5 ms·

Well here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby within 5 years of their tenure in governmen

Well here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby within 5 years of their tenure in government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/executive-order-ethics-commitments-executive-branch-appointees https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu... getting Congress to pass a law that puts some teeth behind the promise is another question.

Pxtl 9y ago
Even without lobbying, large corps can still use sweetheart positions in the private sector as a "reward" for friendly legislators who retire. Obviously targeting lobbying is an improvement, but it's not enough. And also, I'm wondering how that impacts a not-for-profit that a politician decides to champion after retirement... Is that "lobbying"?
maxxxxx 9y ago
From what I have read he is stacking agencies with lobbyists from industries they are supposed to regulate. So no, there is no reason to agree with him.
rgbrenner 9y ago
saying "everyone" isn't correct, because trump will give you a waiver if he wants you in his cabinet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/31/white-house-grants-ethics-waivers-to-17-appointees-including-four-former-lobbyists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...
fencepost 9y ago
> here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby This seems like a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Ignoring the question of what percentage of senior people have left due to being fired, the potential for legal cases against them, inability to personally pay for anticipated legal expenses, or some combination thereof, there's also the fact that it's still early in the Trump administration. The bigger factor is likely the massive number of (former?) lobbyists being hired into positions of influence. In fact, it seems that the lobbying ban you pointed to also removed a lot of restrictions that had been in place [1], and that there's been both noticeable granting of waivers and significant resistance to releasing information on those waivers [2]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-ethics-waivers-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-eth...
dangerlibrary 9y ago
He did! He also weakened the language for what defines the areas in which one is allowed to lobby. Specifically, Trump's lobbying ban only prevents officials from lobbying their former agency - it doesn't prevent them from becoming registered lobbyists. For example, an SEC official couldn't lobby for changes to the SEC, but they could lobby the other 4 financial regulatory agencies. There's also an ongoing legal debate about whether the language used in Trump's lobbying ban includes a loophole that would allow officials to continue to try to engage in certain kinds of lobbying - involving "agency proceedings" rather than legislation. The previous administration had stronger language (no lobbying whatsoever) and a 1 year ban. So Trump extended the timespan, and poked the ban full of loopholes. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1442/enact-5-year-ban-white-house-and-congressional-off/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea...
- BrandonY 9y ago
  Worse, Trump has issued at least 16 ethics "waivers" to at for staffers who would be banned from serving on his staff over his ethics rules. Once you make more than a dozen or so exceptions for who you're putting on your team, it's not really a rule at all. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ethics-pledge-waivers https://www.whitehouse.gov/ethics-pledge-waivers
nate_meurer 9y ago
Bullshit. Trump is bringing cronyism and opaqueness to heights unprecedented in recent administrations. His lobbying EO actually weakened some of Obama's lobbying restrictions. And while Trump strengthened some rules, he then promptly started handing out secret waivers to so his favorite lobbyists and and industry executives can come work for him. Go read about what the federal government's top ethics officer Walter M. Shaub Jr. had to say about this before he resigned. Honestly, this isn't hard to see. Just look at EPA, DOE, FERC... Trump is stacking our agencies with industry executives and lobbyists hostile to these agencies' charters, and in some cases their very existence.
- KGIII 9y ago
  If they are secret waivers, how do you know about them?
  - weaksauce 9y ago
    Because Shaub didn't like what Trump was doing in secret so he outed them before he resigned? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/top-ethics-officer-challenges-trump-over-secret-waivers-for-ex-lobbyists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/top-ethics-of...
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I may have a different definition than they appear to be using. If I'm understanding your link correctly, I'd say they were undisclosed. There would have been a paper trail and the data wasn't classified, correct? If he were to resign and leak secret information, he'd be in legal trouble, yes? Note: This is not meant to be read as approval, just a bit of contention at the language used.
      - weaksauce 9y ago
        I'd say the salient point about secrecy being this: > But Mr. Trump has chosen to keep the waivers secret. He dropped a practice, in place during the Obama administration, that any waiver would be shared with the Office of Government Ethics and posted on the White House website or the ethics office’s website, or on both. It certainly wasn't "top secret" in the classified sense but it was done with secrecy as if he had something to hide regarding the practice or, perhaps a more charitable reading was that he was ignorant of the precedent. From hiding the wh visitor logs to the ethics waivers to stopping the recording inside the wh press briefing room in my view they are actively trying to be less transparent in their dealings.
fweespeech 9y ago
> Well here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby within 5 years of their tenure in government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu.. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu.... getting Congress to pass a law that puts some teeth behind the promise is another question. You are mistaken if you believe that is a campaign promise he actually kept. https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15723994/trump-ethics-waivers https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15723994/trump-ethics-waivers > But he immediately began to staff the administration with people whose work seemed, on its face, to clearly violate the terms of the order. Rather than publicly grant waivers of ethics rules with a clearly stated rationale, the White House was simply routinely waiving ethics rules in secret so nobody knew how many waivers were issued or for what purpose. > Trump has finally provided documentation, and it shows that the ethics rules are plainly meaningless. He’s granted five times as many waivers in his first four months in office as Obama did, which cover key figures in the administration like Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counselor Kellyanne Conway. All told, 17 waivers were granted to members of the White House staff, and we still have no idea how many waivers have been granted for other executive branch agencies or whether anyone is even keeping track. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea... > Trump's ethics pledge, issued as an executive order on Saturday, includes a five-year "lobbying ban" that falls short of its name, preventing officials from lobbying the agency they worked in for five years after they leave, but allowing them to lobby other parts of the government. It is the weakest "lobbying ban" since Bush Jr.

Pxtl 9y ago

Even without lobbying, large corps can still use sweetheart positions in the private sector as a "reward" for friendly legislators who retire. Obviously targeting lobbying is an improvement, but it's not enough. And also, I'm wondering how that impacts a not-for-profit that a politician decides to champion after retirement... Is that "lobbying"?

maxxxxx 9y ago

From what I have read he is stacking agencies with lobbyists from industries they are supposed to regulate. So no, there is no reason to agree with him.

rgbrenner 9y ago

saying "everyone" isn't correct, because trump will give you a waiver if he wants you in his cabinet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/31/white-house-grants-ethics-waivers-to-17-appointees-including-four-former-lobbyists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...

fencepost 9y ago

> here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby This seems like a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Ignoring the question of what percentage of senior people have left due to being fired, the potential for legal cases against them, inability to personally pay for anticipated legal expenses, or some combination thereof, there's also the fact that it's still early in the Trump administration. The bigger factor is likely the massive number of (former?) lobbyists being hired into positions of influence. In fact, it seems that the lobbying ban you pointed to also removed a lot of restrictions that had been in place [1], and that there's been both noticeable granting of waivers and significant resistance to releasing information on those waivers [2]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-ethics-waivers-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-eth...

dangerlibrary 9y ago

He did! He also weakened the language for what defines the areas in which one is allowed to lobby. Specifically, Trump's lobbying ban only prevents officials from lobbying their former agency - it doesn't prevent them from becoming registered lobbyists. For example, an SEC official couldn't lobby for changes to the SEC, but they could lobby the other 4 financial regulatory agencies. There's also an ongoing legal debate about whether the language used in Trump's lobbying ban includes a loophole that would allow officials to continue to try to engage in certain kinds of lobbying - involving "agency proceedings" rather than legislation. The previous administration had stronger language (no lobbying whatsoever) and a 1 year ban. So Trump extended the timespan, and poked the ban full of loopholes. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1442/enact-5-year-ban-white-house-and-congressional-off/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea...

BrandonY 9y ago
Worse, Trump has issued at least 16 ethics "waivers" to at for staffers who would be banned from serving on his staff over his ethics rules. Once you make more than a dozen or so exceptions for who you're putting on your team, it's not really a rule at all. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ethics-pledge-waivers https://www.whitehouse.gov/ethics-pledge-waivers

nate_meurer 9y ago

Bullshit. Trump is bringing cronyism and opaqueness to heights unprecedented in recent administrations. His lobbying EO actually weakened some of Obama's lobbying restrictions. And while Trump strengthened some rules, he then promptly started handing out secret waivers to so his favorite lobbyists and and industry executives can come work for him. Go read about what the federal government's top ethics officer Walter M. Shaub Jr. had to say about this before he resigned. Honestly, this isn't hard to see. Just look at EPA, DOE, FERC... Trump is stacking our agencies with industry executives and lobbyists hostile to these agencies' charters, and in some cases their very existence.

KGIII 9y ago
If they are secret waivers, how do you know about them?
- weaksauce 9y ago
  Because Shaub didn't like what Trump was doing in secret so he outed them before he resigned? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/top-ethics-officer-challenges-trump-over-secret-waivers-for-ex-lobbyists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/top-ethics-of...
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I may have a different definition than they appear to be using. If I'm understanding your link correctly, I'd say they were undisclosed. There would have been a paper trail and the data wasn't classified, correct? If he were to resign and leak secret information, he'd be in legal trouble, yes? Note: This is not meant to be read as approval, just a bit of contention at the language used.
    - weaksauce 9y ago
      I'd say the salient point about secrecy being this: > But Mr. Trump has chosen to keep the waivers secret. He dropped a practice, in place during the Obama administration, that any waiver would be shared with the Office of Government Ethics and posted on the White House website or the ethics office’s website, or on both. It certainly wasn't "top secret" in the classified sense but it was done with secrecy as if he had something to hide regarding the practice or, perhaps a more charitable reading was that he was ignorant of the precedent. From hiding the wh visitor logs to the ethics waivers to stopping the recording inside the wh press briefing room in my view they are actively trying to be less transparent in their dealings.

fweespeech 9y ago

> Well here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby within 5 years of their tenure in government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu.. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu.... getting Congress to pass a law that puts some teeth behind the promise is another question. You are mistaken if you believe that is a campaign promise he actually kept. https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15723994/trump-ethics-waivers https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15723994/trump-ethics-waivers > But he immediately began to staff the administration with people whose work seemed, on its face, to clearly violate the terms of the order. Rather than publicly grant waivers of ethics rules with a clearly stated rationale, the White House was simply routinely waiving ethics rules in secret so nobody knew how many waivers were issued or for what purpose. > Trump has finally provided documentation, and it shows that the ethics rules are plainly meaningless. He’s granted five times as many waivers in his first four months in office as Obama did, which cover key figures in the administration like Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counselor Kellyanne Conway. All told, 17 waivers were granted to members of the White House staff, and we still have no idea how many waivers have been granted for other executive branch agencies or whether anyone is even keeping track. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea... > Trump's ethics pledge, issued as an executive order on Saturday, includes a five-year "lobbying ban" that falls short of its name, preventing officials from lobbying the agency they worked in for five years after they leave, but allowing them to lobby other parts of the government. It is the weakest "lobbying ban" since Bush Jr.