I acknowledge Democrats have been pummeled of late for their identity politics. Therefore, I hesitate to rush to the defense of another oft maligned group — legislative lobbyists. At a time of collapsing public confidence in our governing institutions — when public approval of U.S. Congress and state legislatures has plummeted into the low teens — I realize lobbyists are viewed as part and parcel of the “scum and vermin” so detested by our returning president. They earn no better respect from progressives. The prevailing perception is lobbyists are pernicious greed heads, intent on corruptly squeezing money from the public purse together with a shameless propensity for sharing ethical behavior with the world’s oldest profession. Nonetheless, if politics is truly “Hollywood for ugly people,” then lobbyists are the stagehands.

There is, without question, a fraction of lobbyists who market their well-honed skills to the highest bidder, regardless of purpose, leading to the head spinning instance of a well-known Democrat, Wally Stealey, representing the tobacco industry against long-postponed taxation for the health costs attributable to cigarettes. Republican Freda Poundstone also could be found carrying water for casino operators and attempting to overturn Hollywood’s “blind bidding” practices on the part of movie distributors. This latter effort failed when it was pointed out theater owners all viewed and then turned down John Travolta’s “Saturday Night Fever”, which proved a huge box office success the year it was released. These “hired gun” lobbyists argue that, at the right price, every cause is entitled to the best representation they can offer. This moral agnosticism makes them wealthy.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

During the 1980s and into the 1990s there were several bars along East Colfax where a legislator never received a bill — all tabs picked up weekly by lobbyists. Those were the well-lubricated bad old days. With the onset of term limits and “clean government” reforms, lobbying changed. Previously lobbyists could be separated between membership and leadership firms. The former would work the entire House and Senate on behalf of clients, while the latter established close relationships with long serving and powerful committee chairs and majority officers who could quietly poison or grease a piece of legislation. With the advent of term limits, which kicked in at the end of the century, it has been unusual for committee chairmanships to endure more than a single session. Julie McCluskie, re-elected as House Speaker last week, is only the second Democrat to serve twice, joining Andrew Romanoff, since 2000.

The perception lobbyists spend most of their time attempting to curry fiscal favors is no longer true. Lobbying has become far more often a defensive game — guarding against unintended or otherwise unanticipated consequences. With bi-annual turnover among freshmen members, it is lobbyists who provide them with institutional memory. What has worked, what has failed and whose oxen might be gored by a bright idea is best understood by those who have worked at the Capitol for decades. There are also more varieties of lobbyists today. Yes, most major industries are represented, but so are local government agencies and state administrative departments. Non-profits use specialized “public interest” shops. There is also a handful of Joint Budget Committee experts who monitor the appropriations process. Regulated industries also prowl the halls. It is these Capitol veterans who arrange for witness testimony and, more significantly, influence their clients’ campaign contributions come campaign season.

I mention all this because it is the opinion of this quasi-official cadre that has the best perspective on the competence of legislators. I’ve jokingly observed every legislative body, irrespective of partisan affiliation, can be roughly divided into thirds. One-third, again irrespective of party, works diligently to represent the interests of their voters as directed by their political philosophy. These are the work horses and compromisers. Another third is elected because of a single issue or two that burn deeply in their conscience. Such salience is usually related directly to a personal, family, employment or business experience. When you concur with their priority, they can usually be recruited as allies on your legislation. The final third is often too ignorant, too inebriated or too performative (show horses) to be relied upon, usually in thrall to the last member they spoke with. Lobbyists know which cohort members inhabit.

If you are curious to learn how your legislator is doing, it can be useful to query a few lobbyists. If you keep hearing a particular member is an utter jerk — they’re probably a jerk. Again, this tends to be irrespective of party. There are members on both the left and the right who refuse to meet with lobbyists as a matter of principle. On the left, it often is a form of virtue signaling — evidence their personal rectitude remains unsullied. On the right, it can come packaged as an arrogant or belligerent certitude — who requires advice or facts when he or she already comprehends everything? Either way, it’s a sure indicator of stupidity. None of us has all the answers. The more opinions you consider, the better the decisions you can make. A legislator beyond persuasion has abandoned reason for faith.

I don’t know Yadira Caraveo, who just lost her congressional seat after a single term, but I have been surprised by how much she is respected by congressional lobbyists. They appreciated her willingness to listen carefully and valued her insight, as a doctor, on health care issues. She will be missed. None of this is meant as criticism of her replacement. Gabe Evans survived a primary contest where his party chairman supported a rival. The fact he then successfully navigated a bitter, intra-party leadership rivalry — attending meetings held by each faction is commendable. His hesitation to embrace the mass deportation of immigrants holding jobs, paying taxes and complying with Colorado laws suggests he has a spine. It’s a shame political consultants persuaded this pair of genuinely worthy candidates to undertake such an ugly campaign, marred by nasty attack ads I suspect embarrassed them both.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.