Obviously Sen. Kyl's idea of family he wants to spend more time with, is any group or individual willing to support his lavish lifestyle in exchange for waving campaign cash in front of his former colleagues.
Unfortunately, the majority of us were born into the wrong family.
7
You're doing us quite the public service, Gail, by continuing to draw attention to Senator Warren's Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act.
This is a very important piece of legislation, and only a beginning, though it has little chance of being considered in the current Congress (and not all of the opposition comes from Republicans, either).
Of course, I've been arguing for years that the single most important reform legislation we could pursue is that banning all organizational campaign contributions and all private ones above a very modest ceiling (like $500), and publicly funding elections as is done in many other nations. Absent that, our representatives are stuck representing the tiny minority of oligarchs who pay for their runs, rather than their actual constituents. (And they waste too much time fundraising to legislate effectively.)
If that could happen, a lot of the swamp would be infused with fresh water and cleanse itself; those post-legislative lobbying jobs wouldn't be as important or lucrative any more, so that source of corruption would also be diminished.
In truth, we need publicly funded elections as much as we need publicly funded single payer health care. And it's not irony that it may only be the former that could lead to the latter.
591
@Glenn Ribotsky
You mean real democracy vs the rule of oligarchs? How silly. I dont think the founding fathers wanted the unwashed to have that much power. Dangerous talk!
3
@Glenn Ribotsky.
My overwhelming fear is the seating of Kavanaugh among the Supremes. Once there, a solid, archly conservative 5 vote bloc probably means game over for democratic and consumer reforms for generations to come.
My very strong suspicion is that the founders will be interpreted as having had no use for consumer or voter or environmental or minority rights protections. Basically, we'll have nothing that jeopardizes corporate supremacy or the agenda of their socially conservative allies.
3
@Bob Bruce Anderson You probably believe you are being ironic, but the founders wrote a constitution where only landed white men could participate in the political process. The 'great unwashed' both of white western European of ancestry and of 'other' were explicitly excluded from voting. The poll tax was not abolished until the 1960s.
"This fall when candidates come around asking for your vote, say, “Promise us that when you’re done serving, you’ll come home.”
Oh Gail, I'm so sorry.
When they are done serving, they will immediately take a multi-million dollar job lobbying, and when you call them on it, they will say "Fooled 'ya".
Dan Kravitz
7
Thank you, Elizabeth Warren, for taking an ethical stand, as usual, this time on lobbying.
Jon Kyl has some harsh words for Donald Trump but will probably support the vast majority of his agenda in the same way John McCain did. And Kyl will very likely vacate his seat in December to resume his lobbying career. He’s not getting any younger and knows where the real money is.
If Martha McSally, a devoted Trump acolyte, loses her bid for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Jeff Flake, Arizona governor Doug Ducey will likely just appoint her to John McCain’s seat in January. Ducey will almost certainly win reelection since the far-left, and essentially unelectable, David Garcia won the Democratic nomination. And if Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic nominee for Flake’s seat, loses to McSally in November, Ducey could appoint another fervent Trump supporter to join McSally in the Senate. Let’s hope that Sinema can continue to stay ahead in the polls, so that the Senate will not wind up a total loss for Arizona.
Bob Woodward’s new book comes out on Tuesday – a service to the nation, at just the right time. And we should give thanks for the services of some in the Trump White House who are protecting us from as much of Trump’s insanity as they can.
I consider myself an atheist, but it’s been said there are no atheists in foxholes. So … please, God, if anyone is out there listening … let Democrats at least take back the House in November. Just give us all a fighting chance. Fair enough?
3
A free speech right to lobby? Ok, if you say so, Senator, but you don’t have to get paid for it. No right to that in the first amendment. Go ahead. Just make it illegal to be a PAID lobbyist.
151
@KLF
That makes sense!
The call of the filthy lucre is irresistible. All the experience of the politicians makes the ideal candidates for lobbying and accepting bribes or passing them to others.
I confess that I did not vote for McCain-Palin ticket in 2008, because (1) I thought Palin to be crazy, and (2) McCain a potential Manchurian Candidate (as in the older film version). Obviously, I was mistaken about the late Senator McCain.
There really is not much difference between being a congressman, senator or lobbyist. They all grovel at the feet of the oligarchs, take hand outs from them and work toward their benefit. Consequently it should be an easy transition for Kyl.
3
I think that the 'irrational' feature for politicians is mandatory for Republicans since McCain has passed. No body does it better than a GOP in the grip of an irrational fear of their president.
2
President Reagan thought that the government wasn't the solution to are problems, but the problem itself. We have now eliminated that huge problem, what do you think, better? Elected officials are for sale, period.
2
If memory serves ex-congressional critters are allowed to come onto the floor of the House and Senate. I also recall that they can use things like the House and Senate gyms as well as the cafeterias.
One small thing that could be done is to bar access to all of those areas for all ex-members of Congress. At least it would make it a bit more difficult for them to corner their former colleagues to catch up and talk about how X company really, really needs this or that tax break, etc.
4
let's just tax lobbying income at a rate of 99% .
3
Thank you for pointing out the essential and beneficial purpose of an actual swamp. I had long hoped that this tarnished title would eventually recover the respect deserved, no longer having to contend with the sludge pit that has coöpted its name. The swamps should sue; they are not corrupt, morally bankrupt, bereft of ethics and breathtakingly hypocritical. If only they had a good lawyer.
3
Love of money 'trumps' love of country every time is what this satirical column says to me. Or at least it does for far too many of the GOP currently in power.
2
The First Amendment does not give people the right to be lobbyists. Yes, Billy Tauzin has the right to say whatever he wants in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. But he doesn't have the right to be paid to do so. Similarly, privacy rights allow you to have sex with any consenting adult, but getting paid for having sex is against the law. Senator Warren has the right idea: End the revolving door!
6
Even in the most dismal and dark times, you make us laugh at the absurdity of it all. Thank you Gail Collins!
3
We will soon see how efective the rhetoric has been.
The vote will tell it all.
Gonna move? Gonna get out the vote whatever?
Gonna help friends, family, and strangers get to the polls?
Gonna watch the world burn up one way or another.
Gonna ask God for strength to right the wrong way we are on?
Gonna give up? Say whatever?
Gonna fight or law down and get run over?
Gonna kick out the jams to move the vote?
Yes you will. You love America and it's colorful, strong, and brave people.
Stand up for freedom and justice.
Vote the bad boys out come November and change the world.
Long live American Democracy. Let the people overcome.
6
Can't wait to see if Paul Ryan goes "home", especially since he really hasn't lived there in years. He hasn't had to work for a living either.
6
Liked the piece. Only thing I would point out is not taking the legal advice of Poly Sci profs.
Constituents expressing their desires to their elected representatives is most certainly protected as freedom of speech. Purchasing influence from former insiders to produce desired outcomes is not. Let's see if we can't actually legislate that "nuance" into today's understanding of the word "lobbying".
So let's give the "no former government officials can lobby after their service" a try - or at least let's have a test case to challenge the "paid lobbying is freedom of speech" claim.
No one is stopping anyone from speaking or expressing their opinion. No one paid me anything last time I reached out to my congressman. So there must be some sort of false equivalency going on - otherwise it's just [former] influence peddling.
Who knows, after a generation or so, after the professional grifters have cycled out we might actually have a meaningful percentage representatives truly interested in the public welfare landing in office.
3
I guess we all are corruptible....and all that is left to discuss is how much will it take to sell ourselves. Does Jon Kyl really think he can rehabilitate his sore and conflicted image by returning to Congress? Who is he kidding?
1
Hey. Come on. Nobody has mentioned the modern day favorite. John Boehner and Acreage Holdings. It is to laugh. Except that it really isn't funny.
6
Johnny is on the cutting edge of the "Enjoyment" industry. Red wine goes well with a kind bud.
1
An unfortunately hefty percentage of we Sapiens have been greedy since time immemorial.
And brutal, corrupt, deceptive and dangerous.
Why are we shocked and/or outraged?
Nothing new here.
1
I was fortunate enough to click on the link to the vox article to learn that
"Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to go on to become lobbyists.
Very conservative Republicans are less likely to become lobbyists than moderate Republicans."
It's more fair and balanced that this op-ed where the revolving door is full of Republicans while all Democrats want to close it.
1
Drain the sludge pond? Too tame. How about pump the septic tank?
6
Yeah, the Republican members of the Senate and House of Representatives are detestable people. But, by far, the most detestable people of all are Republican voters.
3
@David Martin, The main problem with them is they prefer to respond to jingoism rather than mine for information to make sound political choices.
"unlarge". The best funnious most apt descriptor I've seen in ages. Super column~
7
"...the number of senators and representatives who could support themselves by being brilliant inventors is … unlarge."
"Unlarge" -- I love it.
6
The revolving, circular door between politicians and corporate lobbying is becoming a blur of financial maleficence. And until we prevent this cross pollination of private and public, it will continue unabated. Why are un-elected lobbyists able to ultimately control our nation? It's the unabashed theft of treasury and allowing fascism to root it's ugly head.
1
Ah. Professor LaPira, one may have a constitutional right to talk to Congress about an issue or support an industry but you do not have a constiutional right to get paid to do it.
2
Thank you for for making me laugh. So needed after reading the fraught news and watching the Supreme Court hearings. How about , "Drain the boils on the body politic!"
How much would we all give to see President Romney driving to his weekend estate WITH Seamus up on the roof.
I am a rabid Dog lover!
I would gladly give ten years of my life for THAT scenario!
TWENTY if BOTH of the current reigning nut jobs could have a head on collision with a big rig on the way to an Evangelist Rally. (or wherever)
OR any scenario which sends them on their way -WAY beyond temporal existence.
Kyl is a Republican. Nothing more need be said.
As the daughter of an engineer who designed sewage treatment plants, I vote for drain the sludge pond!
1
So if it's not a 'swamp', why not begin saying, 'Drain the Sewer'? I realize D.C. isn't truly a sewer (it's actually a nice town), but if you've ever been in the Paris or Vienna sewer, you'll know parts of them are actually quite surprisingly nice. So from now on, 'Drain the Sewer!' That's a fair revision.
Don't forget about the more honorable GOP politicians and their families who want nothing more than a Chick-Fil-A franchise and a few Rolexes.
2
I love Sen. Warrens big ideas. I just hope she can get even mid sized to low cal versions of them.
Vote Dem. Vote progressive.
5
1776: US population estimated at 2.5 million.
2010: Walmart employees--2.1 million.
The Constitution never considered that corporations would have more employees than the total populations of some states. Thus no consideration of their power and the needs of regulation.
Today their enormous political power--amounting to "corporatism"--which some say is fascism.
Fascism is feudalism updated--moneylords replacing landlords. Politicians are their knights jousting for tips and party favors--in or post office.
3
My cynicism is remarkable. This is Gail at her best, as she often is.
You mean he didn't spend more time with his family and serve as a volunteer at 12 different hometown charitable organizations? Wow, I'm shocked! Sorry, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.
2
behind you all the way here.
How about dredge the sewer?
Even the rats and cockroaches are complaining.
1
YES!!! Let’s all contact our senators and congressmen (and women)!!!!!!
O.K. Gail, lobbying is protected speech but it's like letting the fox into the hen house. It's immoral to have more lobbyists than congress women and men. These are highly paid leeches who get their training in government at the people's expense. There should be a reasonable limit on how many lobbyist's an organization can have. But, of course, how many moral congress women/men are there? Apparently not enough to do the right thing.
1
There is always talk of term limits, which will never pass and would also deprive us of experience. This idea is much more likely to happen and would very likely be just as/more effective!!!!!
Will you return here and make your living in our fair state?
Which by your service is a much improved place to prosper!!
WOW!!!
1
Yeah, Speaker Ryan must have thought, "I don't need this Trump nonsense, I'll go make me $2 million a year lobbying for the NRA, the Holstein Association and Exon".
4
Might want to include banning Senate/Congressional Reps from setting up bogus "foundations" to take money from countries while they serve as either lobbyists or, say, Secretary of State!
1
"Pump the septic tank" gets my vote to replace "drain the swamp."
I kind of like "drain the cesspool" myself.
How 'bout we just regulate lobbying like most states do prostitution? Though I'm not generally inclined to criminalize what consenting adults do in private, lobbying in this age is hardly a victimless crime. Let anyone who wants to lobby on behalf of whatever, but they have to do it for free. If they accept anything of value in return, we call it by another--more accurate--name. And both parties face charges.
3
Newt Gringrich claims he is not a lobbyist.
Instead, he 'advises' Congress.
It’s what the Senator has been up to more recently that bothered me. He’s been working on behalf of getting Kavanagh confirmed to the Supreme Court.
4
Even Cincinnatus came out of retirement.
I am trying to think like an originalist on that first amendment lobbying thing--it say something about addressing grievances--i really dont think it meant for lobbyists to write the darn bills for the congressmen as a fait accompli.
2
As a (a-hem) somewhat expert on "swamps", having a degree in Natural Resource Mgmt we in the "industry" (?!) prefer to call them "wetlands". Their benefits are well known, such as helping to mitgate damage from hurricanes, much like the one originating from the District of Columbia. Wetlands are also instrumental in species diversification. While sometimes associated with disease(s) such as malaria (which involves alot of sweating like the steady drip seen on Pennsylvania Ave), wetlands are home to many valuble predator species. Among them Panthers, Anacondas, Bengal tigers, & crocodiles.
Ok, you get the point.
For the free speech pseudo argument how about lobbying but doing it for no pay? And only for nonprofits only.
2
A relevant quote:
“In April 2011, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl spoke on the floor of the Senate, saying that abortion services were ‘well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.’ Actually, abortion services make up approximately 3 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.
“When Kyl got called out, his spokesman issued this remarkable defense, ‘His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.’”
- Al Franken, "Giant of the Senate"
9
@Robert Wood
‘His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.’”
That's probably because he never was a factual Senator. Always just a lobbyist.
3
"Secondly, it’s unconstitutional. Lobbying is clearly a First Amendment protected activity."
True, there is a right to petition government, even for retired legislators. But is there a right to be paid to do so? As has recently been discussed, retired intelligence officials must give over the profits of their books to the U.S. as a condition of employment.
True, legislators are elected, not appointed, but it is not unreasonable for the country to pass laws aimed at discouraging legislators from taking their future lobbying prospects into account while their duty requires them to focus solely on what is best for their constituents.
The right to use their connections to lobby the government would remain, only their ability to personally PROFIT from such connections would be affected. Tell you what, in appreciation of their patriotic passion for lobbying, we could even cut them a better deal than retired intelligence officials. Go ahead and take a salary with a lobbying firm. We've all gotta eat. BUT... the total annual compensation received for such services (including any stock, benefits package, company car, whatever) cannot exceed a Congressional salary. Also, government subsidized lobbying is out (unless they found a church), so we'll just hold that government healthcare until the legislator is ready to truly retire. Just pay into the company plan. Government healthcare is "tyranny" anyway, right? Enjoy the #liberty (#mutual)!
2
I highly doubt that many younger (albeit well informed) readers got the headline's reference to "Come Back Little Sheba." But I did and that's why I've read the times for many years (along with the fact that the formerly great Otis Chandler-L.A.Times has been starved to death).
