In the
Progressive Era from the 1880s to the 1920s, reformers frequently blamed lobbyists as corrupting politics. Already the idea that lobbying should become more exposed was beginning to take hold. In 1928, there was criticism of the American Tariff League's payments, in concert with the Republican National Committee, to help elect
Herbert Hoover; the League was criticized for failing to report its expenditures and how it had hired two "Washington correspondents", that is, two lobbyists. During this time, Col.
John Thomas Taylor was described by reporter Clarence Woodbury of
The American Magazine, as "the most successful lobbyist in the history of the world." Thomas was the chief lobbyist for the
American Legion. Between 1919 and 1941, he had been able to have 630 different veterans' bills passed through Congress that benefited ex-
servicemen by more than 13 billion dollars. In 1932, when President
Herbert Hoover described "a locust swarm of lobbyists" that haunted the halls of Congress,
Time magazine named Taylor as one of the agents who was paid $10,000 per year for their actions. When Taylor returned to the U.S. after
World War II, he was not satisfied with the original version of the
G.I. Bill of Rights and was able to have it amended in ten different places. In 1953, after a lawsuit involving a congressional resolution authorizing a committee to investigate "all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation," the Supreme Court narrowly construed "lobbying activities" to mean only
"direct" lobbying––which the Court described as "representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees". It contrasted it with
indirect lobbying: efforts to influence Congress indirectly by trying to change public opinion. The Court rejected a broader interpretation of "lobbying" out of First Amendment concerns, and thereby affirmed the earlier decision of the
appeals court. The Supreme Court ruling was: Several political trends emerged from an interplay of factors in the second half of the twentieth century: , can make it easier for one party's candidates to win. The electoral maps are drawn such that voters from one party are bunched together in one district -- making that district an easy win for a candidate from that party -- while the remaining districts have slight majorities for the competing party. For example, in the middle drawing, the "red" party will win three seats while the "blue" party will win only one seat. The net effect is to give the party with slight majorities in many districts more seats in Congress. • Congresspersons seeking reelection were able to win easily in most cases since rules regarding
gerrymandering and
franking privileges usually favored incumbents rather than challengers; several studies found that the probability of congresspersons winning reelection was consistently over 90%. Congress made the rules, including ones about free mailings. Congresspersons could give themselves generous pensions and benefits packages, and could determine the salaries of members; in 2006, salaries were $165,200. • Expensive campaigns. But winning reelection meant spending huge sums on expensive media, particularly
television advertising, and congresspersons seeking reelection found themselves having to spend much of their time raising money instead of governing. In 1976, the average cost of running for a House seat was $86,000; by 2006, it was $1.3 million. Cassidy found earmarks to be a particularly effective way to channel grant money to universities. ==See also==