Washington Lobbyists Foresee a New Era : Influence: Anticipation is highest among special interests who contributed heavily to Clinton. But his own views may still conflict with their goals.

Just as President-elect Bill Clinton is preparing to take the reins of power from President Bush at the White House, an equally dramatic transition is under way a few blocks away, on K Street, where the special-interest lobbyists reside.

Union leaders, trial lawyers, environmentalists, abortion and gay rights activists and other groups that have considered themselves on the outside for 12 years of Republican rule are now looking forward to once again being welcomed at the White House by a Democratic President.

At the same time, executives of the oil, chemical, pharmaceutical, cable television, insurance and automotive industries, as well as small-business interests, are bracing for the time when they may no longer enjoy as much access to power as they did during the Reagan-Bush years.

Among the lobbyists-for-hire who occupy permanent offices here, the Los Angeles-based firm of Manatt, Phelps, Phillips & Kantor is seen to be on the ascendancy because partner Mickey Kantor helped to engineer Clinton’s victory. But Republican lobbyists such as former Bush campaign officials Charles Black and Jim Lake may have lost some of their political cachet.

“I can tell you it’s very glum over at the offices of Black, Manafort & Stone,” said one Washington lobbyist, referring to Black’s firm.

While most special-interest lobbyists seem able to endure almost any political upheaval, no one doubts that the election has caused a realignment of sorts. Veteran lobbyist John C. Camp describes it as part of the natural “ebb and flow” of political life in the nation’s capital.

“There will be some people whose access will improve,” Camp observed. “There will be some whose access won’t be quite as good as it was during the Bush years.”

To some extent, the winners and losers among special interests will be determined by the philosophy of the President-elect, who has often allied himself with the views of such groups as the National Abortion Rights Action League, the Sierra Club and the National Education Assn.

However, philosophical differences and fiscal restraints will prevent Clinton from simply bowing to the desires of some interests, such as organized labor and environmentalists. Neither group has been altogether pleased with his record as Arkansas governor.

Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a bipartisan group that monitors money in politics, noted that Clinton--unlike some of his Democratic predecessors--soft-pedaled his appeal to special interests during his campaign and does not fully share the views of some that supported him.

Nonetheless, a key element undoubtedly determining the access interest groups will have to the new Administration is the amount of money they contributed to one side or other during the campaign.

Labor unions earned a better place in the new political order by contributing more than $4 million to Clinton’s campaign before Labor Day and virtually nothing to Bush; oil and gas interests may have sealed their fate by contributing about $5 million to Bush during the same period and only about $1.2 million to Clinton.

During the Reagan-Bush years, union leaders as well as abortion and gay rights advocates felt they were definitely unwelcome at the White House.

Under the Clinton Administration, according to Rex Hardesty, spokesman for the AFL-CIO, organized labor expects policy-makers to take account of its views on several key issues: health care, foreign trade and jobs creation.

Teachers unions, which strongly opposed Bush’s proposal to permit some students to attend private schools with public funds, have been assured by Clinton aides that their views will be heard when the new Administration begins to draft an education reform package.

Abortion rights groups that campaigned tirelessly for Clinton have hailed his victory as a significant turning point in the abortion controversy. Among other things, they expect Clinton to lift many of the bureaucratic obstacles that Bush erected to discourage those seeking abortions.

“With President Clinton’s leadership,” said Kate Michelman, chairwoman of the National Abortion Rights Action League, “America can begin the difficult and arduous process of undoing 12 years of anti-choice policies that have permeated every level of federal government.”

Another unpopular group at the Bush White House was trial lawyers, who were frequently criticized by Vice President Dan Quayle. Clinton is not expected to bash trial lawyers--they contributed more than $1 million to the presidential campaign, most of it to the Democrats.

During the Reagan-Bush years, oil interests were considered the most favored industry group at the White House, largely because Bush himself had been a Texas oilman before he entered politics. Environmental groups were particularly upset when oil industry lobbyists used their influence to soften regulations stemming from provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Environmentalists are confident that under Clinton, Clean Air Act regulations will be rewritten and the oil industry will be denied an opportunity to expand offshore oil drilling or exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“The oil industry is a big loser,” said Dan Becker of the Sierra Club.

The cable television, insurance and automobile industries also may belong on the list of groups that bet on the wrong horse in 1992. They gave considerably more to Bush than to Clinton.

Clinton’s proposal for health insurance reform also may create winners and losers. According to industry sources, large insurers, large employers and some doctors look favorably on Clinton’s proposal for universal coverage. But small insurers, small employers, the pharmaceutical companies and the American Medical Assn. are apprehensive.

According to an analysis of campaign contributions developed by the Center for Responsive Politics, Bush received more money than Clinton from the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance industry and doctors.

A vast number of special interests such as the securities, real estate, tobacco and liquor industries hedged their bets by contributing heavily to Clinton and Bush. As a result, these groups are expected to enjoy the same access to top government policy-makers under Clinton as they did under Bush.

In the final analysis, while some lobbyists will enjoy more access than others to the Clinton Administration, the new order on K Street probably does not portend a sea change in the fortunes of most special interests.

As Camp points out, “People who fear there is going to be an earthquake in their industry because of this election will find that’s not the case, and people who have been making lists for the past 12 years of things they wanted from the next Democratic Administration are going to be disappointed too.”