7 ms·

U.S. sets 5-year and lifetime lobbying ban for officials

68 points by randomname2 10y ago

cmurf 10y ago
Not much new here. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512201631/trumps-executive-order-on-ethics-pulls-word-for-word-from-obama-clinton http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512201631/trumps-executive-ord...
- general_ai 10y ago
  From the same article: Clinton ended up revoking the order (so his order basically did nothing), and Obama gave waivers even to the previous, watered down 2-year version. This new order has considerably more teeth than anything that came before, though of course it remains to be seen if Trump grants any exemptions, or follows what was promised on the campaign trail to the letter. If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    Or, he could do what the previous presidents have done, rescind the order once he leaves office.
    - general_ai 10y ago
      For better or worse, he's not like the previous presidents in nearly every way.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    > If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises. Why would an arbitrary restriction on representative government = a healthier state? Look, I think there are grand problems in the electoral process that lead to the same people getting elected forever. That produces an environment conducive to career politics and incites people to pursue that path over public service. But the public voting for representation is not the problem. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
    - handedness 10y ago
      Whether or not one agrees with it, the idea of arbitrary restrictions on representative government is at least as old as George Washington himself. Were the USA a direct democracy it would be pretty easy to refute the idea of term limits, but as it's a democratic republic, the issue becomes far less clear cut.
      - nkozyra 10y ago
        Even direct democracies have restrictions; it's the arbitrary ones that need some real validation to support. Just cause "throw all the bums out" feels good does not mean it's sound policy for a republic.
        pzxc 10y ago
        It was arbitrary for George Washington to decline to run for a third term as President, feeling that two terms ought to be enough for anybody. And it took over a century for that wisdom to be codified into the 22nd Amendment.
        handedness 10y ago
        It doesn't require much abstract thinking to see how legislators (and chief executives) could craft policy to guarantee their reelection. Places without term limits are good examples of how policy can ensure reelection. Whether or not one agrees with it, the concept, at least, of term limits, isn't wholly without merit. It may be feckless, it may be antithetical to the direct democracy many Americans inaccurately assume they live in, but it isn't inherently just some partisan, feel-good policy. This particular implementation of the concept may be, but that's a separate conversation.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        Congressional representatives are chosen directly by the people in their districts. Aside from judges, are there any federal office holders or appointments that don't have term limits or serve at the pleasure of the current administration?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Both term limits and lobbying bans for officials shift the balance of power, experience, and skill to private lobbies and away from the people doing public work, and so would leave Washington in worse shape in terms of ability to serve the public interest than the atrocious status quo. The root of the current problems is in the way the structure of the electoral system fails to achieve effective representation, and none of those address that one bit. They are naive solutions that appeal to people who have a shallow understanding of the symptoms but no grasp of the problem.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      > Both term limits and lobbying bans for officials shift the balance of power, experience, and skill to private lobbies and away from the people doing public work This is clear to me for term limits, but how does it apply to lobbying bans? (Not arguing that it doesn't, but would like to understand.)
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Most political appointees expected term of office is tied to their party controlling the appointed office (and often times the person that appointed them doing so, as even another person from the same party will want to bring in their own people.) Thus, people who consider taking these offices need to have the ability to get other work need to have work they can do in between political appointments, so if you ban them for an extended period from the broad class of out-of-government jobs that the experience and skills developed and used in their public work would be most applicable, then people with viable alternatives are just not going to work in the public sector at all, unless they are so independently wealthy that they don't need work at all.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        Interesting.
Numberwang 10y ago
One of the few good Trump policies.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  We'll see in a year... It's only been a few days.
fictioncircle 10y ago
> Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions. That is an important exception. The fact it exists basically means this is a fig leaf he might rescind on his last day in office.
- fapjacks 10y ago
  It's also a really nice carrot-and-stick mechanism for currying favor!
- failrate 10y ago
  "Another provision sets a two-year period during which appointees must avoid working on issues involving former employers or clients. Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions. ...snip... Trump said Obama's order was "full of loopholes."" So, this provision just has one gigantic loophole.
- handedness 10y ago
  That is true of any Executive Order. And any future Executive can rescind or otherwise modify that order. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing in this particular case, but people sometimes forget that law created via EO only exists, persists, is enforced or not enforced at the whim of POTUS.
downandout 10y ago
Not everything Trump does is bad. The media will either spin this as ineffective, or simply won't report it, since this is a positive thing that Trump did and those kinds of stories simply won't be tolerated in today's mainstream media environment. But it is nice to see him carrying out the promises that he made to his base, even if we don't all agree with them. That is rare among politicians.
- abootstrapper 10y ago
  It's not that the media is not reporting good stuff Trump is doing, it's that he's not doing much good stuff.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Stealth edit. You claimed the title did not mention Trump as evidence of media bias. The title explicitly does. > The media will either spin this as ineffective, or simply won't report it The media will not report it? Then how are we seeing this story?
  - downandout 10y ago
    Nope, not a stealth edit. I deleted that part of it within seconds. The HN title is U.S. sets 5-year and lifetime lobbying ban for officials. The moment I realized that this was not the title of the article itself, and before you posted your comment, I deleted that part of it. The media will not report it? Then how are we seeing this story? Most people do not get their news straight from the AP. It will be fascinating to see this story get spun and spun again by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, etc.
    - threeseed 10y ago
      It has already been reported on news sites. Just to name a few. Not much "spin" that I can tell: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifetime-lobbying-ban-officials-n713631 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifeti... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-sets-year-lifetime-lobbying-ban-officials-45115600 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-sets-year-lif... http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/ http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/
pkaye 10y ago
Could this be negated through some freedom of speech rights argument later on once they leave office?
- handedness 10y ago
  It's an EO, and therefore could be completely scrapped by any future POTUS.
adjkant 10y ago
I think overall this is a good idea, but it's important to consider the temporary nature of it as an executive order. And of course the use of exceptions. My question, that I have not seen discussed and am too lazy to do the math on, is this: In the next four years, how many democrats vs republicans are likely to retire / leave office? Will this have any partisan benefit? This goes for term limits as well, which I think also could be a good idea pending execution.
Overtonwindow 10y ago
As a former lobbyist in DC, I support this. The revolving door makes perfect sense in a closed loop of Washington, but in my experience it has led to corruption and carrying the status quo. As far as lobbying for foreign governments, while not having worked on that directly, I do know foreign governments pay a tremendous amounts of money to hire former members of congress. If you're curious look up the lobbying disclosure database. [1] 1. http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx

