Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Banning former members of Congress from lobbying won’t fix what’s wrong with lobbying

Opinion

Revolving door

Shutting down the revolving door between Congress and K Street will not solve problems, only make them worse, writes Delancey.

DNY59/iStock/Getty Images Plus

DeLancey is the co-founder and CEO of Lobbyists 4 Good, a crowdfunding platform that enables individuals to hire lobbyists.

Twitter was abuzz last month when a group of unlikely allies – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Chip Roy, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Sen. Brian Schatz – promised to work together on legislation that would ban former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists.

While their intentions are obviously good, and they should be applauded for their efforts, banning former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists will do little to achieve their goal of "draining the swamp" and reducing corporate influence on politics.


Overlooking, for a minute, the fact that a lifetime ban on lobbying has almost no chance of being passed, any such law would almost certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The last part, the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, is the reason why lobbying is legal. It gives every U.S. citizen, corporation, association, nonprofit, and even local and state governments the right to petition Congress.

Even if Congress could pass a lifetime ban, and was found constitutional, such a law would do little to prevent former members of Congress from influencing their one-time colleagues. The rules governing lobbying registration have so many loopholes that former members of Congress can become "policy advisers" or "senior council" for lobbying firms without actually having to register as lobbyists.

Without closing these loopholes, a lifetime lobbying ban would just push lobbying further into the shadows, something that has been gradually occurring for the past 15 years. Members of Congress would still be influencing Congress, but the issues they are working on, and who is paying them to do so, would be hidden from the public.

Congress would also need to make sure the laws governing registration are actually enforced. A recent Government Accountability Office report found that the Department of Justice only has one part-time attorney assigned to the office that enforces the Lobbying Disclosure Act, leaving a staggering 59 percent of cases uninvestigated.

Additionally, the Ocasio-Cortez, Cruz, Roy and Schatz proposal would do nothing to close the revolving door used by congressional staffers, which is arguably more important than the revolving door of former lawmakers.

While former members of Congress give lobbying firms credibility with clients, congressional staffers are arguably just as influential when they become lobbyists. Their knowledge of the issues, their experience writing legislation,and their relationships with other congressional staffers give them a unique skillset when they leave public service for the private sector.

So, even if the legislation passed, and was held up by the courts, and the loopholes were closed, and the laws governing registration were enforced, the revolving door between Congress and K Street would still be open and the swamp would remain pretty swampy.

Despite all of this, what worries me the most about the lifetime ban is the unintended consequences it would have on organizations and nonprofits that help many people here in the United States and around the world.

Most people wrongfully assume that all lobbyists work for nefarious corporate entities. While this may seem like the case based on news coverage and social media posts, it is simply not true. There are many public interest groups and nonprofits that hire former members of Congress to lobby for them at heavily discounted rates on important issues.

Take, for example, Phil English, who lost his re-election bid in 2008 after fourteen years in the House of Representatives. He joined one of D.C.'s largest lobbying firms, Arent Fox LLP, in 2009 and started lobbying Congress after his one-year ban ended.

While he has corporate clients in the pharmaceutical and energy sectors, he also has lobbied for several research colleges and universities in Pennsylvania, a leading U.S. Catholic charity and one of the top children's hospitals in the nation. While I do not know him, and cannot speak to his work, banning him from lobbying for these nonprofit organizations would negatively impact their ability to achieve their mission.

We need to stop focusing so much on lobbying bans and regulations that would do little to fix our broken system. The only solution to this problem is to fight fire with fire.

There is an old adage in D.C. that states, "If you are not at the table, then you are on the menu," and that is why the public is constantly outgunned, outmatched and beaten in the political arena by corporate America.

Almost every large corporation in America hires lobbyists to advocate for its cause and almost every industry has an association working to make sure its interests are heard on Capitol Hill. Public interest groups and nonprofits do not prioritize engaging with lawmakers and do not see the value in hiring lobbyists, creating a one-sided fight on Capitol Hill.

It is about time the public sector takes a page from the private sector and starts getting more influencers working on our side to make sure our voice is heard. We need to have lobbyists working for us to counter the corporate lobbyists that flood the halls of Congress every day. It is the only way we will level the playing field and get Congress listening to us again.

Read More

Pro-Trump protestors
Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

Keep ReadingShow less
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network