Pork. It's not just the other white meat; it's also the cornerstone of a lobbying industry that spends nearly $3 billion a year convincing Congress they know best, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But the money doesn't all go to secure funding for Bridges to Nowhere, paternity tests for bears, or keeping subsidies for energy companies, a few lobby proponents sport blue blazers, glasses, and some of the most trusted brands in the world. They are America's universities, and they want Congress' attention just as much as the Senator Stevens' of the world - OK, not quite that badly, but you get the point. 

This fiscal year, Congress awarded nearly $2.25 billion in earmarked funds to academic institutions. Prepare to be shocked, but it wasn't all out of the kindness of their hearts. The top universities keep their perches of prestige by lobbying Congress for their causes in order to receive funding through earmarks and federal grants.

Last year, for example, the University of Pennsylvania spent close to $1 million on lobbying activities. However, according to Jeffrey Cooper, UPenn's vice president for government and community affairs, "Penn does not seek earmarks." What they do seek is competitively awarded research grants, and the lobbying efforts help brand the university as a leader in various scientific fields and in the minds of grant makers. In 2005, UPenn was the second-largest recipient of NIH grant awards, receiving $471.4 million from the NIH alone.

Penn's rivals to the North, Harvard and Cornell University, are also no strangers to Washington politics. Each spent around $600,000 last year for lobbying activities and it's probably no coincidence they are also among the biggest recipients of grant funding among the universities. 

There are two reactions to this type of information: outrage or understanding. The former stems from a desire to keep the world fair and balanced, where individuals and institutions receive things out of merit instead of the size of their wallet.

The latter reaction is less idealistic and recognizes that lobbying plays an important and fundamental role in U.S. Politics. And that even organizations as well known as Harvard must make an effort to get noticed and to get the things they want from the government. After all, its no crime to tell someone in power why something important is important, is it?

The reality is that lobbying has earned a terrible reputation due to a number of bad apples that spoil the lot. The word itself conjures images of shady characters in dark hats and rain jackets like Jack Abramoff making back room deals with corrupt politicians.

This election season, those dirty words "Washington lobbyists" have become a cornerstone of the McCain-Palin platform for bringing change to politics. The two talk in detail about eliminating the influence of lobbyists in Washington and putting an end to Congressional earmarks. But the reality of the situation is, the vast majority of lobbyists provide a voice to the people, groups, and causes we could all easily rally behind. Cancer research, preventing drilling in wildlife areas, improving labeling on genetically-engineered foods, lowering tax rates, expanding research on the causes of childhood obesity and cancer; these are all examples of causes promoted by lobbyists in Washington that most would agree are campaigns worthy of a professional representation. 

America's universities are no exception - they require dollars to continue delivering the groundbreaking research, medicines, and inventions that make our lives easier. And if they have to spend a little money to do that, should they be vilified for it? 

Also Interesting: 

Dear BureauPat: How much lobbying actually goes on in Congress?
Is the President lobbying DoD employees?
Lobbyists' success blamed for costly tomato scare
Finally a reason for braille ATMs
How would Gov. Palin influence government?
And the Palin hits just keep on coming
Campaign Contributors Rewarded with No-bid Contract