The fine line that separates the lobes of influence peddling

The decision to investigate former president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero following the Plus Ultra case has opened various debates on the need to regulate lobbyists or clarify the status of former presidents, especially their professional activities to prevent tiresome conflicts of interest, but also to prevent the commission of criminal offenses such as influence peddling. This is precisely one of the accusations made against the former leader as a result of the consulting work done for the company Análisis Relevante.First of all, it would be desirable for the state bill on interest groups that entered Congress in January 2025 to be unblocked. But it should not be forgotten that lobbying regulation is already a reality in Catalonia –a pioneer in creating a Register in 2014, today with more than 7,000 registered, more than 400 in Parliament–, Asturias, Castilla-La Mancha, the Valencian Country, Madrid, Navarre or Aragon, and also in the EU institutions –it is estimated that there are 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels for 35,000 Commission officials– and in states like Lithuania, Poland, Ireland, France, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium or Germany.These are regulations that must be placed in the context of the great cultural change that has taken place in the "administrative house" in the last decade: transparency; access to public information by citizens, the status of senior officials, including incompatibilities, conflicts of interest and "revolving doors"; the financing – essentially public – of political parties; corruption case whistleblowers, or the criminal classification of a range of corruption-related offenses. The gap, therefore, lies with regard to lobbyists who interact with the powers of the State, and not because there have been no initiatives in this regard, even during the constituent debate when Manuel Fraga raised it from his experience in the United Kingdom. Without forgetting another omission: the status of former presidents, currently in limbo, beyond the protocol or office-related issues provided for in a 1993 decree. The investigating judge's order concerning Zapatero states "the existence of an organized plot of illicit exercise of influence, structurally organized and led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who would have placed personal contacts and access capacity to high-ranking officials of the administration at the service of third parties interested in obtaining favorable decisions". Furthermore, the influence "was not directed at obtaining general treatment or an indeterminate expectation, but at achieving a specific administrative resolution: the approval and disbursement of the public aid requested by Plus Ultra within the framework of the Solvency Support Fund".A legal and transparent activity

This is not lobbying. Lobbying is a legal, transparent activity classified among those of citizen participation, carried out by a group of interest that provides technical information to officials, civil servants, or deputies to improve public policies and influences the decision-making process of public policies or regulations. The footprint of their actions is recorded in reports and in the public agenda of the lobby and politicians. On the other hand, influence peddling is a crime – which only exists in Spain – that consists of influencing a public official or authority by leveraging a position of power to obtain an economic benefit for oneself or for a third party through a resolution.How to avoid confusions? To prevent lobbying from falling into crime, the activity must be completely transparent. There is only lobbying when influence activity is carried out by organized groups, which are listed in a public register –usually mandatory, showing all organizational and economic data– and which attempt to technically influence through reports or proposals. Since there is no position of power, the public decision-maker ends up acting discretionarily. The lobbyist, moreover, is a remunerated professional –this excludes NGOs, unions, and employers' associations–, subscribes to a code of ethics, and enjoys a system of incentives: preference in communications, access to public dependencies, organization of joint events, etc. In influence peddling, the influence is spurious, it is not exercised on equal terms: whoever commits the crime takes advantage of a personal or power relationship to exert a type of pressure, which is also opaque, and which seeks to influence so that the public official is forced to rule inexorably in the way requested.