As a mystery buff, your resident image-smasher has his favoriteauthors. Most mystery buffs do. His include Tony Hillerman, SaraParetsky, Agatha, of course, along with Doyle (he is, after all, amember of the Atlanta Sherlock Holmes Scion Society), a Clevelandlocal named Les Roberts, John Mortimer (Rumpole), and MargaretTruman.

Margaret Truman? She writes mysteries? Yes, she certainly does!Harry's daughter grew up in Washington, D.C., and that is where herlittle episodes are set, in all the famous places. Mrs. CliftonDaniel (Margaret's husband was an editor at the New York Times whenthis writer first encountered him) weaves very intricate webs ofmisdeeds and intrigue, often featuring her favorite characters, Macand Annabel Smith, who reside at the Watergate. Mac is a professorof criminal law at George Washington University. Annabel runs apre-Columbian art gallery.

Truman's latest is Murder on K Street (Ballantine Books, 2007),a dicey little tale about how a lobbyist with ties to the Chicagomob controls a prominent senator who wants to run for President.She paints a very bleak picture of the Washington lobbyist gangwith their plush offices on K Street and their wining and dining ofcongressmen in order to get what they want for their big-bucksclients.

“Lobbyists who exploited loopholes in ever-changing campaignfinance laws – lawmakers seemed to leave such loopholes in everypiece of legislation – certainly were nothing new,” Truman writes.“They'd been snidely known for years in Washington as 'the fourthbranch of government.' That's how pervasive their influence was onlawmakers, and the laws they passed. Much of it was unsavory andcynical, politicians' unquenchable thirst for money, creatingconflicts between big-money interests and sound public policy.” Thelobbying firm in her story, however, “made other controversiallobbying firms look like bastions of morality and pristine ethicalconduct.” This one had become “a sophisticated money-launderingconduit between organized crime” and the fictional senator. Thestory, says the book's jacket, is about “big-time politicallobbying, where the right information and enough influence can buypower….”

Is this the way America should run its government? As RobertFulghum suggests, “Maybe, maybe not!” Article I of the Bill ofRights of the U.S. Constitution states, “the right of the peoplepeaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redressof grievances” shall not be abridged. But is that what lobbying is?In 1946 Congress finally got around to passing the Regulation ofLobbying Act, which the Supreme Court found to be constitutionaleight years later in U.S. v. Harris (347 U.S. 612 [1954]). But likeso much legislation, it was a wimpy horse – its fundamental premisewas that “undesirable behavior by interest groups and their agentscan best be controlled by publicity rather than by prohibition,”summed up Dr. William H. Young in Ogg and Ray's Essentials ofAmerican Government.

Each of us belongs to many groups that have a lobbying agent inWashington, as well as in the various state capitals. Think of allthe alphabet organizations to which we pay our dues and we havelisted half the “interest groups” on K Street: AAA, AARP, ABA, AMA,etc. There they are, looking out for our interests by suggestinglegislation for the people we have elected to spend our money inWashington – and in many cases, writing that legislation. Some ofit is good and necessary; some of it is bad and expensive. Nothingis black and white.

The Power of Big Bucks

The news pundits keep dragging before us “the big insurancelobby” that has been so instrumental in hampering the creation of asound medical insurance plan. We also hear of the “biginstitutional investors” that block good financial legislation. Whoare those guys? Well, the health insurance industry is, undoubtedlyvery big and powerful, and can generally get what it desires in newlegislation. Those investing institutions are also large insurancecompanies that have a gazillion dollars to invest – many being lifeinsurance companies, retirement trusts or mutual funds whosecustomers are all of us. Don't we want our insurance industry and401-Ks to be financially strong and to be profitable so that ourmoney will be there when we need it? Sure, so as in Pogo, “they” is“us.” But at the same time we don't want the “fat cats” with theiroff-shore hedge funds cluttering up the marketplace andCongress.

The life and health insurance industry is not the only insurancelobby in Washington. There is also the property and casualty(P&C) insurance industry lobby, and that is the one we seldomhear about. What has Congress passed lately that would benefit theP&C industry, which again is everybody who owns an automobile,owns or rents a home or apartment, manufactures, buys, or sells aproduct, performs a service, or acts as a professional? That'spretty much everybody. So, what are we all getting for our lobbyingbuck? Frankly, not a whole heck of a lot.

In fact, by the end of 2007 when this was being written,Congress had done damned little. Whether the TRIA (the terroristrisk insurance act) was going to be renewed was still up in theair. (“House In Last-Ditch Effort To Pass Expanded TRIA Bill,”National Underwriter, December 17, 2007.) Meaningful tort reformhasn't seen the light of day, and if things are as usual, anyalteration of the National Flood Insurance Program will betypically ineffectual. If anything, I suppose our P&C lobby diddefeat the notion of combining flood with wind insurance.

One lobbying group is the National Association of InsuranceCommissioners. They have been under a bit of attack themselves thispast year in Congress, but according to National Underwriter's JimConnolly they are proposing standardization of insurance regulationnationwide. (“NAIC to Consider Federal Legislation to HelpStandardize Insurance Regulation,” December 10, 2007.) But this mayonly be an attempt on NAIC's part to counter cries in Congress todo away with the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Connolly writes, “Deidre Manna, a representative with theProperty Casualty Insurers Association of America [that's anotherlobby], noted an NAIC estimate that the organization testifies oninsurance issues before Congress from 30 to 50 times a year. Sheasked if the NAIC has a process for approving the positions ittakes during testimony. 'If there is one that is more formalized,we'd be interested in hearing about it,' she said. 'But if that isnot what is taking place, we'd like to urge you to formalize [theprocess.]'” So, one P&C lobby is telling another P&C lobbythat it isn't very organized.

What is the NAIC doing up there testifying to Congress three orfour times a month? Connolly continues, “Marsha Harrison,representing the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies[another lobby], said there are three types of NAIC activity thatconcern industry members. The first, she said, occurs when NAICCongressional testimony is in conflict with what working groups andcommittees are doing. A second case … is when a single commissionerspeaks their individual views but NAIC publicity makes it appear asif the testimony represents the whole organization. [And the thirdis when] a news release praises an act in Congress when the NAIChas not adopted a position, citing the Klein-Mahoney HomeownersDefense Act on catastrophe funding.” Excedrin, anyone?

A Whole Lot of Hogwash

Want to see an effective industry lobby? Take a look at thesecurity industry. That's the guys who operate guard services andinstall video surveillance cameras and think that personal privacyis a whole lot of hogwash. Their National Association of SecurityCompanies has many unique ideas, and they are popular in Congress.According to Al Edwards in the December, 2007, Security DirectorNews the NASC is pushing for amendments to the 2004 PrivateSecurity Officer Employment Authorization Act that would requiremore states to conduct federal background checks for securityemployees. It would permit access to FBI records, and currentlyonly the American Banking Association has such access. It wouldprobably be a great source of new business for credit recording andsecurity companies – the same bunch that occasionally loses a diskor two of data with all our personal account information on it. BigBrother is watching us!

So what would this Iconoclast want our P&C lobby toaccomplish in Washington? The last big deal I recall was back inthe early 1980s when Congress finally got around to passing the airbag legislation for cars. The headlines leading up to it were likethose currently regarding the TRIA – “Congress Rejects Airbags!”(But not one of them left Washington!) It took guys like RalphNader to get consumer product safety on the minds of our goodcongressmen and senators. But Washington today has dropped thatball. The Federal Trade Commission hasn't enough inspectors to keepdangerous products – whether from China or Podunk, USA – off themarket. The Food & Drug Administration is lost in a fog ofbureaucracy that is totally inefficient and years behind schedule.The Department of Agriculture can't find the staff or time toinspect even five percent of what we stick in our mouths, and wedon't hear a peep from our P&C lobby. Why not?

We know that talking on the cell phone while driving is asdangerous as driving drunk, but do we hear of our P&C lobbyproposing federal legislation to make it illegal? Oh, the statescould do that, and maybe one or two have, or will, but is it thanksto the P&C lobby? We hear debate (even between the Presidentialcandidates) over whether we should give illegal immigrants drivers'licenses. What is the P&C industry's position on that issue?Are they lobbying Congress or state legislatures one way or theother? Who knows?

We knew for years that a combination of a certain foreign-madetire and a brand of SUV lead in highway rollover fatalities. TheP&C industry had to know – they were paying the claims. But didthey have their lobby in Washington do something about it? No. Itwas the Venezuelan Travel Department that brought it to thenation's attention by warning their citizens about the fatalcombination. Maybe that was before Chavez.

Futuristic Accident Control

Would our P&C industry be interested in cutting down on autoaccidents and thefts? We wouldn't be able to guess by what thatlobby has done so far. Well, here's an idea: Embed in every statelicense plate an electronic code that identifies the vehicle. Thatwould automatically label every vehicle, new or old. Then installover city freeways and interstates a system that reads the codes.These are already available for toll ways, where those with apass-card bypass the tollbooth and go under a code-reading devicethat automatically collects the toll.

Given our advanced state of technology, it would be simple toconnect a speed-reading device with the code-reading device, and asthe cars travel underneath the reader any vehicle in excess of thespeed limit is detected and the owner sent a summons. In manycities a similar system is already in use to catch drivers who runred lights. Why not catch speeders the same way? At the same time,the registration of a stolen vehicle – or of a hijacked vehiclewith a child in it – could be fed into the system and if it passedunder the code-reading device it could inform the policeimmediately of that vehicle's location and direction.

While we're up there in Washington, we could also push for someother loss reduction legislation, such as a national building codeto prevent fires (not a day goes by that there is not a majorapartment complex fire in one or more urban areas), better designof modular structures (like mobile homes that blow apart instorms), required computerization of medical recording that wouldprevent at least fifty percent of the medical malpractice claims,etc.

Could “our guys on K Street” do it? Do we want them to do it?Less loss means less work for adjusters, after all. Where is ourlobby? The NAIIA is a great bunch of guys, but does theirlegislative committee have someone in Washington watching out forall adjusters? Maybe we need our own lobby. Don't we, too, have aConstitutional right “to petition the Government for a redress ofgrievances”?

Ken Brownlee, CPCU, is a former adjuster and risk managerbased in Atlanta, Ga. He now authors and edits claim-adjustingtextbooks.