecom legislation begins with an EU-wide directive or framework decision that then must be adopted by the 25 member states. In recent years, the EP has built more “legislative muscle” on issues such as telecom, so lobbyists must target it along with the Commission and Council.

‘Quite An Open Process’

EC lobbying tends to involve answering consultations and attending public hearings - “quite an open process,” said ECCA Managing Dir. Caroline van Weede. Lobbyists also meet one-on-one with EC staffers and officials on particular issues. With so many entities seeking the Commission’s ear, it limits meetings to representative bodies like ECCA. In recent years, lobbyists have changed the way their “messages are put forward,” van Weede said. Now, they come armed with facts and figures, legal and economic arguments.

Approaching the Council, whose members are national telecom ministers, involves a “very careful game” balancing advocacy at the national level with people in Council work groups and lobbying each country’s permanent representatives to the EU, van Weede said. The process is less transparent, since it involves member states directly, so lobbyists must stay up on who the permanent representatives are and who has which issues. Because the Council Presidency changes every 6 months, lobbying there “is not a stable environment,” she said: “It’s always a question of personal relations.”

Some groups (but not ECCA) are hiring consultants to help them approach the 700-plus MEPs, van Weede said. And e-communications lobbyists must also work on the state level, where EU measures are become national laws, as well as on national regulators and content-oriented authorities.

Are Europeans Adopting U.S. Tactics?

Some say European lobbying is becoming “Americanized.” In a Jan. letter to U.K. newspaper The Independent, British MEP Glyn Ford said “U.S.-style predatory lobbying” is afoot in Europe. Unlike the EC, the EP requires lobbyists to register and MEPs to declare any assistance they receive, Ford told us, but MEPs still are being assaulted by “dodgy” practices in the form of ferocious lobbying.

There’s an old-fashioned view that the EP actually does not make law, Ford said, but people clearly are willing to spend millions of Euros to lobby lawmakers. Ford isn’t anti-lobbying, but sees a need for balance and transparency in the system.

Transparency isn’t really a problem in telecom, where all players are well known, said van Weede. But, she added, “we have nothing to lose” by backing a more open system.

What some call “Americanization” others see as “professionalization,” MacGann said. Interest groups are getting savvier to who’s who, how to approach officials and how to package documents. They're learning to “walk the walk and talk the talk” as long done in London and Washington, he said.

EICTA strongly backs the EC lobbying transparency move, MacGann said. The group doesn’t fear mandatory registration because it already registers; in fact, it wants to extend the accreditation system in use at the Parliament to other European institutions. EICTA wants movement through the revolving door between the govt. and industry slowed by a statutory waiting period. Finally, MacGann said, it’s clear efforts to shine light on Council of Ministers workings have failed. “Transparency, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and right now the workings of Council desperately need a facelift,” she said.

The Federation of European Direct & Interactive Mktg. (FEDMA) believes existing codes of conduct rule out the need for more regulation of lobbying at the EU level. Checks and balances keep money from changing hands, a spokesman said. The EU’s political structure tends to keep legislators “less corruptible,” he added. MEPs are elected on national issues and along national party lines, distinct from the EU. Once in Brussels, MEPs work on EU- wide issues and represent parliamentary groups usually of scant interest to those who voted for them, “so there is less chance of their being successfully targeted by lobbyists… and being ‘persuaded’ to support issues that will get them elected.”

Lobbying Gets Organized

Several years ago, France realized it lacked the level of influence in EU institutions it should have, and the British were doing a better job of making their points, said Winston Maxwell, a telecom attorney with Hogan & Hartson in Paris. Traditionally, French lobbying relied on a good-old-garcon’s network, with graduates of the same few prestigious schools schmoozing one another. But the “hit one guy high up” strategy failed in Brussels, so French e-communications lobbyists are being more methodical, covering all the bases, Maxwell said. And French law firms are beginning to include public/legislative affairs in their practices.

The U.K. liberalized its telecom markets earlier than other EU countries, so it has more lobbying experience, said Christine Roberts, dir.-external affairs for the U.K. Competitive Telecom Assn. (UKCTA). Over the years, trade groups have grown more organized and focused, she said. UKCTA, for instance, now meets regularly with the Office of Communications, the Dept. for Trade & Industry and other agencies involved in telecom.

Convergence is prompting changes in lobbying at the EU level as well, the ETNO spokesman said. Groups once out of the telecom loop -- such as FEDMA or the Union of Industrial & Employers’ Confederations of Europe -- are joining the debate on issues important to them. ETNO itself has become vocal on the TV Without Frontiers directive, a content issue it would've been less interested in 10 years ago, the spokesman said.

The trend toward more EU-level legislative activity has been reversed in the intellectual property (IP) arena, said Strowel: “Things have moved back to national capitols” as one EU directive after another is rejected. From 1995-2001, 7 IP-related directives were adopted, with only one since.

IP lobbyists in Brussels now spend more time trying to influence studies than rules and directives, Strowel said. Exception: a recent bid to enact a measure on patentability of computer-implemented inventions, which sparked lobbying on a scale never seen, including street demonstrations, he said.

Despite lack of money flowing into lawmakers’ coffers, the EC, ethics advocates and others say Europe’s lobbying system needs fixing. Last Oct., Administrative Affairs, Audit & Antifraud Comr. Siim Kallas, citing an EU “crisis of political legitimacy,” floated the idea of more transparent decision-making. Among other things, Kallas noted a lack of mandatory registration or reporting requirements for the 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels, and a lack of enforceable codes of conduct. Kallas is expected to publish a green paper outlining his reform plan in March.

Earlier in Jan., the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency & Ethics Regulation recommended rules of conduct on the “revolving door” between EU institutions and lobbying firms and for ensuring all have access to decision-making. The coalition of 140 non-governmental organizations and trade associations also suggested the creation of an independent public body to act as a “public guardian of lobbying transparency and ethics.” These rules are necessary to “avoid Abramoff scandals happening in Europe,” it said.