5 ms·

> The typical hire former government workers to lobby current government might also be in danger if the President goes through with his anti-lobbyist rule chang

> The typical hire former government workers to lobby current government might also be in danger if the President goes through with his anti-lobbyist rule changes. This is one thing that I'm really looking forward to.

abraves10001 10y ago
I mean I understand that we don't want stagnation of ideas and certain sects continuously ruling government. However, the reason that they are lobbyists is because they are generally experts on the subjects, in no small part due to their government experience. Removing all former government workers as lobbyists a blanket move is heavy-handed and poorly thought out.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Your version sounds good, but that's not the majority of what happens. They are lobbyists because they know people and its often a cushy, legal payoff for employees who helped the company secure and manage contracts while in government service. The most common reward is as an employee hire after they retire from government services, but the lobbyists often have their origin in the same process.
  - abraves10001 10y ago
    I don't disagree. My statement sounded far too overarching. Obviously, a lot of jobs are handouts in form of repayment. I don't think this should be encouraged but I don't think a law banning former federal employees is going to diminish the numerous concerns that lobbying brings up and potentially diminishes the quality of people advising current government.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I got your meaning (and think the down voting on your original comment is a bit harsh), but the pendulum is probably due to swing the other way, hard. I really don't know what a good balance point is. I have heard a 5 or 7 year ban bandied about, and maybe something time-based is the answer. I think until it goes to a total ban we won't find the true balance point.
      - leesalminen 10y ago
        The pendulum anaolgy is an excellent way of describing how politics in this country works. I've used it often over the past several weeks. One option would be to limit how long someone can work for a lobbying organization (instead of how long must wait before lobbying after government service). What if we restored the importance of civic duty in our society? Top talent could be incentivized to work for the government for non financial reasons. I don't think anyone knows the answer to this problem (yet), but it is a large problem worth solving. Personally, I do feel strongly about civic duty. But after having (briefly) worked on government contracts I found an incredible amount of waste, cronyism and general ineptitude to turn me off. So I joined the software startup world instead ;).
pavlov 10y ago
Trump's proposal is a five-year ban on becoming a registered lobbyist after leaving a government job. This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings.
- dahdum 10y ago
  "but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists." Even if it's not 100% effective, won't this significantly reduce this behavior? Certainly adds risk to the equation. Many of his policies are questionable, but this one always sounded pretty good to me.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. And then they'll be breaking the law. Pushing the practice underground will make it less effective and less common. The appearance of propriety goes a long way toward convincing people that there isn't enough profit in being improper. > It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings. I don't understand why people continue to revisit things like this when there are so many legitimate problems with Trump. His tax returns are going to tell you how much money he made and how much tax he paid. How does that help you? It's bike shedding. And the conflicts of interest are inherently unavoidable. Even if he put every cent of his money in a blind trust (which is obviously expensive if the assets are illiquid real estate holdings), what about his family's assets? What about his business partners? The only reason anyone cares about this is the appearance of impropriety. If that matters in this case then why not in the other?

abraves10001 10y ago

I mean I understand that we don't want stagnation of ideas and certain sects continuously ruling government. However, the reason that they are lobbyists is because they are generally experts on the subjects, in no small part due to their government experience. Removing all former government workers as lobbyists a blanket move is heavy-handed and poorly thought out.

protomyth 10y ago
Your version sounds good, but that's not the majority of what happens. They are lobbyists because they know people and its often a cushy, legal payoff for employees who helped the company secure and manage contracts while in government service. The most common reward is as an employee hire after they retire from government services, but the lobbyists often have their origin in the same process.
- abraves10001 10y ago
  I don't disagree. My statement sounded far too overarching. Obviously, a lot of jobs are handouts in form of repayment. I don't think this should be encouraged but I don't think a law banning former federal employees is going to diminish the numerous concerns that lobbying brings up and potentially diminishes the quality of people advising current government.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I got your meaning (and think the down voting on your original comment is a bit harsh), but the pendulum is probably due to swing the other way, hard. I really don't know what a good balance point is. I have heard a 5 or 7 year ban bandied about, and maybe something time-based is the answer. I think until it goes to a total ban we won't find the true balance point.
    - leesalminen 10y ago
      The pendulum anaolgy is an excellent way of describing how politics in this country works. I've used it often over the past several weeks. One option would be to limit how long someone can work for a lobbying organization (instead of how long must wait before lobbying after government service). What if we restored the importance of civic duty in our society? Top talent could be incentivized to work for the government for non financial reasons. I don't think anyone knows the answer to this problem (yet), but it is a large problem worth solving. Personally, I do feel strongly about civic duty. But after having (briefly) worked on government contracts I found an incredible amount of waste, cronyism and general ineptitude to turn me off. So I joined the software startup world instead ;).

pavlov 10y ago

Trump's proposal is a five-year ban on becoming a registered lobbyist after leaving a government job. This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings.

dahdum 10y ago
"but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists." Even if it's not 100% effective, won't this significantly reduce this behavior? Certainly adds risk to the equation. Many of his policies are questionable, but this one always sounded pretty good to me.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. And then they'll be breaking the law. Pushing the practice underground will make it less effective and less common. The appearance of propriety goes a long way toward convincing people that there isn't enough profit in being improper. > It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings. I don't understand why people continue to revisit things like this when there are so many legitimate problems with Trump. His tax returns are going to tell you how much money he made and how much tax he paid. How does that help you? It's bike shedding. And the conflicts of interest are inherently unavoidable. Even if he put every cent of his money in a blind trust (which is obviously expensive if the assets are illiquid real estate holdings), what about his family's assets? What about his business partners? The only reason anyone cares about this is the appearance of impropriety. If that matters in this case then why not in the other?