The argument for letting former congressmen lobby is that we can't restrict their free speech.
No, their speech would not be restricted, just their ability to be paid for it.
If you take a job with the CIA you do so knowing some of your speech and actions will be restricted. If you work for Coca-Cola, you can't do a commercial for Pepsi.
We can place similar restraints on those whom we hire to represent us.
6
The ban for lobbying should be one year for each year served for congress and 8 years for cabinet officials.
one-term senator = 6 years;
one term congressman = 2 years.
multiply by number of terms.
cabinet officials = Max. presidential term.
Not only would this take care of the revolving door problem, it has the added advantage of addressing term limits in a sneaky, yet capitalistic way!
5
Thank you again, Gail, for making me laugh, but also once again pointing out just how rigged and corrupt our system is, thanks to the people who make the laws. As if any of them
would even entertain the idea of a law banning lobbying after they retire. Very funny, indeed.
3
I don't buy the premise that lobbying is protected speech and is related to the first amendment. If that is the case, how can it require registration?
If we keep stretching first amendment like this (money is free speech, lobbying is free speech etc.) soon one can argue is bribery is protected speech too.
Does anyone doubt that if lobbying restriction goes to court how it will split? it will be 4-4 or at most 5-3; That itself should tell you the result depends on who is the court; not what the amendment you hook your wagons to.
2
I'm sure Kyl's lobbing work, and all those lucrative connections, will have no impact on his "work" in the Senate! Right?
The blatant conflicts of interest among elected officials at all levels that pass as mundane aspects is simply jaw-dropping!
Our government -- and our nation -- is corroding from within.
6
@NYer
There's no conflict. He's always been working for the same people before, during and after his term.
4
Can one assume the prohibition would also apply to, say, $65 million book deals, offered by a company which benefited directly, in the billions, from the former's incumbent's education policy?
Or a $400K 45-minute speaking engagement in return for "foaming the runway" and rescuing a lot of very rich shareholders, including the partners offering the fee?
This is no false equivalence.
1
In addition, Jon Kyl has been sheparding Kavanaugh through the confirmation process. Now he gets to vote on it. How convenient! Kyl has promised to stay in the Senate only to January so he can spin again through the revolving door to rejoin his lobbying “family.” What a system!
4
Nicely written, funny piece. Enjoyed reading it. I'm too cynical to hope for any real change, though. I seem to recall the current resident of the WH saying something about lobbyists, but that was so long ago and so many scandals since.
3
To accommodate the well being of the Republic, I believe we CAN restrict post-employment of Senators and Representatives to eliminate paid lobbying positions, — if not forever for many years. There are many post-employment restrictions already imposed on public employees. There is no First Amendment right for politicians to profit at the expense of the Republic. Go ahead after you leave office and enjoy your right to Free Speech. For Free.
2
Senator Warren‘s proposed lifetime ban on lobbying after leaving Congress would arguably be ruled unconstitutional as an unreasonable deprivation of exercise of property rights, but a five year ban would probably survive Constitutional challenge.
4
It may be a First Amendment protected activity but so is speech and we restrict it in certain circumstances without being unconstitutional. Put a 10 year waiting list on it, from the time when the office is left, as a restriction. That would certainly have a chilling effect on the "revolving door."
3
Thank you Gail for bringing this to everyone's attention again, but it just takes me back to reading similar articles in the Riverside Press-Enterprise 50 years ago.
WWII field grade officers were retiring and after stepping out of their uniforms, put on a suit and tie and went to work for companies like Raytheon, Dupont and Westinghouse for huge sign-on bonuses and salaries.
Soon afterward our congresspeople did the same thing. They called it the revolving door at the time.
I think it shows just how difficult and intractable it is to stop otherwise honest people from grabbing large sums of money offered for their contacts and knowledge of otherwise classified information.
After a career in government or the military is when the big bucks start rolling in.
Best of luck to Sen. Warren, but I think she's jousting with windmills.
3
Word is that Kyl left Congress due to it being too political so I guess a Ducey appointment is easier?
It’s true that, after living large or at least as an “Honorable” in DC, that many members of Congress want to live larger, unencumbered lives as lobbyists post Congress. We see it here in Sacramento too. And other states’ capitals.
For that reason, I support Senator Warren’s proposed relevant legislation.
In addition, let's look at who is able to get into the doors of Congress in the first place. So often party leaders insist on a candidate’s major qualification as their ability to raise money for their campaign and others. For Congressmen/women especially on two year term cycles, they are more focused on raising campaign funds than legislation or their own personal lives. Public financing is needed to open the doors wider to broader representation.
2
It’s true that, after living large or at least as an “Honorable” in DC, that many members of Congress want to live larger, unencumbered lives as lobbyists post Congress. We see it here in Sacramento too. And other states’ capitols.
For that reason, I support Senator Warren’s proposed relevant legislation.
In addition, let's look at who is able to get into the doors of Congress in the first place. So often party leaders insist on a candidate’s major qualification as their ability to raise money for their campaign and others. For Congressmen/women especially on two year term cycles, they are more focused on raising campaign funds than legislation or their own personal lives. Public financing is needed to open the doors wider to broader representation.
1
I have read that lobbyists sometimes contribute expert information to lawmakers. I would expect that this might be especially true of former members of congress because they often become expert in various issues in the process of their legislative work. Not sure whether this outweighs the enormous conflict of interest created by the revolving door, but it’s worth keeping in mind.
T. LaPira: "(Ending the revolving door corruption is) “unconstitutional. Lobbying is clearly a First Amendment protected activity.”
That's the usual right-wing emphasis on one portion of the Constitution to the exclusion of everything else that might conflict ... in this case, for example, equal protection of the laws.
Nothing about the Constitution is absolute; there are always conflicting provisions, and it's the most delicate and important job of the judiciary to decide, judiciously, which provision wins the argument, or come up with a compromise position that protects the integrity of conflicting provisions.
I'm not surprised that a George Mason "scholar" embraces an absolutist position that, huh, just coincidentally I'm sure, empowers corporate hegemony over the public good.
7
Why shouldn't my professional association be permitted to hire a lobbyist with experience and connections in Washington? I'm a member of a couple of environmental organizations, why shouldn't they be permitted to do the same? I want the best lobbyist I can afford to hire.
So what if Kyl was lobbying for a bunch of corporate oligarchs? Serving their interests is why a majority of Arizona voters elected him to begin with. It's not like he was ever "bought" or morally conflicted! Let's not kid ourselves. Men (and women) like Kyl or Texas' Cornyn get elected for the purpose of making the nation safe for corporate plutocrats. If the American people don't like their elected representatives playing catamite to the oligarchs, then they can stop electing them.
3
I'm so old I actually remember when people who left Congress actually did return to their states and districts. I'll be eligible for Medicare in February.
3
One way to reduce the power of lobbyists is to have enough government employees to do what lobbyists do now (gather information, do research, and write rules and regulations), select people for these positions who are suspicious of lobbyists (whose counsel will be accepted only as they establish a history of honest dealing), and support them when they resist lobbyists for good reason. Battles between business and government would continue, but they would be much more equal.
Businesses would encourage government to make stupid regulations in order to bring the whole structure of regulation into disrepute and get rid of it (again). Government would have to resist this temptation.
3
One way to solve this is to randomize representation. Instead of having elections for Congress, we could create and use a program that randomly chooses citizens that meet whatever qualification we determine to serve as representative for some period of time. You'd rotate people in and out more often, which could have a cost, but the upside is that you'd have fewer craven politicians and more honorable humans in office.
1
“Secondly, it’s unconstitutional. Lobbying is clearly a First Amendment protected activity.”
True, but that doesn't mean accepting bushels of cash from industries you wrote favorable legislation for is. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of Congresspersons to accept large retroactive bribes"? Not how I remember it.
13
I'm less concerned, at this exact moment, with what Kyl was doing prior to getting pulled back in to office, which he wasn't angling for. I'm more concerned with whether he's going to prop up Trump, or act in the interests of the country.
Unfortunately I think he's going to vote in favor of Kavanaugh, so one strike against him out of the gate.
1
It is almost impossible for any Congress member to give up all that power, free trips, lunches and campaign donations, so of course they are going to lobby. Term limits and no lobbying are the answers, but I bet that won't happen, as Congress would have to vote on that. Fat chance.
Put these items on a National Ballot, along with getting rid of the Electoral College. It is the only way for us to have a chance of taking our Government back. You know the one, where it is "for the people, of the people and by the People". It is time.
1
Rather than banning former government employees from becoming lobbyists, how about reducing their government pension and retirement plan income by the amount of their lobbying income. Seems this is the great way to encourage them to retire, create opportunity for others to gain jobs, tamp-down inflation, etc.
3
Was the answer C?
2
When it comes to jobs, in the last 20 years or so our politicians have failed to understand how and why people are unemployed, can't find jobs, or can't move to where the jobs are, or don't care. The statements by some well known politicians, that unemployment benefits are a hammock, or that 47% of us are moochers displays monumental ignorance of how the job market is not working for Americans
Politics is about connecting. But when a politician is serving in Congress or any other government body their service is supposed to be for us. The problem is that they have an eye on what they will do afterwards and on their rich donors. That blinds them to some very real problems the rest of us face every day.
Access to medical care, the cost of health insurance, solving these issues to provide universal medical care is one glaring problem. No one in Congress has the citizens in mind. Even before they leave Congress our politicians are serving as lobbyists. They have to otherwise they can't count on their donors. If we want to end the revolving door it has to begin at the campaign finance level.
4
Thanks Gail for a fun piece.
7
Gail
There was--is Ryan sitting there---quitting to 'spend time with you know who'. This is why they run---to make a buck.
2
Lobbying may be a first amendment protected activity but being paid for it isn't.
2
It’s going to be extremely difficult to solve this kind of influence peddling with legislation that attempts to tell ex-legislators precisely who they can’t and can’t work for. Attempting to tell them who they can and can’t talk to after they leave office is highly likely to be constitutionally impossible. A far more effective way to reduce the level of soft corruption in politics is with aggressive campaign finance reform. Banning businesses from funding any candidates, parties or organizations, combined with the public financing of all congressional campaigns would be far more effective. Today’s politicians spend far more time dialing for dollars than legislating, this must end immediately. We also don’t need an environment where only people worth more than a half-billion can afford to run.
2
If we're going to clean up this toxic waste dump in Washington we must restore western civilization's classical concepts of good and bad government. The Constitution does not work without it.
Good government and good leadership require leaders who conscientiously look out for the good of the whole country. Bad leaders look out for themselves and their cronies.
The so-called conservative movement is based on the seductive but impossible premise that bad government is good government: as long as those in power serve themselves everything will work out peachy keen for all of us. Yeah, sure.
The entire structure of the modern democratic republic is designed to prevent good government from being corrupted into bad, though with the caveat there is no sure thing and constant vigilance is therefore required.
But under today's fake conservatism, the Constitution's protective measures have been diligently perverted to render government powerless to police the oligarchy and protect the ordinary citizens' rights. This is a clear pattern in so-called conservative jurisprudence: corporations on top, government below them and We the People squished on the bottom.
See the Greek cycle of governments and its influence on Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero and, through them, Montesquieu and the Founders. See the metaphorical Greek goddesses Arete and Kakia, embodying these concepts of good and bad leadership, very well known to the Founders.
Get cracking, Journos.
Institute term limits! Would do two things.
1. They would have less time to make the connections that land them cushy lobby jobs
2. Equally important, they wouldn’t be out of the ‘regular marketplace’ for so they return to their pre-elective-office careers
Gail - it isn’t just the members of Congress who benefit from these lobbying positions. How many of their “prodigy” children or wives are given jobs by these lobbyists?
9
Yes, of course. Does this include people like Holder who make millions at a Washington law firm? Does it include Obama, who received $400,000 to appear at a lunch I attended (and had to do photo ops with nobodies like me to "earn" his fee)?
5
@No –
why on earth would it? Was he seeking passage of a particular bill that would be favorable to the attendees?
Attempting to rein in lobbying wouldn't prohibit former office holders from earning a living.
1
@No
No, it does not include those situations.
1
@No They are not lobbying members of congress on behalf of a corporation. There is no comparison with the subject of this op-ed.
1
It is just not just a saying,"follow the money",it is politics at every level. That is why we have the best politics money can buy.We are trapped in a conundrum that only a constitutional amendment can solve.
Shar is correct but I suggest 2 terms for senators and congresswomen/women. The rest of the post is on target if we want real change
1
Nice column but about a year late. Did you miss all the Obama administration officials who ended up in industries and lobbying firms they had been regulating? You do your readers no service by failing to call out both political parties that are corrupt to the bone.
5
“But about the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying industry.”
I think it’s entirely appropriate to have a waiting period between the time they leave office and the time they join a lobbying effort. The conflict of interest inherent in this activity stains the credibility of all sides as evidenced by voters distrust of all institutions and the current state of affairs in the country.
4
@Lauren Be best if the waiting period extended to the 12th Of Never!
Thanks to Citizens United and a poor turnout of Dems in 2010 the long term consequences have been to weaponize gerrymandering and voter suppression and explode dark money in the elections of the Congress. These have removed the sovereignty of the government from needing to report to the voters to owing allegiance to the money suppliers.
We now have a bought Senate that sits in silence in the face of outrageous anti-American statements from the President about the press, minorities, labor, education and other things. We see certain Senators as outright Constitutional “ignorers” turning that document into a pretzel they then crunch into pieces in order to advance their political platforms. Voting this fall might move the dial a millimeter, but the fact is that not enough people give a damn to vote (less than 50% turnout!)
This democracy is over. It has become an oligarchy or a plutocracy — take your pick Ms. Collins. The approval of Kavanaugh is the nail in the coffin. Only a radical redo with an overwhelming margin in the Congress can change the future. We need direct election of the President, elections that take place on “national holidays,” federal rules about gerrymandering that equalizes the political power in districts and doesn’t destroy them. We need to empower more voters not disqualify them for partisan reasoning. We need to get rid of dark money in elections. None of this is going to happen. This Democracy is a zombie; it moves but isn’t alive.
10
Maybe when the pols spend more time with family the family finds that more is too much and the pol has to become a lobbyist, not having any other applicable skills.
1
"You do not want people representing you in Washington with one eye out for a possible future career lobbying for the businesses they’re supposed to regulate." Exactly. Thank you. I wonder why so few members of Congress can express their ideas as clearly. My only fear is that you, Gail Collins, are becoming a National Treasure. And you know what;s happening to them under the current administration...
1
Get them to promise not to do it? Like Bob Goodlatte, who ran on term limits...26 years ago? The District of Columbia is the largest opioid ever invented.
Thanks Gail! I so look forward to smiling as I read your column vs scowling as I read the rest of the events in the NYT. You always provide excellent commentary with a big dose of humor.
3
On the other hand if you look at the republican cesspool there is not much to chose from.
Wasn't Manafort the first to REALLY cash in on this
Congress-turning-into-lobbyists trend? Drain the swamp!
1
Gail needs to step back and be thankful. We saved America from the boot licking Trump toadie Kelli Ward and an opprobrious Joe Arpaio.
