Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t
man and woman holding hands
Photo by Austin Lowman on Unsplash

Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t

Two weeks ago, more than 50 kids gathered at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida, not for the roller coasters or the holiday decorations, but to be legally united with their “forever” families.

Events like this happened across the country in November in celebration of National Adoption Month. When President Bill Clinton established the observance in 1995 to celebrate and encourage adoption as “a means for building and strengthening families,” he noted that “much work remains to be done.” Thirty years later, that work has only grown.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t
man and woman holding hands
Photo by Austin Lowman on Unsplash

Adoption in America Is Declining—The Need Isn’t

Two weeks ago, more than 50 kids gathered at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida, not for the roller coasters or the holiday decorations, but to be legally united with their “forever” families.

Events like this happened across the country in November in celebration of National Adoption Month. When President Bill Clinton established the observance in 1995 to celebrate and encourage adoption as “a means for building and strengthening families,” he noted that “much work remains to be done.” Thirty years later, that work has only grown.

Keep ReadingShow less
The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

a view of the capitol building

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

In November, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in history, with little to show for the 43-day closure.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was not one of the eight, told discouraged Democrats, “We need to remember the battle we’re in….[We need to continue the fight] to defend our country from Trump and MAGA. Two things coming up that are really important,” Whitehouse said, “1) In December, there will be a vote on extending the Affordable Care credits we fought for. That gives us…weeks to hammer the Republicans so hard that we actually get a good Affordable Care credits bill.

Keep ReadingShow less
Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?
Image generated by IVN staff.

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?

Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.

Keep ReadingShow less