SPENDING ON LOBBYING was down across the board in 2012, but  the education industry led the way in tightening the purse strings. According to OpenSecrets.org, “In 2011, the industry, which includes both for-profit and nonprofit colleges and universities and trade associations that represent both, reported spending about $106 million on lobbying expenses. In 2012 it spent only $88.6 million — a decline of more than $17.6 million.” There are almost 4,500 college and universities in the U.S., and in 2013 688 of them had lobbyists in DC. That’s down from 925 colleges that employed some 1,653 lobbyists in 2008.

All but three of Michigan public and private universities and colleges have part-time lobbyists who work on their behalf in Washington. Michigan State University, the University of Michigan and Wayne State University — the state’s top three trio of research universities — have full-time lobbying staff working the rooms on Capitol Hill.

Dr. Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and teaches economics at Ohio University. He suggests the cost of such full-time lobbying staff can add up quickly.

“But lobbying Washington is just the tip of the iceberg. First, those numbers exclude all state government lobbying, which is probably much larger than federal totals since state governments provide vastly larger amounts in direct university subsidies. Second, there are a lot of people on university payrolls who are effectively lobbyists, but whose salaries are not reported as as lobbying expense.”

Vedder uses his own employer as an example.

“Take Ohio State University. It reports it spent a comparatively modest $230,000 in 2012 on federal lobbying.  Yet it has a ‘government affairs’ office with six persons making over $100,000 a year excluding fringe benefits. It has a ‘senior vice president,’ a ‘vice president,’ two ‘associate vice presidents,’ and two ‘assistant vice presidents.’ They together collect over $900,000 in salary.  Adding in fringe benefits and compensation of lower ranked employees, rental costs for its Washington office, etc., at the bare minimum the school spends $1.5 million on lobbying expense, and probably a good deal more.”

The University of Michigan’s full-time lobbying quartet cost the college $664,428 in salaries in 2012-2013: Alan Bossard ($256,443), Michael Waring ($169,256), Kristina Ko ($143,640) and Cynthia Bank ($95,089). Add in the cost of benefits and other expenses, and that cost easily tops $1.2 million dollars. What this means is that the University of Michigan is quietly paying significantly more to “retain” its own home-grown lobbying team than some colleges pay to retain large lobbying firms, such as the elite Van Scoyoc Associates.

The University of Alabama retained Van Scoyoc Associates in 2012 and paid $130,000. The state’s newspapers had a field day writing about it because Van Scoyoc Associates represents companies in the defense, oil & gas, pharma and education industries.

In 2011, Eastern Michigan University, whose VP of Governmental Relations is former Ward 3 Council member Leigh Greden, retained Van Scoyoc Associates for $30,000. Washtenaw Community College spent just $11,000 on lobbying in 2012, according to state records.

“It is very challenging now,” said Michael Waring, who is the U of M Director of Federal Relations, when asked  by Dome Magazine about his work on behalf of the University. “There is a whole new focus on the deficit and cutting spending. We’ve tried to argue that education and research ought to be thought of in a different way. Hopefully, they will be doing strategic cuts and not just across-the-board cuts with a big ax.”

Waring and Cindy A. Bank, a Director of Governmental Relations, are part of what has grown over the past three years into a four person team in Washington.

At the same time, the University has scaled back the amount of money it spends on lobbying expenses which must be declared on detailed financial reports. From a high of over $600,000 in 2011, the amount spent has decreased significantly to just over $200,000 in 2013.

The biggest University spender during this 2009-2012 period was the State University of New York (SUNY) system, clocking in with a cool $1.7 million in 2011—outspending industrial leaders like Sunoco ($1.12 million), the Motion Picture Association of America ($1.66 million), and Continental Airlines ($1.65 million). The SUNY system retains the well-known firm Akin Gump to do much of its D.C. lobbying, the same guys that represent Dow Chemical, Shell Oil, and Boeing.

To give you an idea of how lucrative lobbying can be for colleges, in 2009 Cynthia Bank and Michael Waring helped the University secure over $695,000,000 million in federal funding for research and financial aid.

In 2011, Alan Bossard’s title was changed to reflect his lobbying activities on behalf of the University of Michigan Health Services, which employs him. He is the UMHS Governmental Relations Representative—the highest paid member of the U’s DC lobbying quartet.

Much of this lobbying activity revolves around raising federal research money, which the public is more likely to support. However, nonprofit institutions also have an interest in fending off federal efforts to increase accountability and transparency.

Lobbying expenses spiked during the 2008 re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, when many higher education interests worked to block federal efforts to link data on students’ college experience to their labor market outcomes after graduation, allowing consumers to compare colleges on the basis of their employment outcomes and return on investment. While some higher education groups supported the idea, the opposition’s lobbying investments paid off. Congress inserted a provision that explicitly bans the federal government from ever collecting such data.

University of Michigan lobbyists Cindy Bank and Michael Wearing both are listed in lobbying activity reports filed between January and June 2008 that show them chatting up members of both the U.S Senate and the House about the Higher Education Act.

Lobbying is not responsible for spiraling college costs at the University of Michigan. The money spent on Washington influence doesn’t even constitute pennies on the dollar for U of M with its multi-billion dollar budget.

However, the media’s disinterest in college lobbying raises questions about the responsible stewardship of public higher education investments. There are certainly better ways to spend public money.

Perhaps these public systems, many of which are curtailing course offerings and turning away students, should invest that money in raising the graduation rates of low-income students or providing the less fortunate with access to a world-class education. For the $1.2 million that U of M spent on lobbying salaries for its DC team alone in 2012-2013, the institution could have offered free tuition to 133 needy Michigan residents.

Richard Vedder says, “I wish universities would expend as much effort on cutting costs as they do on hustling governments for funds. The incentive systems favor more university spending rather than cost reduction. Maybe it is time to change that by tying government support more to cost reductions and good student outcomes. And should state governments allow their public universities to spend unlimited amounts of taxpayer money trying to extract still more money from the taxpayers?”