For all practical purposes, we did not give the country a Trumper this time around, either. This is R throwback, small scale corruption, mild conflict of interest, doesn't rock the boat too much, and mostly votes with Republicans. He did have some positive points around immigration, but for the most part, he is a 2000s Republican.
Our Governor has to pick a safe bet. He has to appease the Arpaio arm of the party (25%~), the typical Arizona libertarian who votes R even though they don't fully align with the party and normal Republicans because he needs all the votes he can get.
The good news is, we have a good shot at electing the first democratic senator since 1977 when Dennis DeConcini won and represented till 1995.
4
Jon Kyl is just another backwards looking Republican pining for the glory days of the Reagan administration. Updated for the Trump era, Doug Ducey couldn't have found a more vapid seat-filler, besides himself, if he had even tried.
2
The right to petition your government is part of who we say we are. Whether is by an individual, or by someone representing others, it is legal and a good idea.
The problem comes from the money that changes hands as salary or contributions. And often times those large salaries are large so that a lobbyist can give some of it - a lot of it - to friendly lawmakers.
This is the part of lobbying that has to be addressed. And while we're at it, let's also address campaign finance laws.
Human nature always wins. The trick is to set some reasonable boundaries so we don't end up sticking a fork in ourselves.
Maybe DC politicians can be referred to as the PIT: Profiteers In Training?
Hmmm, that's kind of an interesting idea: A pool of volunteer citizens who, by lottery, get a 5 year term of a local legislative position, for a modest, middle class wage. These would be people who are interested, engaged, educated enough to have a 'resume' to offer. After their term, they'd have public experience to run a campaign on. It would eliminate the TV personalities, and people who are interested only in the golden revolving door that awaits them now.
um... the problem is the money. Campaign donations. Access. Arm-twisting. If we mandated public campaign financing, that would fix most of our problems.
And if politicians worked for the people and not for the money, they could meet lobbyists only in the office, only during regular business hours. That would take the bitter taste out of it and leave the First Amendment intact.
But we can be sure Sen. Kyl will raise his price after this stint.
1
Curtailing elected officials from paid lobbying wouldn't be an infringement on their first amendment rights if they ran for election knowing that they cannot lobby after serving. Which means they would need to pass the law and then everyone who ran and won would be restricted. If they didn't like those rules, then they shouldn't run for office.
1
I cried when I saw 3 flags half mast, at a local car dealership, honoring John McCain's death. He did hold all the higher beliefs I grew up with regarding Americans greatness and our good luck to be Americans. I try to remain optimistic during this time of pessimism.
First about 70 years ago only 30 or 40 of the 200 countries in the world were democratic. Now over 100 countries of the worlds 200 are democratic. That is a direct result of people seeing the success of democracies especially us the USA. So there is reason to be positive, its not just in my head.
As for the sleazy Arizona Senate appointment. I remember when Obama was elected and how it was almost a free for all in Chicago over the empty Senate seat. The poor governor ended up in Federal prison over it and the inept guy he appointed was kinda shunned. I always felt bad for that governor as he seemed so simple. So, I guess anything above that is considered moral for Senate appointments. Yet, yes, jeesh, was he directly appointed by Trump? It would seem so.
My final thought is that Paul Ryan seemed to give notice right around the time I was guessing he was reading confidential Senate reports about Trump working with the Russians. I thought that perhaps Ryan just didn't want to be around for the impeachment or to share the taint of complicity. Plus it has always been a feat of nature that Paul Ryan remains standing with no spine. Yes, he does look like another of those future lobbyists.
1
May I nominate a replacement for "drain the swamp"? How about "pump out the cesspool" (or "septic tank", if you're of a more modern bent)? With periodic maintenance required, to get rid of any additional sludge buildup.
2
i for one would like our congress and our military to be "less professional". meaning that people go to serve and then return to whatever they were good at in the private sector. we need solid professionals in both areas...... just not so many.
Kyl is a perfect representation of Arizona. Old, white, Male, but still scheming and scamming. Gods waiting room, the Dry version. Florida is the Wet version, i.e. a sauna with extremely bizarre criminals and “ officials “. Seriously.
4
Citizens United and various overt acts by republican legislators to further shroud the identities of large donors from public view have changed our form of government from a democracy to a free market for buying and selling influence with elected government officials. Period. Only the buyers with the most cash can afford the ante into this free market of graft and bribery. That's the way both the buyers and the sellers like it. It works for them, not at all for the common person. So it isn't going to change short of the American public taking up pitchforks and torches.
1
Well... I certainly would trust any candidate who promised to come home after he or she was done in Washington. Remember the "term limits" pledge component of the Republican Party's "Contract with America" in 1994? (Three terms in the House and then they go home!) That didn't work out, either!
2
Was the answer "C," then?
What goes around come around - I am working hard at the gym - so that I am around to see it.
3
Remember that beeline Senator Dole made to Kansas when he retired?
No?
Wait, wasn't he the guy that spent a decade running for President so that he could return to his honest, decent and true Kansas roots?
1
If we could just bring back the old patronage system and the buying and selling of public offices, wouldn't that cut out the middleman? The invisible hand of the market tugs once again at the coat-tails of the American political system. Wotta country.
1
I was first struck by this when I read an article detailing how much Rick Santorum was making after he served his one term in the Senate. His first year out of office he quintupled his Senate salary. I quickly concluded that we just weren't paying our Senators enough. No, seriously, we need to change the rules fundamentally. My proposal is that once done winning elections, former Congress members are *permanently* retired. They get the government pension and retiree health care, and that's all they can get, all they can do. When you run for office, one of the things you agree to up front, whether you win or lose the elections, is that when you are finally passed over by the electorate, you have no further working future in any capacity. You are permanently 'on retainer' as a retired consultant to the government, with a 'non-compete' for any other job. We'd spend a bit more on supporting all the retired parasitic former lawmakers (although they are plenty parasitic while in office, really) but somehow I think the American public would come out ahead, overall...
4
This is a wickedly funny piece. But it is also at the heart of what ails this country- the power of money, corporations, the plutocracy.
In Brazil, half the politicians are under investigation or indictment. It is a very corrupt country. But we are nearly as corrupt, we just make it legal. While we have many short-term emergency goals (see lunatic in White House), there is no more important issue for the future of this country than the political power of wealthy corporations and individuals.
Wealth creates power, which creates more wealth, creates more power, on and on. Democracy means that politicians represent the citizens of their city, state, country, not those handing out the cash.
Warren sounds the warning; we must amplify it. Drain the whatever.
243
$2 million!!! Talk abut "Superfund" sites.
I've posted this idea on different comment areas, but here it is again. An amendment to allow only those registered voters in the affected district/state make campaign contributions would help take some of the shenanigans out of play. Such an amendment would need to insure that rich voters could not swamp the campaign with their contributions, but insure that each contributor's dollar was equal in effect. Following the election, all remaining funds must then be returned to the donors, pro rata.
1
Real term limits would accomplish much of the same. With the advantage of not being unconstitutional. Neither is likely to pass muster with the House nor Senate. What we really need is the ability to do national wide public initiatives.
I agree with Ms.Warren that elected officials ought to be barred from being lobbyists for life. This is in line with the thinking of the Founding Fathers who saw those elected to Congress as part timers. I don't see why barring them from become paid lobbyists infringes on their 1st Amendment rights - no one is saying they can't spend their own time and money speaking out the same way ordinary citizens do.
And while we're at it, I propose that we re-visit the whole lobbying idea altogether. Why should powerful interests get access and influence far beyond what individual citizens do? The very idea that "Money = free speech" is Orwellian! How about if we amend the Constitution to specify that any elected official must spend the same amount of time with each of their constituents? This way, if the lobbyist for Big Pharma spends a weekend wining and dining Senator Joe Jones, the good Senator needs to spend a weekend with everyone in his state. Ridiculous? Certainly, but so is the idea that a relative handful of people get to influence policy that affects tens of millions of people, and with NO accountability.
Yes, we do need to "drain the swamp", but it won't be drained when swamp dwellers are in charge of things.
3
Really wonderful writing once again, Gail, and it hits on a topic that bothers us all, Right and Left, unless, of course, one has a chance to make two million bucks a year from lobbying. Lobbyists are a fourth branch of our government.
I think that, were I a retired legislator, I'd just work for a year at $2M and *then* quit and go home. For Tauzin, I bet big pharma wanted some results for that two million.
But what about the other legislators who respond to the lobbyists? There must be something about a lobbyist that gets them to legislate in their favor. Free, wild parties in New Orleans?
It's a little like illegal drugs. We're trying to stop the drug cartels, but there are a lot of users in the U.S. Somehow, congress incorporates lobbyists into its day-to-day activities, which, we don't know what they are, maybe just listening to lobbyists and confirming a trump supporter, whose daughter wears braces, onto the Supreme Court bench,
Removing lobbying from our politics would be one great thing that we could do for our democracy. I'm not holding my breath. With compensation like $2M, congress isn't going to adopt ethical measures overnight. What a Superfund site.
1
TERM. LIMITS.
2
@Embroiderista
All term limits do is express people’s frustrations with politicians they can’t vote on. When offered the opportunity to actually exercise term limits; ie. vote out their own incumbents; people consistently retain those same incumbents. Besides, term limits would merely amplify the revolving door. Imagine: politician Jack Popular can only serve 9 terms in the House of Representatives. He loses his bid to move up to be Senator. Will he go home, join a law practice and be a pillar of his community? Or will he join Weapon Systems R Us; and spend his time hobnobbing with his former colleagues, getting lucrative contracts and tax breaks for his new employer while making a huge salary as well? You know all those term limited pols will choose option number two. Term limits are a solution that looks good as a slogan, but doesn’t solve the problem at all.
How about "Pump out the septic tank"?
1
Bravo Gail! You've nailed one of the most important issues of our time. Are we truly a Democracy or merely an Oligarchy similar to Russia? Currently I'd say the later. Your suggestion for a possible remedy is a good one. As a Wisconsin resident I can't wait to see where Paul Ryan lands as he is clearly feathering his nest for the future given his complacency. Sadly with Ryan as well I'm choosing option C.
1
"Wow, you know I believe every single one of you picked C. Your cynicism is remarkable."
I'd call it realism, but okay. Good for a (another) laugh.
2
How about instead of a swamp, which is a naturally concurring and useful phenomenon, we Call trump’s administration a cesspool. You can tell a cesspool by the smell and his administration stinks to high heaven.
2
Certain fast food chains make their employees sign non-compete clauses, which is the absolute dumbest thing out there, but I guess these former ‘civil servants’ gotta make a living after their service to our country is over. Thank you, Gail, for pointing out the worst of these people in the best way.....
1
Prohibiting ex-officials from lobbying is silly. As the quoted professor states, there are easy ways of getting around any such ban. The ex-official will become a "strategic advisor" instead of a lobbyist.
Instead, we should have a 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. If a person made $200,000 as a Senator and then retires and becomes a lobbyist for $2,000,000, he or she owes 50% of the extra $1,800,000 back to the government. (First proposed by law prof Glenn Reynolds)
179
@Vanessa That's an excellent idea...though no doubt the ex-rep/lobbyists would find a way to get paid that was not taxable. Still, we can TRY!
3
@Vanessa.
The only problem with a 50% surtax is that most powerful corporations are flush with cash. They can simply raise the payoffs, I mean pay, to whatever level necessary to buy loyalty and ensure a payback for their outlay.
Not that it would help much, but I would add an annual public reporting requirement for all work activities and eliminate any corporate tax deduction for such payments related to lobbying or consulting, including through third party intermediaries.
1
@Vanessa It is not just elected politicians but also members of the
bureaucracy who rotate through Wall Street and K Street who should be targeted.
1
Non Compete Clauses are used in industries from fast food giants while their employees are paid minimum wage, construction and white collar employment.
Elected officials take an oath to act in the best interests of their constituents. Congress has evolved into an opportunity towards a more lucrative future and their voting records mirror those interests.
Eliminating Non Complete Clauses, which would be in the best interest of their constituents seeking to advance their careers or higher paying wages, is non existent. It is logical and just for elected officials to be barred from consulting or lobbying on State and Federal levels. Their focus while in office should be legislation, not seeking funds for future campaigns which leads to distorting judgement and corruption.
The majority of us live in double standard society. Class action lawsuits which protected, represented those who can not afford legal representation individually are now blocked. The systematic destruction of labor rights, Justice, healthcare, the desire to privatize Social Security, Medicare, education and the fact prisons can be for profit entities are some examples that exemplify the majority of us live under the dominance of the minority.
Presently this Administration has filled the Cabinet with lobbyists in industries that have actively fought, sued those organizations. That too should be barred. It has proven to be corrupt, insane and created damage that will take years to repair.
109
@
"Eliminating Non Complete Clauses, which would be in the best interest of their constituents seeking to advance their careers or higher paying wages, is non existent." Not true. They are unenforceable in California and other states severely restrict their use.
1
All political spending must be made transparent. All organizations, including corporations, other businesses and individuals should be required to report money donated to candidates and pacs. Advertising should be clearly labeled with sponsors' names. If the sponsor is an organization, its membership should be recorded and publicly available. Organizations like those in the Koch dark money network must be exposed to sunlight and laws passed requiring that membership in ALEC and similar entities be made public and easily accessible.
That's the best we can expect as long as we have this Supreme Court. Strangely (or not), I haven't heard any such proposals coming from either side of the aisle.
So disappointed that Meghan didn't get her dad's job.
1
Represent Us is an organisation that is fighting this battle state by state because, as previously mentioned, the federal foxes are just fine living in the hen house. RU seems to be having some success and could use your support. Check them out!
1
You have to believe that outgoing Sens. Corker and Flake want to vote against Kavanaugh, but don’t want to screw up their future job prospects in the Conservative Industrial Complex.
4
How about Clean the Midden?
Ok. Now I start this with the fact that I am in complete agreement that the system is flawed (understatement, I know), but how do you regulate the job someone can take when they end a job in public service? Do we want to go down a road where the government decides who gets what job? I know that those in elected positions are seen as different, but are they really? They have bills to pay, and may need to work after public life. Do we want someone else to decide where and how they do that? I don't think so. I do think, however, that getting a pension and lots of benefits for 2 or 6 years of work is not right. Maybe that is something to think about. Although getting Congress to take away their own benefits may be tricky...I think the only way to solve this problem is with the firms that hire them. If we the people demand that Congress pass a law they won't meet with or discuss policy or regulations with any former elected or appointed officials for say 10 years after their service ends, then nobody on K-street would hire these former office holders. They can be subject matter experts and give advice same as former Presidents do, but that is for an honorarium and re-imbursement of travel expenses only if necessary. Cut off the demand for them, and there will be less lobbying all together.
Since he announced his retirement from the House, I've been waiting to hear where Alter Boy Ryan will be hanging his hat, and no doubt commencing his personal payoff part of the “legal” bribery Congressional quid pro quo, with a very well connected lobby shop or financial behemoth. Bought and paid for, bought and paid for.