68 points by randomname2 10y ago

cmurf 10y ago

Not much new here. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512201631/trumps-executive-order-on-ethics-pulls-word-for-word-from-obama-clinton http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512201631/trumps-executive-ord...

general_ai 10y ago
From the same article: Clinton ended up revoking the order (so his order basically did nothing), and Obama gave waivers even to the previous, watered down 2-year version. This new order has considerably more teeth than anything that came before, though of course it remains to be seen if Trump grants any exemptions, or follows what was promised on the campaign trail to the letter. If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises.
- noobermin 10y ago
  Or, he could do what the previous presidents have done, rescind the order once he leaves office.
  - general_ai 10y ago
    For better or worse, he's not like the previous presidents in nearly every way.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  > If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises. Why would an arbitrary restriction on representative government = a healthier state? Look, I think there are grand problems in the electoral process that lead to the same people getting elected forever. That produces an environment conducive to career politics and incites people to pursue that path over public service. But the public voting for representation is not the problem. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
  - handedness 10y ago
    Whether or not one agrees with it, the idea of arbitrary restrictions on representative government is at least as old as George Washington himself. Were the USA a direct democracy it would be pretty easy to refute the idea of term limits, but as it's a democratic republic, the issue becomes far less clear cut.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      Even direct democracies have restrictions; it's the arbitrary ones that need some real validation to support. Just cause "throw all the bums out" feels good does not mean it's sound policy for a republic.
      - pzxc 10y ago
        It was arbitrary for George Washington to decline to run for a third term as President, feeling that two terms ought to be enough for anybody. And it took over a century for that wisdom to be codified into the 22nd Amendment.
      - handedness 10y ago
        It doesn't require much abstract thinking to see how legislators (and chief executives) could craft policy to guarantee their reelection. Places without term limits are good examples of how policy can ensure reelection. Whether or not one agrees with it, the concept, at least, of term limits, isn't wholly without merit. It may be feckless, it may be antithetical to the direct democracy many Americans inaccurately assume they live in, but it isn't inherently just some partisan, feel-good policy. This particular implementation of the concept may be, but that's a separate conversation.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      Congressional representatives are chosen directly by the people in their districts. Aside from judges, are there any federal office holders or appointments that don't have term limits or serve at the pleasure of the current administration?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Both term limits and lobbying bans for officials shift the balance of power, experience, and skill to private lobbies and away from the people doing public work, and so would leave Washington in worse shape in terms of ability to serve the public interest than the atrocious status quo. The root of the current problems is in the way the structure of the electoral system fails to achieve effective representation, and none of those address that one bit. They are naive solutions that appeal to people who have a shallow understanding of the symptoms but no grasp of the problem.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > Both term limits and lobbying bans for officials shift the balance of power, experience, and skill to private lobbies and away from the people doing public work This is clear to me for term limits, but how does it apply to lobbying bans? (Not arguing that it doesn't, but would like to understand.)
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Most political appointees expected term of office is tied to their party controlling the appointed office (and often times the person that appointed them doing so, as even another person from the same party will want to bring in their own people.) Thus, people who consider taking these offices need to have the ability to get other work need to have work they can do in between political appointments, so if you ban them for an extended period from the broad class of out-of-government jobs that the experience and skills developed and used in their public work would be most applicable, then people with viable alternatives are just not going to work in the public sector at all, unless they are so independently wealthy that they don't need work at all.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        Interesting.

