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

Family First: How One Program Is Rebuilding System-Impacted Families

Close up holding hands

Getty Images

Family First: How One Program Is Rebuilding System-Impacted Families

“Are you proud of your mother?” Colie Lavar Long, known as Shaka, asked 13-year-old Jade Muñez when he found her waiting at the Georgetown University Law Center. She had come straight from school and was waiting for her mother, Jessica Trejo—who, like Long, is formerly incarcerated—to finish her classes before they would head home together, part of their daily routine.

Muñez said yes, a heartwarming moment for both Long and Trejo, who are friends through their involvement in Georgetown University’s Prisons and Justice Initiative. Trejo recalled that day: “When I came out, [Long] told me, ‘I think it’s awesome that your daughter comes here after school. Any other kid would be like, I'm out of here.’” This mother-daughter bond inspired Long to encourage this kind of family relationship through an initiative he named the Family First program.

Keep ReadingShow less
Wisconsin Bill Would Allow DACA Recipients to Apply for Professional Licenses

American flag, gavil, and book titled: immigration law

Photo provided

Wisconsin Bill Would Allow DACA Recipients to Apply for Professional Licenses

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin lawmakers from both parties are backing legislation that would allow recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to apply for professional and occupational licenses, a change they say could help address workforce shortages across the state.

The proposal, Assembly Bill 759, is authored by Republican Rep. Joel Kitchens of Sturgeon Bay and Democratic Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez of Milwaukee. The bill has a companion measure in the Senate, SB 745. Under current Wisconsin law, DACA recipients, often referred to as Dreamers, are barred from receiving professional and occupational licenses, even though they are authorized to work under federal rules. AB 759 would create a state-level exception allowing DACA recipients to obtain licenses if they meet all other qualifications for a profession.

Keep ReadingShow less
Overreach Abroad, Silence at Home
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

Overreach Abroad, Silence at Home

In March 2024, the Department of Justice secured a hard-won conviction against Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, for trafficking tons of cocaine into the United States. After years of investigation and months of trial preparation, he was formally sentenced on June 26, 2024. Yet on December 1, 2025 — with a single stroke of a pen, and after receiving a flattering letter from prison — President Trump erased the conviction entirely, issuing a full pardon (Congress.gov).

Defending the pardon, the president dismissed the Hernández prosecution as a politically motivated case pursued by the previous administration. But the evidence presented in court — including years of trafficking and tons of cocaine — was not political. It was factual, documented, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the president’s goal is truly to rid the country of drugs, the Hernández pardon is impossible to reconcile with that mission. It was not only a contradiction — it was a betrayal of the justice system itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Operating System Needs an Update

Congress 202

J. Scott Applewhite/Getty Images

America’s Operating System Needs an Update

As July 4, 2026, approaches, our country’s upcoming Semiquincentennial is less and less of an anniversary party than a stress test. The United States is a 21st-century superpower attempting to navigate a digitized, polarized world with an operating system that hasn’t been meaningfully updated since the mid-20th century.

From my seat on the Ladue School Board in St. Louis County, Missouri, I see the alternative to our national dysfunction daily. I am privileged to witness that effective governance requires—and incentivizes—compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less