1
So, businesses or industries think it's worth upwards of $2M/year for a former congressperson to lobby sitting congresspeople on their behalf. I am more outraged that, apparently, lobbying has at least $2M/year worth of effect than that an industry is willing to pay. I want more investigation into why lobbying is that effective. Shouldn't congress be listening to constituents vs. lobbyists?
2
Congressmen, like all people, are more likely to listen to someone they trust. A former Senator not only has established relationships with current Senators, he can also speak from a position of authority on the intricacies of the job.
1
I'd vote for drain the sewer...that way the rats won't have anyplace to hide.
1
Gail, yes, personal accountability SHOULD be an across-the-aisle mandate upon elected officials leaving office. After all, doesn't each receive a lifetime salary for 'time served'?
However, your off-the-table liberal ideology ALSO serves as a boil on the (D)s in politics, too.
You know back in the 50's 60's and 70's when the graduated income tax topped out at 90%, there was not the incentive to grab those million dollar salaries, and the wealth of the nation was the most fairly distributed in our history. All's I'm saying is 90% at the top, appears to be a good thing.
2
Gail, the title was taken from Come Back, Little Sheba, or something similar? I can't decide which is more hilarious, the funeral home or the unlarge adjective. I just want to be you when I grow up.
1
I wish some enterprising journalist would take, say, the last 5-10 years, and find out where every person who left federal elected office went after leaving. What has been their impact after leaving? This would be a separate story, but I'd also like to know what stocks elected representatives have and if they work on legislation that would affect those holdings. I'll bet the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Elizabeth Warren has some great ideas for how to disinfect it.
They almost all keep their holdings in blind trusts or at least large mutual funds so that they don’t know which stocks they own. Anyone in government who acts otherwise (like say, our president) is walking knowingly into a host of ethical violations.
1
Thanks for another great column Gail. I kind of like the idea, from Dave Eggers' The Circle, of making politicians 'go clear' - record every single interaction they have while in office, at least with anyone who has business before them.
If we had the tapes on Kyl, no doubt he'd be dressed in orange.
"Unlarge." You do have a way with the alphabet, Gail.
So, it's against the law to forbid a former congressindividual from becoming a lobbyist. But it is not against the law to amend the constitution or even one of the amendments to it (see #'s XVIII and XXI) when reason and common sense deem it wise to do so. Of course, reason and common sense should have triggered the application of #XXV some 19 months ago, but there is a general dearth of both qualities in the hallowed (hollowed?) halls of Congress these days.
#XXVIII could explicitly allow retired or suddenly unemployed congresspersons to step immediately into the neck-deep if still-crowded cesspool of lobbyism. But if the amendment also stated that the pay for such work(?) could not exceed the federal minimum wage (and with no tipping allowed) then the result would be either a much reduced attraction to such work or an incredible rush of applicants for jobs at the nearest fast-food emporia. At the very least, it would make our current congresscrooks suddenly sympathetic to plight of the poorly paid.
1
First there was the age of Aquarius
Now , we have the age of nefarious
1
Ah, money, the elixir of successful election.
I get e-mail requests about elections: so and so needs X amount of dollars--they are out classed by Y's campaign chest by two million. We can close the gap if we get one million by Friday. If not, all is lost.
Anybody see anything amiss about those e-mails?
What, in good heaven's name, happened o the people's vote?
Asking incumbent congressmen to fix a sordid campaign finance system is akin to asking Trump to tell the truth.
Of course four men--plus a dearly departed--had a bit to do with this unholy mess. Dressed in black robes, the five Supremes, huddled in their hallowed chamber, and harmonized to their hit ballad, 'Citizen's United', while the Koch Brothers danced gleefully to their music.
We have a system of elections controlled by money, and it will not be rectified unless 'Citizen's United' is overturned -- and that is just the first step on the long road to honest, representative governance.
"We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union" are really getting weary and a little worn out. I am not sure that in our history even writers like Ben Franklin and Gail Collins can bring enough humor to our society to enable us to get through the worst period this country has ever endured, with any sense of humor left. If only the Founders had given us a warning that this more perfect Union was going to take an incredible amount of work and sacrifice to achieve. The Founders were able to envision a Declaration of Independence, agree on the Revolution to follow, then write a Constitution that balances 3 equal parts of government to keep any rascals in check. If only they could have put in the Constitution relative to the Presidency and the Legislature one more requirement besides the age and citizenship factor, namely, only honorable men and women need apply. After all, wasn't there a guy in history named Judas who betrayed a guy named Jesus for 30 lousy pieces of silver. Is money such a god now that it tears at every politician's soul.
This is really ridiculous when you think about it - that our government en masse seemingly is at an auction, likely held at Christie's or Sotheby's or other well known auction houses. and is being sold to the highest bidders. Surely, surely we as a people can do and must do something to clarify our government's responsibilities even if it is 229 years after the fact.
1
It's expensive to live in the Washington DC area. So is moving back home to Arizona or wherever. The only rational choice for a retiring Senator is to become a lobbyist. Bob Dole is still doing it. Big Business deserves Big Lobbyists. It's the American way. Guaranteed by the Constitution -- as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Quite a snarky piece. The liberal NYT & the left do themselves a disservice by criticizing an attempt by a retired civil servant to make a good living in the private sector. It’s ‘un-american’ to begrudge a person for working hard and making money. We are not all socialists, though you seem to be. Honestly yours, A Dem
How about "Muck out the stable" for a new metaphor? If lobbying is a First Amendment protected activity, then there is no hope. Term limits for senators might make them less attractive as lobbyists.
An empty suit takes the empty seat.
All business as normal in this ghastly time.
3
Unfortunately, public office has long been a springboard and self-serving launchpad for greedy, opportunistic scoundrels, that ultimately generates an endless supply of candidates for what in essence has become a perpetual and unethical job fair for the scurrilous underbelly of those corporate giants and entities various sections of our government are designed to keep in check. The congo line of despicable characters who find themselves tripping over one another after leaving office in order to take advantage of irrefutable and disturbing, direct conflicts of interests, is deeply troubling. However, the practice has become generally acceptable and viewed as a sort of fringe benefit or reward for having put time in with the government.
44
ok gail, when you're done at the times are you going to just spend more time with your family and walk away from years of contacts and experiences?
you have the same kind of power as many of our elected officials. what do you say?
@pierre
That's a totally false equivalence. Gail isn't directly creating laws that govern the various industries. It would only be a reasonable criticism if she (or any journalist) were to be using her public platform to advocate and shill for industry, and then she went to work later directly writing promotional articles.
Congresspeople could very well use their connections to enter any field that isn't directly lobbying their previous colleagues.
1
Billy Tauzin has always been my favorite. From holding an unprecedented two hour House vote starting at 2 AM to drag his bill across the finish line, to the dozens of staffers and others he helped find gainful employment throughout the pharmaceutical industry after passing the Big Pharma support bill, he sets a very high bar for all swamp dwellers.
In a city that features monuments to heroes we should name the swamp after him.
Oh, I noticed that by 2010 his compensation had increased over five fold to eight figures.
Okay, I get it that lobbying is protected speech.
But we the people don't have to pay for it -- what would happen if lobbying was not a tax-deductible expense for a corporation ??
Just a thought.
(similar to my thought that advertising expenses more than 2%? 3%? of sales should not be tax-deductible either)
133
@joanna I like this one. Lets get rid of tax deductions for lobbying AND for donations to religious organizations AND for advertising. We can't stop them from these activities but we can tax them.
Change the Constitution to:
1. Include mandatory term limits - 2 terms for senators, 4 terms for Congresspeople, and you're done. Thank you for your service.
2. Prohibit lobbying by retired representatives or their immediate families for a period matching the time they were in office.
3. Prohibit any representative of the people, or their families, from taking anything from any outside interest that is not equally available to every one of his or her constituents. Better roads/schools/air? Yes. "Campaign contributions" or fundraisers or trips abroad? Nope. Punishable as a felony, removal from office and permanent bar from any public office.
4. Require that all parties seeking to exercise their First Amendment right to weigh in on any election publish the names, locations and amounts contributed of every single donor, every single time. No exceptions.
We The People have the right to be represented by people who do not have huge incentives to sell us out. The current crop of such people have forgotten what that even looks like, almost to a one. They spend their time raising money and schmoozing with lobbyists, leaving the actual work of governing to their staffs.
Time for a reminder of who is boss and what the job they ask to do really is.
120
@Shar Well done! I hope you're running for office.
@Ray Zielinski There's another I'd add as well:
5. All voting districts must be drawn by randomly-selected juries of citizens living in the districts under the oversight of a judicial panel. No professional politicians may serve on such juries.
Of course, no politician would ever vote in favor o any of these proposals, which is why it would require a grassroots constitutional convention. Unfortunately, we don't have a mechanism for that.
Well, in case you’re interested, the Koch brothers et. al. are quietly gathering the support of States for a new constitutional convention. But I don’t think the constitution they have in mind includes any of your points.
All well and good. But it is the collective “we” that created and perpetuates our current situation. Maybe if we could get the percentage of voters who actually vote to above 70 percent, we would make progress in governance.
If someone or some entity would pay me to give advice in my area of relative expertise I would take it. But that knowledge is boring and difficult for mankind: Do not smoke. Do not drink alcohol. Do not overeat. Exercise everyday. Get colon screening over age 40, and breast screening if female.
I could enumerate dozens of derivatives to add granularity. For now, I will only add: read Gail Collins every chance you get. And please vote. Every election.
1
Draning the swamp, with its accompanying loss of wetlands, contributed to the severity of Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans. Not a good metaphor for improving a situation. I realize it betrays my rural upbringing, but my recommended replacement phrase would be "pumping out the septic tank."
1
I believe that there is no way that our Senators from Virginia, Warner or Kaine would seek employment in the lobbying sector. The very word lobbyist has a certain sleaze to it. Elect honest people with a history of good works and the Senate would function quite differently.
4
I think both houses of congress should be filled by lottery from all citizens of good health between the ages of 25 (when the reasoning power of the brain is fully developed) and 65 (when new ideas seem to be much harder to accept).
Rules for this would :
1. term lengths and replacement cycles would remain the same but term limits would be 3 for congress and 2 for the senate.
2. Selection districts would be like current districts , changed as population does BUT no gerrymandering allowed
3. All lobbying would be limited to a period of 4 weeks after each replacement cycle.
4. military remains exempt while on active duty.
@seeing with open eyes
Guessing you slightlyolder than 25 yet younger, much younger, than 65.
With the possible exception of Harry Truman (https://nyti.ms/2kqUf0O), those who hold public office profit from it sooner or later.
Of course, it is quite one thing to write a book or give speeches and quite another to lobby for unsavory causes. Sen. Warren has the right idea, but to use your term, Gail, the number of Harry Truman types who'd support Sen. Warren's proposal of a lifetime ban on lobbying is unlarge.
@RK Please put President Carter on the list. Thank you.
There needs to be a public service amendment that more or less spells out what is acceptable after someone leaves office, as per some of Gail's suggestions. It would create, dare I say, a more perfect union. I'm not holding my breath.
Gail, I offer the toxic political environment in our nation's capital can be compared to the bottom of a cess pool.
Second, when I was employed by the federal government and had a role in procurement I was required to submit financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements annually.
When I left federal employment I was restricted from using the "revolving door" for a period of time due to my interaction with contractors and procurement.
But, as usual, those who make the rules are not bound by the rules in our federal lawmaking authorities (except for Jason Chaffetz who is making a name for himself on Fox "News" as a comedian).
But, with the fine administration of Trump, Inc., anything goes-corruption to insider trading-both of which are badges of honor and Trump will defend any Congress-critter who may be caught for either transgression and insure the prosecutor is the bad person in any court case.
Yup, I would be refreshing if these people, people who we entrust to be above board in their dealings, would just fade into the real world rather than slither like snakes or scurry like rats to the organizations that called their shots for years.
I took Pat's quiz and immediately picked "C," but then I read her tongue-in-cheek "Wow, you know I believe every single one of you picked C. Your cynicism is remarkable." As Pat is a humor columnist, I thought she was pulling my leg by inserting a clickable link to "you picked C" and that maybe Kyl is a rare altruist of the Senate, but ... no. "C" turns out to be correct after all! A sad shame, indeed. Maybe someday Congress will pass Sen. Warren's suggested legislation preventing lobbying by Congressmen postretirement.... Right.
1
@Homesick Yankee
Who is Pat?
I was hoping that answers a and b were correct which would be another wonderful tribute to Sen. McCain. Then I clicked the link....
Excellent as usual, Gail- Thanks.
I vote for "drain the sludge pond". Accurate, poetic and fits the participant's toxic image.
But I take exception at your ' “Promise us that when you’re done serving, you’ll come home.” Make them put it on their website. ' suggestion.
We're talking about politicians and already adept at ignoring previous promises and walking away from their statements the way a puppy walks away from the shredded slipper he just enjoyed. Unless you have a signed document by them with a real and known "result if voided", these slippery "sludge pond dwellers" (see, it fits well!) will just skate or slither from their words.
How about a recourse with teeth? If caught backtracking on their promise, the "Dweller" can be assured of spending a month submerged to the shoulders in some actual sludge? I'd suggest a 30 day stay at the "Defoliating Hotel" might encourage a few to think twice on their long term plans, or maybe they'll become brilliant inventors.
1
Thank you Gail for bringing attention to this issue. Please keep it up! The stories are funny in a dog-on-the-roof way, and one would think that they might make good campaign material if opponents could figure out how to use them effectively.
2
Dear Gail, please don't ever stop writing your columns. Regards....a faithful reader.
3
You're right about the swamp being unfair to swamps.The cesspool seems more appropriate.
2
As long as we’re being unrealistic, we ought to do it in a manner consistent with life in the digital age.
Forget trying to force retired or defeated senators to forego the revolving-door goodies of becoming a lobbyist.
Simply require that all of their lobbying efforts on their former colleagues or on heads of agencies or cabinet departments be recorded on tape.
The tapes, of course, would be accessible to the public and press on websites of the lobbyists and of those being lobbied
Availability on You Tube would also be a good idea.
73
@sdw -- Lobbyists are like cockroaches. They don't do well in the light of day.
The best cure is sunlight. Expose them. Make it a regular beat for a good reporter.
1
Rotten to the core
Keep coming back for more
Their incomes start to soar
Their country's on the floor
No one's keeping score
Long for days of yore
1
Rather than "drain the swamp", I suggest "drain the pus from the infected wound", which better describes our money-corrupted politics.
1
Funny stuff. A swamp could be a vernal pool, full of what we call “peepers” up here, or just a teaspoon of foul water with a small family of mosquitoes living in it. All of these things are protected, by the way. A swamp full of corrupt politicians should not be protected.
The answer is TERM LIMITS.
And although it's off-topic, I suggest a term limit for the present president. One year, 229 days seems about right.
3
Good luck getting this pile of Judases to push away from there silver in front of them.
Noticeably absent - any mention of lobbying, rent seeking, favor collecting, and outright greed from anyone other than a republican.
There is a reason why MA rep Barney Frank sits on the board of a New York bank. Hint: It’s got everything to do with his role with the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
You also could have mentioned something about family foundations, $700,000 honoraria for speeches to investment banks, books, entertainment development deals (for you and your unelected wife) consulting gigs and other ways Democrats and Republicans enrich themselves post-office.