Numberwang 10y ago

One of the few good Trump policies.

helthanatos 10y ago
We'll see in a year... It's only been a few days.

fictioncircle 10y ago

> Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions. That is an important exception. The fact it exists basically means this is a fig leaf he might rescind on his last day in office.

fapjacks 10y ago
It's also a really nice carrot-and-stick mechanism for currying favor!
failrate 10y ago
"Another provision sets a two-year period during which appointees must avoid working on issues involving former employers or clients. Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions. ...snip... Trump said Obama's order was "full of loopholes."" So, this provision just has one gigantic loophole.
handedness 10y ago
That is true of any Executive Order. And any future Executive can rescind or otherwise modify that order. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing in this particular case, but people sometimes forget that law created via EO only exists, persists, is enforced or not enforced at the whim of POTUS.

downandout 10y ago

Not everything Trump does is bad. The media will either spin this as ineffective, or simply won't report it, since this is a positive thing that Trump did and those kinds of stories simply won't be tolerated in today's mainstream media environment. But it is nice to see him carrying out the promises that he made to his base, even if we don't all agree with them. That is rare among politicians.

abootstrapper 10y ago
It's not that the media is not reporting good stuff Trump is doing, it's that he's not doing much good stuff.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chillwaves 10y ago
Stealth edit. You claimed the title did not mention Trump as evidence of media bias. The title explicitly does. > The media will either spin this as ineffective, or simply won't report it The media will not report it? Then how are we seeing this story?
- downandout 10y ago
  Nope, not a stealth edit. I deleted that part of it within seconds. The HN title is U.S. sets 5-year and lifetime lobbying ban for officials. The moment I realized that this was not the title of the article itself, and before you posted your comment, I deleted that part of it. The media will not report it? Then how are we seeing this story? Most people do not get their news straight from the AP. It will be fascinating to see this story get spun and spun again by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, etc.
  - threeseed 10y ago
    It has already been reported on news sites. Just to name a few. Not much "spin" that I can tell: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifetime-lobbying-ban-officials-n713631 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifeti... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-sets-year-lifetime-lobbying-ban-officials-45115600 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-sets-year-lif... http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/ http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/

pkaye 10y ago

Could this be negated through some freedom of speech rights argument later on once they leave office?

handedness 10y ago
It's an EO, and therefore could be completely scrapped by any future POTUS.

adjkant 10y ago

I think overall this is a good idea, but it's important to consider the temporary nature of it as an executive order. And of course the use of exceptions. My question, that I have not seen discussed and am too lazy to do the math on, is this: In the next four years, how many democrats vs republicans are likely to retire / leave office? Will this have any partisan benefit? This goes for term limits as well, which I think also could be a good idea pending execution.

Overtonwindow 10y ago

As a former lobbyist in DC, I support this. The revolving door makes perfect sense in a closed loop of Washington, but in my experience it has led to corruption and carrying the status quo. As far as lobbying for foreign governments, while not having worked on that directly, I do know foreign governments pay a tremendous amounts of money to hire former members of congress. If you're curious look up the lobbying disclosure database. [1] 1. http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx