Well-dressed lawyers swarm the corridors of the Capitol building in Washington. They represent a plethora of special interests seeking to impact pending legislation: senior citizens, tobacco, prescription drugs -- each issue vying for policymakers' attention.
Now colleges employ congressional lobbyists, too.
In the past decade, politically-minded organizations representing colleges and universities have swelled in numbers and influence. They seek to obtain both funds for individual institutions and boost spending for higher education as a whole.
Not wanting to miss out on the trend, Dartmouth has become a vigorous player in this inside-the-Beltway game.
While Dartmouth does not employ its own lobbyist -- as Harvard, Princeton, Yale and about two dozen other universities do -- 2001 tax returns listed on the research website GuideStar indicate that the College nonetheless spent $40,000 in lobbying fees during that year.
The bulk of this money goes to membership in umbrella higher education groups, which wield significant influence in the competition for federal funds. When necessary, Dartmouth also works with individual politicians themselves.
"Individual administrators, including some in the provost's office and the deans of the professional schools, make contact with appropriate people in Washington as necessary," Dartmouth's Vice President for Public Affairs Bill Walker said.
Such relationships with Capitol Hill lead to concrete results. In the 2001 fiscal year, Congress set aside nearly $1.7 billion for higher education earmarks -- funds directed to specific colleges and universities that bypass peer review proceedings, despite calls for fiscal improvements and cutbacks on "pork."
Dartmouth has learned to use the earmark process to its advantage. In 2002, it received $27 million in appropriations, according to Walker.
With the assistance of Senate Appropriations Committee member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Dartmouth was allotted a $15 million earmark in 2000 to create the terrorism research-oriented Institute for Security Technology Studies. The College received an additional $11 million in earmarks that year, placing it fifth among schools receiving large-scale federal funding.
As New Hampshire's soon-to-be senior senator, Gregg already assumes an integral role in congressional funding for higher education purposes. As a result, he's a point person for Dartmouth administrators and professors looking to obtain federal funds.
"People at Dartmouth will meet with our senators and representatives maybe two or three times a year to check in and let them know what we're doing," Scherr said. "We talk with senators maybe about Dartmouth itself, about specific projects here."
But in contrast to support from college officials, lobbyists and legislators alike, criticism of earmarks in higher education and in general is widespread.
"In general terms, the system in Congress for earmarking special projects has grown enormously," said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a public interest group that supports political reform. "This opens the door for interest groups and for large campaign contributions to play a disproportionate role in distributing federal dollars."
Officials from small schools also complain that they lack the influence needed to secure such funds, which are typically awarded to more prominent institutions in states represented by lawmakers on important committees.
Much of this criticism exists because of the higher education lobby's effectiveness at wielding its influence.
When Congress allowed education grants for college students to rise 2.5 percent this summer in spite of President George W. Bush's proposal for a grant freeze, it was thanks to the higher education lobby.
In such cross-university endeavors, the more than 150 umbrella education groups that exist are particularly powerful.
"We work to develop a consensus among the various sectors of higher education and then approach members [of Congress] on Capitol Hill on various issues," American Council on Education representative Paul Hassen said. "Our role is that of a coordinating council."
Representing 1,800 schools and institutions, including the entire Ivy League, the Washington-based ACE has worked toward goals as varied as increasing student financial aid to promoting civic responsibility among students. Its website details recent education-related happenings on Capitol Hill, featuring facsimiles of letters sent to legislators that promote the education lobby's efforts.
Continued federal support of PELL grants and other financial aid programs are examples of ACE's successes, according to Hassen.
"With having influence on Capitol Hill, the larger the group is, the more seriously your opinions and observations are taken by members of Congress," Hassen said. "We represent a very significant number of people."
The Science Coalition is another organization Dartmouth has joined to further its awareness of legislative proceedings. Comprised of 60 member schools and 340 other groups, the Coalition serves "to expand and strengthen the federal government's investment in university-based scientific, medical, engineering and agricultural research," according to its mission statement.
"It's a liaison between universities and Congress," said Walker, who serves as Dartmouth's representative to the Coalition. "[Members] pay attention to local legislators, and they're also very cognizant of [congressional] committee leadership."
With Coalition membership comes biweekly conference calls, informal meals with members of Congress and, consequently, legislative clout.
Monthly "headliner breakfasts" meant to attract high-profile guests are one of many coalition activities between lawmakers and education representatives.
Fees for the Coalition, ACE and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities cost Dartmouth $25,000 per year.
But for an increasing number of schools -- Dartmouth not included -- membership in umbrella groups like ACE is proving insufficient. Yale, Princeton, and Harvard are among the two dozen universities that employ their own lobbying firms to further their financial strategies, Walker said.
According to Bob Donin, the College's general counsel, universities with significant research programs are most likely to use their own lobbyists to influence allocations for specific projects.
Harvard, for example, will acquire a significant portion of $2 billion in funds for anti-terrorism research pending the predicted passage of the Homeland Security Bill.
Dartmouth's Institute for Security Technology Studies stands as the College's shining example of the benefits that Capitol Hill connections can reap. Described as a partnership between the Dartmouth's computer science department, the Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth Medical School and the National Institute of Justice, ISTS has received $18 million in federal funding for the current fiscal year.
"If Dartmouth can develop techniques to prevent cyber-terrorism, that's going to benefit the whole nation, and any part we can play to help in that, we're happy to do so," said ISTS Director Michael Vatis said in a 2001 interview with The Dartmouth.
A $1.25 million study on the physics of ice, $3 million toward biocommodities research and $1.4 million for New England ecosystem research are among other earmarks Dartmouth has received in the recent past.
Dartmouth's lobbying landscape could change when the Nov. 5 elections that will decide committee leadership in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
"There's a great deal of uncertainty based on the upcoming election," Donin said. "We need to wait and see how the elections turn out and then communicate with those people in the right places."