Lots of people go into government poor. No one emerges poor.
LBJ died in January 1973 with an estate estimated at $17 million. That’s about $98,000,000 in 2018 dollars. The most he ever made as a salary was $100,000.
To illustrate how pervasive the lobbyist relationships are in congress, in 2017 when Steve Scalise was shot at the 108th annual democrats vs republicans congressional baseball game, also wounded was a player who was not a member of congress. He was a lobbyist from Tyson Foods. Congress couldn’t get deeper into bed with lobbyists if they tried.
Term limits might be a good start. You spend 20-30 years with lobbyists it’s probably pretty easy to get recruited.
5
"(Readers have pointed out that the swamp metaphor needs revision, since swamps actually improve water qualityand prevent flooding and erosion.)" Typical of Trump and Trumpets' environment illiteracy since they have no concept nor care how the natural environment works.
1
The congressional revolving door is just one part of the "Take the Money and Run" system that has developed in our country. Twenty plus trillion dollar national debt means nothing to those that are greedy enough to take advantage of this system and milk it for all they are worth for themselves and their family.
Is it any wonder that politicians are so universally disliked? If someone wanted to write an expose book, on government malfeasance, tracking the finances of congresspeople from entry to exit would be a good place to start.
Lobbying is NOT a first amendment protected activity. Telling a congressperson you like a company is, but getting PAID by that company to do it is not.
1
What is a poor country boy to do?
Too old and tired to work 5-6 month's per year doing the bidding of his sponsors, not to mention all of the time spent in begging those sponsors for campaign funding.
A break is needed, indeed earned. If a guy can't make a fortune selling his constituents down the river, is life truly worth living?
1
Gail - please drop the "platter" meme - you are better than that
Why it's enough to make some people cynical, even to make some people justify not voting. Public servant indeed!
Sen. Kyl is actually a pretty good choice for the Arizona Senate seat. Having retired once, he probably will not run for Senate again in 2020. Meanwhile, Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, has a pretty good shot at being chosen by the voters to the seat vacated by Jeff Flake. Given the shifting political winds, the Democrats might have a chance to get Sen. McCain's seat in the 2020 race.
Congress is a pack of wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
John Kyl was a lobbyist *before* he first ran for public office (the House) in 1987, at the Arizona firm Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. If he's not careful he'll wind up like Buddy in the movie "Elf," who delightedly went round and round in a revolving door and then passed out on the sidewalk from vertigo.
But you and Senator Warren need to understand that Congresspersons’ families don’t necessarily want them to spend more time with them. They like not having to listen to his/her nightly dinner table filibuster, constantly interrupting and giving advise when they don’t understand the problem and never listening to other members. What’s more they don’t flush the toilet, they rush off to the Brooks Brothers fitting room when the lawn needs mowing, don’t fill the gas tank or take out the garbage, they lose the tv remote, and take away the kids’ allowance. It’s the family lobbying for their congressperson to stay in DC as a lobbyist and stop mucking things up at home.
2
If voters cared about conflicts of interests they would vote accordingly, but most dream of doing the exact the same thing.
It's the American way: genuflect to the ideals of integrity, salute the flag, and lecture to the kids, then scam whoever you want.
Instead of barring members of Congress from serving as lobbyists, we should set up a robust and generous pension plan and health care benefits for themselves and their families. That way, they can enjoy the same level of care and security available to all Americans.
@T. Rivers Hilarious
I am going to recommend drain the cesspool. Maybe we could direct some of that super fund money for toxic sites to the cause.
1
I imagine, Gail, you like to look in the mirror and say the same things over and over. How may times has this article been written in, say, the last 50 years? Does the phrase 'exercise in futility' mean anything to you? What happens in politics is no different than what happened in the Catholic church. Put the offenders right where no one would suspect a thing: in the pulpit. Or on a committee that oversees the area they receive money from. All their colleagues have the same answer: "We had no idea." Priests get defrocked. Politicians decide "not to run again". But we couldn't possibly put them in jail. What they did was not to that level. Priests are "put out to pasture" . Politicians find a job with their corporate sponsors. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
1
Great closing line.
No Senator would ever meet Collins' standards unless he/she/zhe/we was committed to abortion-on-demand through birth, obliterating sexual difference, taxing people for being successful, removing Donald Trump from office, and letting Arizona be the 32nd de facto state of Mexico.
Practically every political campaign is a "bait & switch" scheme anyway, so let's not call a crook a liar. And speaking of bait, no it's not a swamp, it's a sewer. This is a distinction, not a difference.
1
I’m trying to envision Trump taking a job as a lobbyist after he’s been escorted out of the Oval Office, but I can’t think of any company that’s actively seeking bankruptcy. Too bad it’s not still 2001; Trump would have been a perfect lobbyist for Enron.
It would be worth it to increase the salary of Congressmen while at the same time enforcing term limits of, say, two terms maximum. Having lived in Arizona in the past, I barely recall what John McCain, albeit a war hero, tangibly produced for the citizens of Arizona. He did support the military, so I assume, because of him, the military bases were protected as well as military contracting jobs. Although, other than his no vote on the GOP plan to repeal the ACA, and his noble legislation, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). there wasn't anything that Arizonans could hold up as an improvement to their lives. Some argue that McCain was on a mission to repair his image after the Keating Five debacle, although that may be a cynical take on an American hero's legacy. I'm sure John Kyl will do little for the people, and a lot for the GOP party, by voting lock stock and barrel in line with the party. Certainly he will never speak up against the Madman in Chief, as Jeff Flake and John McCain have done in the past. I'm disappointed that McCain approved John Kyl to replace him even for a short stint. Glad that journalists like Gail Collins are shining a light on the despicable practice of the revolving door of power from Congress to Lobbyist and back again, in Kyl's case. What a corrupt system that needs a true Maverick, or American hero, to clean up. It certainly will never happen under the abyss of Trump's presidency which is all about greed and nothing about the country.
2
Good comment on Billy Tauzin, Something to keep in mind... a few short years before he used his GOP chairmanship to make that deal with the Big Pharma devil he was a Democrat. He saw that the Gingrich "revolution" had changed the South and the Congress, and so he packed his bags, hitched a lift across the aisle, and accepted a gavel. BTW, Richard Shelby of Alabama also switched parties (1994)--continuing the response of southerners to the Southern Strategy.
1
I think we should put them all on a very large farm, where they could shovel manure all day. It would remind them of the good old days.
5
“Secondly, it’s unconstitutional. Lobbying is clearly a First Amendment protected activity.” I guess Professor LaPira doesn't accept constraints on lobbying, including ethical restraints that benefit the people. Doesn't the constitution say something about the public welfare?
1
My vote for the substitute to 'drain the swamp':
'Vacuum the Septic Tank'.
1
Self dealing and self-serving politicians will only be curbed by laws. You see, regulations actually work. They mostly don’t stifle innovation (we’re the most innovative country on earth) or harm us financially (we’re the richest) despite Republican protestations. So, limit their greed by passing appropriate regulations. Liz Warren may be sanctimonious, but she is also correct.
4
Swamps?
No, the "drain the swamp" jingle came straight out of the campaign to send "the creature from the black lagoon" to Washington.
Let's try another metaphor.
How about our ordinary waste treatment systems?
Why, after years of structural improvements everywhere, do we still operate a leaky old septic tank in Washington?
The problem...how to effectively dispose of a vast amount of human wastes?
Our system in Washington allows for the accumulation of large amounts of fecal sludge. It develops faster than the rate of decomposition, and never gets stripped out.
O.K., enough of this...
But clearly, this metaphor points to a pressing need for restrictions on lobbying and strict term limits legislation.
Don't let the fecal sludge accumulate.
If you do, the whole system fails.
And the result- horribly polluted political groundwater.
2
Oh! Ms Collins, your lack of empathy is shocking! If there were no revolving door where else could that group of individuals, fired up with self-importance and hungry for personal gain and attention find appropriately gainful employment? Lobbying seems to be one of the major flaws in our current system and I can't think of a more appropriately flawed group to occupy that niche.
3
All lobbying should be outlawed, not just lobbying by former Senators and House members. Combine that with term limits, campaign finance reform, redrawing gerrymandered districts, mandatory voting, abolition of the Electoral College and revocation of Citizens United, then maybe we'll have a democracy again.
4
Couldn't you force representatives to sign something like a non-compete clause? An agreement where they are not allowed to receive material wealth from any of the industries they helped legislate in Congress. No agreement, no seat. Maybe put a 20 year limitation on their financial involvement including investments. I'll bet that'll turn some heads.
It's not like they can claim financial hardship. Senators already receive full retirement from the federal government after serving only one term. Technically not even a full term. Five years to be precise. That's a pretty sweet gig if you think about it. If they served in other legislative positions on their way to the Senate, the benefits multiply. In short, these politicians are never going to be hard up for cash unless they start investing like Paul Manafort. Why should the public tolerate outside financial interests? There has to be a means to stop the financial compensation if not the speech.
1
It's not just the congressmen/women themselves...it's also their wives, husbands and children who should be regulated vis a vis lobbying positions. Then there are the loopholes that allow Senators to consult at law firms as soon as they retire since this isn't legally lobbying.
And we would be better off if the financial wealth of our representatives was transparent and public instead of general estimates.
On the other side of the ledger we should note that keeping up two residences (one in D.C.and one in a home state) is costly...there isn't much job security in elected office and Senators especially are paid peanuts when compared to the CEO's of the companies that they regulate.
In the end its about money...dark money used to run and win office...and money to pay the bills (and then some).
1
Gail and Senator Warren are basically asking that politicians forego serving as lobbyists and getting rich doing it. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. As near as I can tell, money totally drives the American political system.
1
I've long admired Gail's drier than the driest martini wit as well as her unique ability to perfectly express it in describing the moods of the moment. And while the essence of today's piece is just another example of that quality, it also reflects a zeitgeist that's palpably shifted into a more serious version of ... gallows humor.
Cheers to her for pulling that off!
1
The system works fine. Senators retire to become wealthy lobbyists, giving them their first chance to craft legislation, a good use of the experience they gained in the Senate where fundraising kept them from using their time to write bills and stuff like that.
The legislation lovingly authored by the newly minted lobbyist is laid on the desk of sitting senators who can glance up from their 18-hour-a-day telephone begathon, say a quick thanks, and have an aide run the bill to the floor of the Senate.
A tiny number of billionaire oilmen and discount store owners and tech giants fund the whole operation so there's no hitch in the proceedings.
What could possibly go wrong with a well functioning system like ours? Even Trump mainly stays out of its way. Why should ordinary citizens bother?
We're too busy burning our Nikes because the company said free speech is a good thing.
1
Gail, while you're mentioning that craven toad Tauzin, let's not forget Joe Lieberman who killed the public option. As Senator from Connecticut, he was the chief stooge of the health insurance industry and doomed millions to a life of high rates and low coverage for a few hundred thousand in campaign contributions. Is it any surprise that the one-time Democrat, became a commentator for Fox News? What a mensch Joe!
We usually associate the GOP with these shenanigans but the Democratic leadership is no less complicit. After all, the only reason Schumer and Pelosi occupy their positions of power is because they are the bagmen for East and West coast corporate dollars. Schumer fought for years to retain the carried interest loophole, of value only to hedge fund managers, the people whom he really serves. As a side note, his daughter now serves as executive director for the proposed Brooklyn-Queens streetcar. According to a recent Times article, it has been determined by the (developer-led) proponents that Federal funds will now be required to build it, not just taxes on increased property values, as was initially proposed. "Get me Daddy! Now!"
It should be obvious that the Politicians are going to do nothing that reduces their power and wealth. That is why it is up to the American people to demand that it happen.
We need to cut off their money supply, by constitutional amendment if necessary. If Citizens United is really constitutional then our constitution is flawed because we can not have real democracy when our politicians are bought and sold like stocks.
3
Pretty mean-spirited of you Ms Collins to chide a septuagenarian for feathering his retirement nest.
After 23 year in the U.S. Congress his piddling retirement is probably around $200K/year. Can't expect a fellow to get by on that.
Wonder if he will get a pension boost after filling the remainder of McCain's term?
1
Someone once pointed out that money is the root of all evil. Seems about right.
1
I'm not a senator or congressman. I'm nobody, but before we kill off lobbying could you let me have that $2 mil job? Even just for a year would be ok.
3
@Timbuk me too, or me three (with Helmut Kohl)
Gail, you know Connecticut. Joe Lieberman was a lobbyist for the insurance industry while they were trying to write and pass the Affordable Care Act. The commonweal is in dire need of campaign finance reform.
5
Does government by a covert committee of insiders trying to thwart a guy who was (sort of) elected president from actually governing because he's so bad at it even qualify as a democracy?
4
If I could earn $350,000 a year for teaching one class a year, as Prof. Warren does, so as to support her 1% multimillionaire lifestyle in Cambridge, well, ok. I won’t become an “inventor” after all.
1
Ms Collins,
Excellent column.
I am one who has frequently pointed out the importance of swamps in their ecological services. I offered cesspool or cess pit as alternatives. Of course, they also provide environmental services and need extensive leach fields to be effective. In any case, Superfund Site, seems about right. perhaps toxicity due to mismanagement by human agency.
2
At the memorial Joe Leiberman himself said that when he told John McCain he wasn't going to run for re election, Johnny apparently told Joey to make money in the private sector so he could buy a house in Jerusalem! Religion before country.
And that Lindsay Graham, he is not a patriot for sure. John definitely knew what he was up to, inflating Trump to the media and putting party first in the congress. Sorry John, of the three stooges, you were the only one who was the true maverick independent soul.
1
The solution is simple: term limits on all elected offices with strict lobbyist and PAC reform. Applied together, we would have a completely different situation today. In the meantime, don't vote for anyone holding an elected seat for more than two terms! Only we have the power to change things. Make it happen people!
Nice story. As usual however, this author only bashes conservatives. Where was Senator Chris Dodd who after leaving the Senate became head of the Motion Picture Association....or 50 others.
Wow!! The Motion Picture Assoc. , a reeeaally dangerous industry group. Oooooooo.
@Rowdy Did Chris Dodd just replace someone in Congress? Because that's what the article is about.
I have always been a fan of melding Congressmen (and women) with NASCAR drivers. I think it should be a requirement that our representatives sew the patches of their top "sponsors" on their suits. Instead of STP and Castroil we would have General Dynamics and Koch Industries.
Let us see who is buying whom at the front end, first.
As others have pointed out, closing a revolving door is virtually impossible. In most hotels I have visited, there are standard door just to the side of the revolving door and large service entrances and freight elevators in the back.
3
The right denomination for the Washington swamp should be Washington's septic tank!
I care much more about the person getting lobbied than the PAC-fueled-special-interest lobbyist.
Lobbying firms play the long game. They provide campaign contributions to put or keep their legislative minion in office. PAC money is the means to winning the game. In office, the minion tucks the little surprise into a bill that pops out after passage. Only then do the taxpayers find out how they got stuck with the bill.
