Good idea, I think I will try and get that into our policy
1 Like
Yes, because the promise of a well-paid lobbying job at retirement in exchange for extremely favorable legislation is exactly the kind of thing we need to stop.
Its not as if there’s a shortage of well-connected people in DC who aren’t currently government employees…
5 Likes
Hey, if AOC and the Zodiac Killer can get a clean bill passed, I’m all for it.
4 Likes
These two points are important to consider.
Who has to register as lobbyist, and what do they gain that they wouldn’t get by not registering?
For a firm, are all employee’s registered? If not, what differences are there between those registered and those not?
I don’t know the answer to either of those, but presumably being a registered lobbyist also includes some type of better interaction with the government beyond what some non registered person can do.
Possibly along the lines of what @TheyCallMeMrPibb grants a credentialed vendor rep vs a random person for access to their company.
Denying these benefits of government interaction to former legislators certainly seems possible. It wouldn’t impact their ability to perform other jobs that provide advice or direction to companies or to others who are registered lobbyist for better ways to interact with government.
A big question though is still, is this once removed connection enough? Former Senator Bob can’t be a lobbyist anymore. Instead Bob works for a lobbying firm as an advisor. Bob provides advice for Jim who has never been a legislator and is registered. Jim does all the actual lobbying and interaction himself. Jim is somewhere between taking advice from Bob like “You should talk to Joe, tell him I say hi” and following a prescribed script from Bob with no deviation like a puppet.
Eliminating the benefits of being a registered lobbyist seems easy enough. If this matters at all, or just adds a small speed bump is something entirely different…
2 Likes
That’s because there’s specific legislation in California against noncompetes. It’s not the courts that are against NCAs, it’s the law.
2 Likes
Eliminate lobbyists completely.
There’s nothing in either of those two concepts that says you have to get paid. If you’re doing political activity without pay, you’re not a lobbyist.
9 Likes
A lot of what makes lobbying so successful is personal contact.
If Senator Green has had lunch with Senator Jones in the Senate dining room every Thursday for fifteen years, when Green retires and goes to work for MegaPharmTelecomAircraftCo, Green will get into Jones’ office much quicker and get much more face time than John Q. Doe who is an employee for the same company but has never met Jones.
Would work if our legislators were wise and impartial philosopher kings.
1 Like
How about, “you can lobby and advise and petition, but not for any form of compensation, monetary or in-kind”? Freedom of association and the right to petition don’t guarantee the right to get paid to do so. Yes, corrupt scumbags will try to get around these limitations as corrupt scumbags will and the law will need to be enforced, and yes there will probably be an attempt to foist some Citizens United style suit to overturn it, but it’ll probably shunt most former Congresspeople to other post-service careers.
6 Likes
I mean, not for walmart employees but for elected officials, yeah, sounds good
If you are doing political activity at a high level without pay, you are rich. Also not a good solution.
Or you’re doing it voluntarily, such as for an NGO.
NGO workers have to buy food as well, and pay off student loans.
1 Like
Huh? There is no Constitutional right to be a lobbyist.
“Peaceably assembling” and “petitioning the government” are still eminently possible for someone who is banned from lobbying.
Those so banned would be prevented from taking meetings with their former coworkers, staff, and superiors as advocates for the industry they used to regulate. And its effectively more a ban on the government workers than a ban on the putative lobbyist himself.
3 Likes
As much as I dislike a lot of what passes for lobbying but is actually corrupt, I find it hard square to square “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” taken together, with any kind of ban on professional lobbying.
That said - I wonder if we’ll start seeing more strange bedfellow like this, in Congress and SCOTUS, soon. With so many people saying they see no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and at least a growing minority acknowledging that the political spectrum isn’t one dimensional, I wonder what axis the next party realignment will happen along, and when. (And yes, it will still be two parties unless we replace the FPTP voting system entirely. I sincerely wish anyone who wants to do the the absolute best of luck).
Two fav links for digging:
http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx
https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=selectFields&reset=1
There might be sites that process that down to more useful formats.
So put it to a vote in the House and Senate and let’s find out who wants to die with their snouts in the trough and who doesn’t. Make 'em campaign on how they voted.
Should it become law then the Courts can have a field day picking over the bones.
It makes sense on two levels that Cruz would back this -
-
He’s a true believer - he isn’t in this to get rich and he doesn’t care to go lobby for some businesses if he stops working for his cause
-
nobody likes him, you have to be liked to lobby.
1 Like
While this sounds like a good idea I’m sure it would work out so that the CongressJerks end up being managers or consultants to the lobbyists. So yes the the people directly meeting with currents politicians would not be ex-congress but they would work for them.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