Let’s take the money out of the political ecosystem. Limit contributions to primary election candidates to $50. Publicly finance general elections and restrict paid political ads to within 30 days of the big day.
We will all be able to enjoy our time at red lights without political signs cluttering our views of the weeds. We can all enjoy TV without politics interfering with watching uplifting ads for drugs. We will return to the perverse pleasure counting the number of harmful side effects.
Lobbyists should not be able to use PAC money to swing elections. Break the chain of secret PAC indebtedness, and we will be set free.
When pigs take flight.
1
Why not just give them a lifetime salary as the President gets at close to their salary so they can stay away from lobbying for a few years. It’s easier to tell someone else not to use their skills when one knows they have a job and income waiting. Maybe there will be fewer incumbents and hence less resistance to relieve gerrymandering.
1
@Wayne
Two reactions: 1) What skills? They're using their contacts, the perception of influence. 2) They don't want salaries, they want riches. Earning a mere $174,000/year (or something like that) in Congress is just the price to be in a position where they can sell the influence they may have gained from their "public service."
My take away from all of this? Ms Collins gets to the core of the "sludge pool" problem. What she is saying,, essentially, is We the People continually hire peopled to elected office who have no job skills other than those involved in the political "arts." I guess this shouldn't come as any surprise given that it is a job we solicit for every few years; people who can govern and lead us. They have few other job skills, and so the ones they do have are a rarefied set aren't they?
In and of itself there's nothing wrong in this. We are a social species; one which loves to live in complex groups. The job (of Politician) is necessary to give our groups structure and keep us all from going bat"ahem" crazy between ourselves. Therefore we need those folks, job candidates really, with strong political skills to do that job.
But why is it most of the folks we hire turn out to be so remarkably self-centered and adept at managing their self-interest above the needs of those who employ them? Most seem to have checked their ethics at the (revolving) door don't they?
Perhaps a legitimate case is being made here for term limits (and no repeats thru that door)? Theirs is a job where "one and done" might be the best rule? At least for the employer than for the employee?
John~
American Net'Zen
29
Am reminded of old Provencal saying, "l'argen n'a pas de quoe e gillo eissadamen," or "Money has no tail: it slides easily!" Observed that anytime Ms. Collins criticizes politicians, they always seem to come only from 1 party, the G.0.P. For example, DWS's sell out to the sugar lobby is an open secret, "secret de polichinelle," in Florida, but have yet to read any articles along these lines from Ms. Collins, or any re influence peddling engaged in by the Clintons which has made them billionaires!Try and find 1 ex senator or representative who will not use contacts he has made in the private sector while in office and who does not go to work as a lobbyist once he has retired.Recall 1 day in Senate Office Building while I was on assignment for LS, saw a man who looked like he could have played quarterback for Al Davis's Oakland Raiders. Turned out it was Hughes , Dem. senator from a midwestern state, opponent of VN war, soul of integrity. Found out later he had signed on as a lobbyist for the ethanol industry.As they say, money has no color: it's on the right as well as the left.A well written article, but lacks spirituality, wit, because author is so partisan in favor of Democrats. Not easy to be funny if you are so into proselytizing!
My revision of the swamp metaphor: Please, please, throw the baby out with the bath water. Too long? I also like Pull the Plug.
Thanks again, Ms. Collins, another great piece.
1
At the core of every Trump voter, is not a love of Donald Trump, but an antipathy for the country. Donald Trump is the symptom of their malady, the cause is apathy. Learned helplessness is saturating their souls. As the country speeds ever faster to the black hole of Greed, they simply don't care anymore what happens in Washington D.C.
1
Congresspeoples' ticket to ride is lobbying for the big moolah corporations after their stints of shining in the Senate and House are over with. Jon Kyl is an OK replacement for the moment for John McCain's late Senate seat. Gail, recycling Senators and Reps is great, but not when the goal is piles of dough for former legislators who have milked the goose with the golden eggs for their home states. Your column title, "Come Home, Little Senator", a take on the great play/movie of 1953 by William Inge, says it all. "Come Back, Little Sheba" -- it's good to deal with reality, it's good to be home.
Lobbying by anyone should be allowed. What should not be allowed is for people who were in government be paid for it. Retired Senators and Representatives must be allowed to lobby for anything they feel passionately about but it should be pro-bono, out of sense of duty, not as a means to get rich.
523
@serban Another idea would be to restrict what they could be paid. How about 20 times the minimum wage with no stock incentives allowed. If the big money weren't there, they wouldn't be either.
@serban
I wish there was a laugh button for your post! While I agree wholeheartedly, have you met our Congress? Duty? Where?
1
At least they should give up all their retirement perks if they are being paid by a non-government entity...
3
Ignorance and fear will never win, but they will never go away and men like Kyl will always turn a profit on both.
Regardles her party vote any woman on the ballot in November; she has to be better than the men who are presently in control.
Vote November 6, 2018
4
I'm sorry to report it's the same in Europe. Barroso, the former president of the European Commission (and former pro-Iraq-war Prime Minister of Portugal) went straight to a job with Goldman Sachs. And then we wonder why EU policy over the past few 'crisis' years favoured banks over countries.
2
Where is Flake? Where is Corker? Vote no Kavanaugh! Collins? Murkowski? And Sasse????
5
I would support a lifetime ban. It would be interesting to see which reptilian businesses would fund the law suit against it on constitutional grounds. Oops, the list would be too long. Stealing, whoa sorry, I mean transferring wealth from the public treasury through lobbying seems to be embedded in the businessman's DNA. So we have reached the endgame. The activity is so ubiquitous we can do nothing about it. My suggestion, let it go until the stomach of business and industry eats the rest of the body. When there is nothing left to consume it will move on to greener pastures or better yet die.
2
How about a rule that you can't go to work in the industry you regulated for 5 years? Or something along those lines?
4
Read This Town by Mark Leibovich
for the story of post office-holding
life and the inside scoop on politics.
In 2013,when the book was published,
Leibovich noted that 50% of Senators
became lobbyists after leaving office.
Guns for hire....
My DC friend who gave me
the book believes that if you
vote Democrat you get the labor lobby,
Republican you get the gun lobby.
Time to read Leibovich’s
new book on Trump.
5
TV stations should have to give blocks of time to qualified candidates as a condition of license.
8
Right on, Susan! Thanks for pointing out the hypocritical revolving door humorously, which is pretty hard to do! Please keep me sane through this incredibly depressing epoch ...
7
Senator Warren's views on post-government employment (or the revolving door) are, like most of her views, extreme. I don't see the constitutional problem, but I do believe that a lifetime ban on lobbying activities by former members of Congress is poor policy. We need to make governmental service (and, in particular, service in Congress) attractive enough to attract the best candidates and a lifetime ban on a natural career succession is hardly the way to do it.
@Joel
Many of us find Senator Warren's views to be quite normal; it seems the republicans always try to label her "extreme" lest their be a fair review of what she's proposing.
6
What's the problem here, Gail? As you can tell from the photo, Kyl is spending time with family: his grandson is holding the Bible.
8
Kyl is a Republican sycophant and if Ducey is defeated for governor in Arizona in November, guess who will be the new senator from Arizona until 2022? You guessed it, the defeated former governor of Arizona will appoint himself!
5
Lobbying is clearly a First Amendment activity.
Really?
It's clear that using your influence to get laws enacted that are beneficial to only a corporate segment of society then taking a payoff for it is a First Amendment activity.
I am beginning to think it's time to throw out the Constitution. I don't like most of it's "guarantees".
8
@mj
Lobbying is just fine; Lobbying for pay to shape our laws is not. Talk all you want; keep after your legislators, but you shouldn't get to take them to dinner on your firm's expense account, or lever campaign contributions to get what your company is being paid to secure.
Democrats have their own problems with revolving-door lobbying, too. But they are better than Republicans with social issues, as well as many other issues. And we only have viable choices between two parties every time an election comes around.
I am voting Democrat straight down the ballot. I hope you will as well. Then we can all work to straighten out the problems with lobbying and other issues such as campaign finance reform and term limits.
I consider myself an atheist, but it’s been said there are no atheists in foxholes. So … please, God, if anyone is out there listening … let Democrats at least take back the House in November. Just give us all a fighting chance. Fair enough?
32
When Congressman becomes a wealthy lobbyist, do we still pay his full six-figure pension? Talk about a government handout!!!
There's a lot that needs fixing in our political system. Let's start with term limits for Congress AND the Supreme Court.
38
What a disappointing choice to replace Senator McCain. McCain's daughter Meghan would have been better.
19
@Scientist: apparently you have to be 35 to be a Senator and Ms. McCain is only 33.
I suspect by 2020, she may well run for her father's old seat.
2
@Concerned Citizen I want to see her birth certificate!
Why is it OK for employers to require certain employees to sign NDAs with non-compete clauses to prevent them from jumping to a competitor company, but it's not OK to require Congresscritters to do essentially the same thing?
70
@NY Skeptic
An NDA is a non-disclosure agreement. What might work is a conflict of interest agreement, but, frankly, the members of congress who serve as lobbyist before and/or after serving in congress are really working for the same people each time...oh, and that's not you, rather the corporations that pay them (directly as lobbyists or indirectly in campaign contributions, or perhaps in various other ways?). So, in fact, there is no conflict of interest. It's all the in same interest, but not yours. Just theirs.
We’ve got revolving doors, oligarchs, campaigns, PACs, and SuperPACs. We’ve got campaign finance laws, securities (e.g. no insider trading) laws, and laws limiting lobbying among tax exempt NGOs. A ban on former politicians lobbying sounds great, but the expert saying loopholes will arrive is likely right. The private pledge idea sounds nice, but Trump has shown us disclosing tax returns and other norms are for suckers, to about a third of the US electorate. It’s a toxic mess.
In a twisted way, he is draining a swamp, he’s just not cleaning up the mess. Lots of swamps were popular dump sites. In the past folks dumped discreetly, drained if needed, buried the mess, profited, and build on top. He’s all over that - he’s a developer. But we are used to that old game so every week investigators find new drum cans and informants, letting us know what he meant by “drain the swamp.”
If we can regulate lawyers and bureaucrats, why can’t we regulate lobbyists and politicians? Free speech? What about reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions?
We require permits for marches, licenses for lawyers, background checks for officials, but we allow lobbyists and politicians to be some of the sleaziest people. Some of us elect judges, but rules mean they can fall by looking corrupt. As ACA repeal shows, politicians make life or death decisions with our money and in our names. There must be constitutional options. Why not license them like lawyers, check, and police them like judges?
3
Always nice to read your column, Gail!
4
But surely Paul Ryan is looking to go home to Wisconsin to spend time with his family. He would NEVER become a lobbyist. Right!
27
@Ed: in Ryan's case, I wonder if he is not instead looking for a POTUS or Senate run....after the whole Trump thing blows over.
How about a tax of 125% of the value of any remuneration for a period of twice the number of years served.
14
It takes real discernment to appoint such a swamp-like creature as Kyl. He'll fit in nicely with the current complicit Congress.
1
This is why It's a joke when American politician complains about government corruption elsewhere.
12
If placing reasonable controls on patently commercial speech (lobbying) for the better welfare of the public is unconstitutional, it's time to find better judges. We need judges who "find" in the First Amendment implied reasonable constraints against the conflicts of interest that arise when politicians leave office to lobby their old friends on the Hill and in the Executive branch.
Money is not by its very nature a form of speech that is Constitutionally protected from reasonable restraints under any rational reading of the Constitution. Why must we be bound as if by a suicide pact to live in a country forever ruled by and for Oligarchs? Because the Constitution demands it? Nonsense.
The Constitution is not sacred writ. We could easily choose to read it rationally instead of through an ideological lens. It could be interpreted in reasonable ways that protect voting rights and the sanctity of elections.
All it takes is one or two votes on the Supreme Court and the Constitution can mean X or it can mean the opposite of X. And the Court even today is already far to the right of most Americans on most issues. We deserve a court system that reflects the country it governs; not a court that genuflects to the monied interests that control the Republican party.
32
The men and women who agree to run for elected offices in the current political climate have to be motivated by something, Ms. Collins. Patriotism and a desire to serve one's fellow citizens is apparently not enough. If we taxpayers are going to continue to allow corporations to dangle big financial rewards in front of elected officials for simply lending their names to organizations, we cannot be surprised that many of them will eventually be tempted to cross ethical lines into actual criminal behaviour. How tempting it is to share "insider information".
The voters were not the ones horrified by the dollar amounts Reagan received for one or two speeches to foreign audiences at the end of his presidency; it was his fellow politicians. Those people who were outraged by the amount of money Sec. Clinton commanded after her retirement for private speeches were not voters, they were fellow politicians, some of them who could not comprehend any woman could be paid for the ideas she could share. These are the same people who fail to understand how President and Mrs. Obama can write books people are willing to buy when so many politicians must resort to giving their self-published books away to campaign donors.
How many politicians actually return "home" after leaving office? These days even serving politicians can't be persuaded to hold town meetings; they contact constituents by newsletters, with "invitation only" meetings or telephone conferences.
73
How remarkably generous of the American Automotive Policy Council, Anheuser-Busch, H&R Block, JW Aluminum and Wal-Mart Stores to lend out their most valued lobbyist to the Senate in its time of need and mourning. Aren’t you glad that there are so many public-service minded companies out there?
9
Dont take away their first amendment right of free speech. Just tax any money made from lobbying at 99.99%. Pure speech.
5
@JohnMark. That's like Ivory soap!
1
“Clean the hog lagoon.” Combines images of pork, waste, and stench.
Just be clear that it does not refer to DC, not even metonymically. Only to the Cabinet.
3
One more nominee to replace "drain the swamp" - drain the cesspool
5
One of the things I like about your column is that it explains things in humorous ways for people who don't understand how government really works. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that the people who read it aren't the people who need to.
Even so, maybe someone else at your paper might take the hint and write more about how things work and how things could work.
Thanks though for humorously pointing out the dilemma we're in. The answer is voters who understand and appreciate how governments and our government work. The thing that burns in my mind is hearing someone at a rally shout they'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat.
Thanks also for helping us laugh through our tears.
22
I would like to see a Democratic platform that featured strong ideas to reinstate ethics and other reforms like:
- at least a 10 year ban on lobbying after office, and being appointed to office after lobbying
- full public disclosure of all tax forms is required for presidential candidates
- campaign finance reform, especially targeting transparency, so that all PACs must publicly publish a list of all donors and their donation amounts
- 20-year term limit on SCJs
9
@Barbara: and if a 20 year term limit booted out Ruth Bader Ginsburg....under TRUMP....so he got to replace her with a Kavanaugh....thats A-OK with you?
1
Hi Gail,
You really hit the nail on the head with Bill Tauzin. Imagine being in any other industry but health care and writing rules that prevent competition with pricing. Only in America would our elected officials require that we are forced to pay top dollar for prescriptions.
You can’t make this up. Is the American public that stupid? Why can countries like Canada negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to deliver their citizens better pricing?
Vote in November like your future depends on it!
46
Hay Gail, how about we let them become lobbyists but whatever they get paid in excess of the median household annual income (which is about $59,000 this year) they have to pay into the Social Security or Medicare fund—their choice!
14
Maybe Paul Ryan will read this and recognize himself.
7
@Leslie Dee. You mean Dorian Gray?
Jon Kyl's conflicts of interest make him unworthy to fill John McCain's shoes. McCain was one of the original advocates of campaign finance reform and understood the corrupting influence of moneyed interests in politics. What a comedown to have his Senate seat given to a man whose neutrality can't be trusted.
7
To ALL the GOP Congresspersons and Senators: GO Home, Big Ameoba. And stay there. Seriously.
3
‘(Readers have pointed out that the swamp metaphor needs revision, since swamps actually improve water quality and prevent flooding and erosion. Nominees for replacement include “drain the sludge pond” and “clean up the Superfund site.”)’
My suggested revision: Pump up the Trump sump—and dump Trump.
3
I think it's a great idea...let's do it!
2
No wonder Trump is anxious for Brett Kavanaugh, who doesn't believe that a president is, like all Americans, equal before the law, to be confirmed. In just the past few days, Trump has publicly toyed with firing Jeff Sessions after the midterms, and chided the Attorney General for not being more concerned with holding the House seats of two indicted Republican representatives. And this is the sleaze that he'll brag about - just imagine the surreptitious stuff that Mueller knows!
8
Look - you can't give people great power, pay them peanuts, and expect everything to be on the up-and-up. Policemen in Mexico get peanut salaries - and look what happens. You can't pay congressmen what a competent plumber gets, have them control legislation that influences corporations and businessmen that exchange millions without blinking, and expect things to be clean. Pay these guys more - much more - money really well invested!
2
@Dan: So what exorbitant salary do you want to give these hacks? Remember, there are 535 of them. They also get generous travel expense coverage (part of the reason they only work 3 days a week in D.C.), subsidized Obamacare, and great retirement benefits if they can get re-elected long enough. And since when is $175,00 (or whatever it is currently, I could be low) base salary peanuts?
These people are not individually running businesses; they are more like a collective financial officer and as such are in fact vastly overpaid (nearly $100,000,000 collectively in addition to the travel expenses and nearly $1 billion for office expenses), as I find it unlikely that any CFO makes anything like $100,00,000 in pay.
1
Our GOP Senator, Cory Gardner, lives in Donald Trump's right armpit.
We don't want him back when whatever happens to Trump happens.
23
One only has to remember George Nethercutt, who promised to leave Congress after three terms but broke that promise when it came due. That's how much faith we can put in the promises of Congressmen to abide by voluntary term limits. They aren't worth the hot air it takes to utter them.
5
And Billy Tauzin was a Democrat until 1995, then switched to Republican. That’s when his taste for money kicked in, perhaps.
1
Nothing is going to change as there is more free money out there for these scums. Washington is just a starting point for the bigger cash. We need a whole new government and constitution. Vote folks. Our lives and democracy depend on us voting Democrat.
5
Gail, you are hilarious, but you have me listening to Neil Young and Leonard Cohen songs in an attempt to remember the good old days of Richard Nixon. As Tennessee Williams so beautifully put it: “Mendacity!”
2
Pensions for retired congresspersons like Kyle can surpass 134,000 dollars per year.
Hindsight is 20/20, so there is no use dreaming about a better life style in retirement, if I was only a bit more political and more anti-social.
3
Oh Gail, you’re so cynical. Keep it up!
9
Brava, Ms. Collins. You are exactly right about this problem; thank you for highlighting it. In regards to a replacement term for “swamp” - well, it never was a swamp. It’s always been a cesspool; although under DJT it is perilously close to being a toxic waste dump.
8
There's no other word for it but corruption. It's unethical. Just because lots of them do it, that doesn't make it ok.
7
Didn’t I hear that Kavanaugh considered a particularly assault weapon to be legal because so many gun owners carry them?
Let's just tax lobbyist income at, oh, say, 90%. That would make that "spend more time with family" a bit more attractive.
10
Raving lunatics, religious fanatics, corporation-critters with human rights, morons, and the just-plain greedy in office? Then they go on to make really big bucks when they'd really just like to spend time with their family!
I'd say give 'em what they want. Take away the grease that lubes the cronyism and graft that's in charge of our country.
Make the revolving door illegal.
Get money out of politics and force the media giants and internet companies to carry candidate ads for free of for less. It's our airwaves and bandwidths.
We'd have saner policies and shorter elections seasons, and sure, we'd have lots of fruitcakes running too but they'd be more honest ones. And easy to spot.
We might have to use Roosevelt's solution, the one where the Supreme Court gets a bunch of new members so it's no longer asinine. Ooops, I mean nine members.
I heard Kavanaugh say nobody asked him for any promises when it came to how he'd rule on Roe vs. Wade. Was it because he already made promises out loud about he'd vote? Does he really expect me to believe that he's not getting put there by Trump without have made supplications to the alter of money as well as kissing the king's ring?
These guys are about as subtle as a line tanks rolling down main street.
8
Interesting to see where Paul Ryan lands??? Even our profiles in courage---Jeff Flake--for example, where will he land---certainly not a commissioner of a girls softball league---where the character and integrity of future Supreme Court Justices are made.
3
Sorry, Gayle, but I really do not want the representatives campaigning in my community to come home when they have finished their illustrious careers. I am certain that the coal industry must have a fine retirement village in West Virginia.
7
But..Ms. Collins, politicians run for Congress expressly to audition for a post-Hill career in seven figures. They figure out ways to serve on committees that ostensibly serve to regulate the people's business (I know, I'm laughing at that one, too). They then learn who the top CEO's in the industries they "regulate" are. Their names go into their rolodexes for future reference; ah, I meant "employment."
These folks, when they get to Washington might be lawyers, in which case they hold evening press conferences, de-brief the huge Washington power law groups (on background, of course), and generally make certain that people know who they are so, when they're primaried by a far-right challenger from back home, they're hardly stressed. They go from, what, $174K (in the House and Senate--more if you're a "leader."
But if you're just a normal politician without expertise in any particular field, you wangle a seat where the Koch Brothers or A.L.E.C. tell you to and shut your mouth. When your time's up, you're put out to pasture to make a mint from the industry/ies you were supposed to oversee. See how easy it is?
It was more interesting in the old (Chicago) days when a bagman would come around to the precinct house or to city hall or drive to Springfield to "pay their respects." Stupid Spiro Agnew left a paper trail and pleaded "nolo contender" and departed in shame, only to land on his feet like most Republicans do after they leave office.
Isn't that government service?
9
It's a big swamp! A very big swamp! Apparently even in the desert.
2
Lobbying has certainly come a long way from its original purpose of serving to educate congresspeople and senators on the pros and cons and actual positions of various industries. At least that's what they taught us in civics class that lobbying was. It sure isn't now. In an era when doctors can no longer accept coffee mugs emblazoned with a pharmaceutical company's logo without reporting it, how are lobbyists getting away with this murder of ou democracy? What's worse, this is only a side show - the two main rings of the circus, Trump/Russia and Kavanaugh, have eclipsed what should be a major issue demanding a major resolution. Instead, we get cute (though true) Gail Collins columns and then go back to the total insanity than has befallen our federal government. What a mess!
1
Please read Zephyr Teachout's book ("Corruption in America") before you assume that banning lobbying (for anybody!) is obviously unconstitutional.
2
God bless, Gail Collins. It’s past time to get rid of these welfare recipients.
2
Another great column, Gail. Love your humor. It always cuts to the quick.
3
Great, great column, Gail. And Sen. Warren just hit one out of the park, finally.
5
Any promise by outgoing senators or representatives that when they’re done serving, they’ll come home. They can put this on their websites.
To get around such solemn pledges they can do what they've always done while in office. They can simply ignore the pledges. What's for them to lose?
It gives me pleasure to place into nomination a replacement for "drain the swamp." Let's all hear it for "drain the pus." If the thought of a smelly, viscus yellow-white liquid is too hard for you to swallow, how about "lance the abscesses." Just a nicer way to say pus.
Remember vote early, if your state allows it. Your vote is critical. If the pus continues to gather, it will explode. You do not want to be in range when that happens.
1
I miss the old days when retired congressmen went back to teach law or political science at state university. Or they ran for governor or wrote long boring memoirs of historic crises.
Anything but lobbying!
24
@WK
Today's Republican congressmen have a lot more ex-wives, extra batches of children, and side girlfriends to support in a style that will keep them quiet.
6
There is a cancer on our nation and it comes in the form of a big, puss filled bucket of money.
Our economy produces so much cash in so many different ways that everyone who sees their chance wants to cash in, big time. Bill and Hillary Clinton lived lives of comparable penury when he was governor of Arkansas and she was starting her legal career, so when they got to DC, or more correctly Martha's Vineyard, and saw how the truly rich live in America, they wanted in and never look back. They cashed in, following the example of Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and just about every modern president except Jimmy Carter, who recently said he had never had any desire to be wealthy (imagine).
Lobbying in Washington is now something like a three billion a year industry. (It passed one billion more than 20 years ago.) Corruption these days is handled much more discretely than in decades past. People know how to trade favors back and forth quietly and, if they are lucky, just barely inside the laws.
A lifetime ban on lobbying probably isn't necessary. If former members of Congress were prohibited for 12 to 15 years, that would push the big payoff far enough out that the incentive to do something nice for someone who might hire you would be greatly reduced, especially for those who leave in their late 60s or 70s.
A lot more could be done to clean up this mess, but we can't count on the foxes guarding the hen house to do it. It has to come from another source, the people.
20
@Doug Terry: Besides, although lobbying may be a protected activity, being paid to do so is not. Make it a 5-year non-compete-type law... where Congresscritters promise not to engage in activities which would have posed a conflict of interest while in office.
1
@Doug Terry: I agree mostly, but the NYT did a nice article about "all the homes owned and lived in by the Clintons" from their earliest days to now....and they NEVER lived in "comparable penury" but a very very nice upper middle class lifestyle -- the tippy top for Little Rock, Arkansas and far nicer than most middle class Americans could dream of -- and that was their EARLY YEARS in the 70s -- today, they own TWO side-by-side multi-million dollar estates in CHAPPAUQUA, NYC -- a very ritzy area. The Clinton's are feeling no pain.
1
All this is enumerated in an excellent book: CORRUPTION IN AMERICA by Zephyr Teachout.
I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that we need to get money and influence out of our politics and governance as much as we can.
It is a wonderful idea. I am not hopeful about it.
5
"Nominees for replacement include “drain the sludge pond” and “clean up the Superfund site.”)
How about: "Swamp the drain"?
Jon Kyl was one of a cabal of Republicans who met in a smoke filled DC steakhouse on the night of January 20, 2009, to plot the destruction of the US economy and full obstruction of the Obama agenda.
Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and Bob Corker were also there.
But, it was the words of then senator Jim DeMint of SC that summed up Jon Kyl's values when DeMint said at the meeting:
"Our goal is a complete gridlock for the next two years. There is no place for bi-partisanship, compromise, only acceptable outcome is total victory and any politician that disagrees will be treated as a traitor. This is war.”
24
@Paul and yet, the right wing rag Arizona Republic thinks putting Kyl, a shill for big pharma and the defense industry cartels, in McCain's seat is a great idea. Kyl indicates he probably won't even stay in McCain's seat for the full balance of the remaining term. Kyl is just losing too much money as a lobbyist to be acting, and I mean acting in the theatric sense, as a Senator, oh, wait, I mean he wants to spend more time with his family...of monied business interests,
3
@charles doody
They need Kyl's vote to insure Kavanaugh's confirmation.
As a replacement for the (as noted) inaccurate slogan “Drain the Swamp”, I suggest “Pump Out the Septic Tank” as more literally and metaphorically appropriate.
5
@Norman McDougall. May l suggest Get the Sump Pump? What about Be Drained?
“Promise us that when you’re done serving, you’ll come home.”
What a terribly quaint notion.
After most of them are done using us, we don't ever want them to come home again.
Our nation is irredeemably corrupt.
5
Some little Senators would do better to stay away. Our once fine Democratic Senator Begich who eked out a win in 2008 only because our 40 year long Senator Stevens was indicted for not declaring gifts by the Bush Justice Department and it was held against him by State Republicans as if Dems had something to do with it. (Sen Steven's conviction was thrown out due to Bush Justice Department malfeasance.) Begich thus lost his reelection to the Koch supported "Ohio Dan" Sullivan a milquetoast who does whatever he is told. After his loss, Begich joined a DC lobby firm supposedly not as a lobbyist rather as a "consultant" circumventing the one year restriction, and also opened a consulting firm in Alaska, splitting his time between the two. Unfortunately for Alaska he has now "come home" and is screwing up the Gobernatorial Election this November by making it a 3 way race between himself, the incumbent Independent who has a Democratic Lt. Gov. and the far right Republican candidate. If Begich stays in, he guarantees that a grossly unqualified far-right Republican will be the next Governor and our State and its people will be the worse for it.
7
Elizabeth Warren just sounds better and better.
40
So preventing a congressman from becoming a lobbyist is a violation of free speech, but forcing workers or plaintiffs to sign non-disclosure agreements isn't...
Congresspeople work for us, so why can't we insist that they sign contracts where they forfeit the right to work for lobbyists?
19
The notion that any politician would feel bound by any promise is absurd on its face.
15
Ms Collins Did Kyl become a lobbyist, you never say. guess he did .. anyway didn't Obama or Clinton or even Bush make a rule so you had to wait 5 years, something like that?
3
He probably did spend more time with his family. And in rather higher style. Not every former pol can be expected to live up to the example of, say, J.Q. Adams or Truman, and it is not as if placing restrictions on lobbying will magically transform congress into 538 wise men and women ready to spin out golden legislation for the greater good. Former legislators shouldn't have their freedom of contract limited any more than industry experts or academics or any other group of hustlers with a pitch. Corporate interests should also have the option to choose their shill. And elected officials might even learn to think for themselves.
3
Corruption in our politics is a given as long as big money is unchecked in campaign finance. The Citizens United decision was a misnomer, it should have been called the Highest Dollar Rules decision.
So politcians like Leonard Lance get with the program and distract taxpayers with vapid ads attacking oppositon with vague accusations because there are no accomplishments that he can point to after too many terms of collecting PAC money while sitting in the House of Representatives.
4
Or... simply demand that “our”∏ “elected” “representatives”...
Don’t meet with hired lobbyists. Conduct the public’s business... in public. If you, as a representative, want to know what General Motors would like to see in upcoming legislation, invite the CEO to meet... take notes... let the people you represent know what was discussed.
Scrupulously avoid impropriety, as well as anything that could have the appearance of impropriety. This would include anything within a country mile of “the revolving door”. Duh.
We don’t need laws that limit good, solid, honest, public service. We need... good, solid, thoughtful, wise, capable, honest public servants!
14
Gail, you neglect long established precedent for politicians and the revolving door.
For all who did not study American history (or slept through classes) allow me to point out:
After retiring from the presidency George Washington took a job as General of a non-existent American Army and lobbied Congress to fund his non-existent army. He was even so audacious as to lobby for (demand) Alexander Hamilton be made second in command of the non-existent American army.
All politicians can point to this precedent and claim to be walking in President Washington's shoes.
Is anyone following the Kavanauh hearings? What you ask, does that have to do with the revolving door of corruption? Well I think the revolving door metaphor has other applications.
Kavanauh presents himself as an upstanding, community do-gooder, coach of children's sports teams, volunteer in soup kitchens and all around boy scout - someone who would never do anything unbecoming a man of integrity, never do anything he would need to hide from the public. But, As The Door Revolves...
Anyone read Professor Sean Wilentz's op-ed, "Why Was Kavanaugh Obsessed With Vince Foster?" (The Times) Then you might ask, what was the real purpose of Kavanaugh's $2 million, 3-year Foster investigation (part of the Ken Star inquisition) supposed to accomplish other than to falsely smear the Clintons?
Into the revolving door, enters Kavanaugh, dedicated character assassinator; out he comes - hair combed - seeking the Supreme Court.
98
@jabarry.
Thank you. In my opinion, he lacks gravitas. He's no Merrick Garland.
Have you ever had a conversation with a Member of the House? I’ve had several. I’m more impressed with senators – not surprising that retired House members would fetch less on the open market. One exception (an early one) was Edward I. Koch when he was a congressman, not long before he won his first term as NYC’s mayor. This was a guy with some snap (but not much hair).
Liz Warren can afford to support a lifetime ban on occupations that don’t meet with her approval open to former congresspeople. When she retires, it’ll undoubtedly be to some no-show job at Harvard for a nice stipend, an office, a few student-grunts as administrator trolls – enough to help her get out her memoirs for more money. Others have fewer options. Beyond that, congressional retirees have highly marketable skills – who within the administrative state can fix D.C. parking tickets or set up a meeting with a senator, for instance. They wouldn’t even need to be “lobbyists”, they could merely establish an LLC that did nothing but counsel the interested on whom to call. Of course, what Liz is after is someone who has pictures of her in intimate surroundings with chieftains of the Cherokee and Delaware tribal associations, and might use them to twist her arm on some political matter … for a fee. Can’t have that. I’m waiting for her bills to outlaw digital cameras and DNA tests.
The impact of money anywhere in America, forget about just Washington, is impressive. And, by the way, the revolving door …
7
… in D.C. has existed since there WAS a D.C., as has congressional corruption. Lincoln was forced to basically BUY bare passage of the 13th Amendment (that ended slavery).
Changing that kind of history requires more than a promise on a website. But good luck – knock yourselves out.
@Richard Luettgen You seem, as is your wont, to wantonly be missing the point. You use an ad hominem attack on one senator and ignore her point: that political corruption in the US is endemic to the revolving door of Congress (be our servant during your tenure in Cogress, which pays ONLY 170K per year) with the assurance that your loyalty will pay off with a cushy lobbying job.
If Senator Warren were to return to academia, be assured she would be a popular lecturer. People who make your kind of argument do not get tenure (except perhaps at Liberty U.); they are laughingstocks.
@Richard Luettgen
The retirement package for all US senators or house members is sufficient for 99% of the country’s citizens.
The alternative is we set up an unspecial-interest lobby funded by everyone who isn't a lobbyist or an overly-wealthy family who spends millions to save millions on taxes.
We could call the lobby "publicly funded political campaigns" and wrap all campaign contributions together and split the pot among all candidates. No more need for an elected official to spend most of their time chasing the largest checks for their next campaign. No need to feel especially grateful to any donor, since the money is spread evenly among all the candidates.
110
@b fagan
Public funding of elections is step-one to restoring democracy in this country. It really is the cornerstone, and it frees up the elected officials time to - you know - read bills, research what they are being asked to vote on and showing up to do so. They would have the time to do the job for which we actually hired them. Stunning idea, isn't it? Works well in other countries. Oh, add in automatic voter registration while you are at it and make election day a holiday so everyone can vote.
Trouble is, the rich who run this plutocracy think democracy is a terrible idea that impedes their ability to exploit resources human and otherwise, pollute to their heart's content and walk away from the messes they create scot free. Can't be allowed.
Vote democratic. Get some of those women in office and you will see things start to change.
2
So the First Amendment allows someone to earn money however, whenever they can? Sorry, Professor, but there are all kinds of limits on "speech" even now that it's "money" according to the Supremes. Private companies can use non-compete agreements, and so can the government. Remember that insider trading guy?
105
@Lee Remember, this guy is from JMU, the largest university recipient of Koch funding. Of course he would find it unconstitutional.
2
Working for Congress is one of the cushiest gigs around.
You are wined and dined once you take office, and are flown here and there on the taxpayer's dime. You get to write off almost everything and once you have served 5 years, you get a pension. All along the way you are getting excellent Socialized health care for you and your family.
- even if you are a republican !
All of that is all of the legal stuff too. There are those that think all of that is not enough to go along with the 150k salary.
Having said all that, the moment that anyone takes office, they instantly become an aggressive calling machine dialing for dollars for reelection that takes up huge amounts of time. Of course, those people and entities that give money are going to hold huge sway over the views of the person.
Publicly financed elections, with term limits (just like the President) should be enacted immediately.
Furthermore, if there were truly up and down votes that the press and the electorate would dutifully pay attention to, then all would know exactly where everyone stood and then vote accordingly on them.
Too often there are too many backroom deals giving political cover so that they do not have to take the hard votes - or actually represent the people they are supposed to serve.
It's all related.
306
@FunkyIrishman I agree with publicly financed elections. I do NOT agree with term limits unless they're pretty long limits. We have limits in California. All it has created is a merry-go-round effect with officials spending a huge proportion of their time and energy angling for the next office after they are termed out of where they are. Another problem: they never become expert in their jobs, except expert at looking for the next chance. Term limits in California have been a failure.
153
@FunkyIrishman Term limits have been a failure in Florida as well. The real power is given to staff members and lobbyists who by default have the expertise to actually write legislation and manage the flow of power within government. Organizations such as ALEC also become powerful at the state level giving ideological legislation to compliant state governments across the country. In the meantime elected officials simply go (like the Russians) from one elected office to another until they amass enough time to become lobbyists or well-paid "partners" of firms.
3
@Flaminia
Fair enough - I tend to agree that the limits should be of some length, and I don't want to be accused of ageism here, but there are some that do get up there in age, and are no where near as effective. They become an institution and regressive in their actions.
I believe that any government position should be a calling to serve, and to treat it as such. There is expected to be some sacrifice, and not a bonus that they got over the finish line and nothing is to be done afterwards.
When I said it is all related, what I meant was you cannot do just any one thing, or incrementally. It has to be an entire package (imho) to be effective overall.
I hear ya though ...
Serving in the Senate or the House is an apprenticeship for a career in lobbying. You can go from a measly $174K a year plus perks, to a $Megabuck or more. After leaving your poor spouse to mind the farm and progeny to fend for themselves at Yale or Harvard, or even some liberal institution like UC Berkeley, they deserve to live better than that.
And we all know just how much the rest of the voters appreciate their hard life consorting with African dictators, and tea with British lords and ladies, they need a rest from the daily grind of all that debilitating labor.
However, I must admit I belong to a lobbing group too. We lobby for clean water, air, public lands, the environment, but our organization can not contribute funds to legislators, all we have to offer is our votes, and as we are seeing, that is just not enough to prevent the expropriation of public lands and forests by the friends of the Lobby Lobby.
We pay our attorneys good salaries, contribute dues and donations to pay for lawsuits and are excoriated by friends of coal, uranium, and other toxic substances, but lobby we do.
We can't buy votes, all we can do is encourage honest, concerned others to join us and lobby with their votes.
441
Considering the ROI (return on investment) I'm surprised at companies and organizations that don't set up a proper revolving door policy. The more you pay and the more ex-politicians and ex-administration you hire, the surer that today's politicians and administrators are that they have a nice future if they're nice.
9
@David Underwood
Great post David but We can contribute funds to legislators - I gave money to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and it was remarkable how much he raised from everyday people like me. This year I will contribute something, in 2020 I will contribute more if I can.
VOTE EVERYONE AND GIVE MONEY TO YOUR CANDIDATES, EVEN IF IT'S ONLY $20
1
I don't see why a lobbying ban would be unconstitutional.
You don't have to be a Congressperson, its a choice.
And you could still speak and offer advice, just not get paid [off] for it.
Someone of Warren's stature-- if she ran for president--could make support for this a litmus test for others running. And make it an issue for everybody, kinda like Grover Norquist's no-taxes pledge.
Let's do this!
189
@SRP
I had a similar thought. It's pretty typical to have a non-compete clause in an employment contract, which seems pretty much along the same lines. How did we get to the point where it's OK to appoint a guy like Pruitt who's so deep into conflict of interest?
108
@Barbara
Not that you endorsed them, but non-competes are economic and professional slavery.
They are outlawed in California. Other states should outlaw them, too.
An NDA despite its recent tarnishing by this guy named Donald Trump is a much better way to go.
@Barbara
Republicans
Senator McCain worked across the aisle in a valiant attempt to control money in elections and politics. The Supreme Court shot his hard won victory down with Citizen's United and now we have Trump at the helm whose only desire is his own financial advancement. He even refused to release tax returns that would tell us his conflicts of interests. The idea that those who run for office work for the people is a charade that will not change until personal advantage no longer trumps the will of the people and their needs. We need term limits for both houses of Congress and restrictions for those elected officials for at least ten years for jobs in areas they dealt with in while in Congress. But don''t hold your breath. The corruption is so deep and has existed for so long that this kind of change will take much longer than our coming climate crisis.
124
45 is broke save for laundered Russian money. That’s why no tax returns.
He can’t hold on to the little profit his poor business judgements might endeavour him to.
6
Actually, the Supreme Court shut down limits on campaign spending in 1976, Buckley v Valleo. That’s the case that needs to be overturned, and CU will then have no teeth.
2
@AdamStoler: lets say that's true.
Then the Russkies have been giving Trump money for TWENTY YEARS.
They knew 20 years ago that he'd be POTUS? a vulgar TV host? 6 bankrupt businesses and with 3 marriages?
WHY? what was in it for them? Were they psychics, who KNEW that someday he'd be President?
HOW could they know this, when NOBODY ELSE in the US ever thought it possible?
The Russians are so stupid (or crazy smart?) that they lent a dead broke bankrupt loser $100 million plus to put on a "good show" of being a billionaire?
Is there ANYONE, no matter how venal, who loans that much money without ever expecting it to be repaid -- and REMEMBER…up until literally election day, EVERYONE knew Hillary would win. (The only question was by how much!) -- even Trump's own children spoke with him, to let him know that he had no chance of winning. He had not even written an acceptance speech!
But the RUSSIANS knew he'd win and 20 years in advance?
What a boon to the Nation is Kyl!
Not had such a gem in a while
A true empty suit
Of loot in pursuit,
He replaces McCain? Please smile.
354
@Larry Eisenberg
Yes....It never takes the Republicans long to move in for the Kyl.
6
How about not just banning the revolving door but also instituting campaign finance reform and term limits. These politicians/lobbyists are the result of representatives staying in Washington so long that they consider it home.I have a theory that no one ever leaves Washington-this is where the money and influence is.Somuch for spending time with family!
64
@Janet Michael
Everyone wants term limits except the people who have kept their guy/gal in office for 30 years. If someone is doing a lot of good for his/her state, I think it’s up to the voters to decide how many terms s/he gets; however, that would be a much cleaner process if we had public campaign financing.
3
I think there is a way to throw a wrench into the mechanism of the revolving door, one that meets your 1st amendment guideline. How about renaming K Street every year? We come up with names for destructive hurricanes. Surely we can do it for a destructive highway.
22
@Mike
How about $ Street?
1
I don't see why it would be unconstitutional to prohibit people who have fed at the governments trough to then not be allowed to lobby. After all, isn't the whole reason they are offered lobbying jobs because of their connections to their former colleagues? Lobbying can be legal, but stopping former law makers/elected officials from doing so could certainly be legal, no? Just pick one, be a lobbyist or be a politician but you can't be both, not in the same lifetime.
68
@lzolatrov I'd support even a 25 year ban! Twenty years post-retirement, their connections might not be so enticing.
@lzolatrov
Part of the issue is that I believe you aren't allowed access to Congress unless you've worked at Congress. This seems like a rule that was written to make being a lobbyist a profession exclusively reserved for former Congressmen and Congresswomen. I guess it's moot if We just ban lobbying.
I can't imagine Congress enacting this. After all, they can finally make real money when they leave Congress. And voters don't make enough noise for politicians to care their jobs are in danger if they didn't support such legislation.
20
A lifetime ban will not even get through a Democratic Congress. I would make it ten years, which sounds less onerous but is plenty long enough for their contacts to become stale and their influence to have waned.
But even without a ban, a start would be making every registered lobbyist disclose every meeting, including meals and coffees, held with a federally elected official or members of his/her staff. They should have to file with the FEC, every quarter, a list of these meetings and who attended, as well as who had hired and instructed the lobbyist to have the meeting.
Some more sunshine on this whole swamp would start to dry it out.
232
@Jack Sonville: I doubt lobbyists could be obliged to keep and publish those kinds of records, but public employees could. The requirements for reporting income and disbursements is a very good idea though.
2
@Jack Sonville Most legislators are geriatric codgers well before they're turned out of office, so a 10 year ban on lobbying by them would be adequate time to have them either lacking the mental capacity to lobby, or deceased.
3
Make the politicians promise they'll come home? In my case, that would be Scott Pruitt and Jim Inhofe. No thank you! Someone else can keep them.
357
@Linda No kidding. Oklahoma's gain was the nation's loss with Pruitt. His successor had shown some actual integrity. I was recently horrified to read that he might be waiting for Inhofe's seat to become vacant from a comfortable perch in his. megachurch. It sent a chill down my spine.
5
@Linda Ha ha! Shades of Senator Jack S. Phogbound from Li'l Abner!
5
@Linda We don't want them either.
7
Superfund would work as a metaphor, yet I think it needlessly would harm the honor of the hard working individuals of the EPA that actually do their jobs to clean those sites, along with state and local officials who work even harder. The reality is that public service has truly lost the sense of service. Now, it is simply the hope of enrichment.
44
Thanks, Ms. Collins, for keeping us in the loop, and by now my understanding, when it comes to our current state of affairs is to be prepared for the unexpected.
For some reason I was less shocked than some others about the election of Trump, but somewhat in a perpetual state of astonishment that he is still in Office.
The whole package is going to be listening carefully to what President Obama has to say, and vote accordingly. True he is not a Republican but then nothing in life is perfect
30
Ms. Collins,
Of course, the revolving door is part of the sludge pond, or cesspool of politics. Another piece of the revolving door is the lifeboat extended to Republican politicians with positions in "think tanks" or foundations. The income may not be as lucrative as lobbying but it might prove to be steady income for a decade or two.
Another part of the sludge pond is the employment of political spouses by lobbying firms and by industry federations.
108
It might indeed be unconstitutional, as federal law, to prohibit our elected officials from taking up lobbying immediately after leaving office, but there's no reason each political party could not require such a pledge as a condition for support. Sort of like Grover Norquist's no-new-taxes pledge, except in a positive way.
139