The Columbia Daily Tribune reposts on John Ashcroft’s new lobbying firm:
It’s all completely legal. But, should it be legal? We need to have a converstation in this country about what we think the proper rules should be for members of government that retire and go into business. On the one hand, many political figures forego much more lucrative opportunities in order to serve the nation in an official capacity. We don’t want to further discourage public service by attaching restrictions on their earning potential once they leave office. But, on the other hand, if we don’t have some legal guidelines, public servants will be tempted to use their time in office to grease their retirement.
Should a Secretary of Defense be able to take a job with Boeing? As a lobbyist? What would prevent Boeing from making promises of future employment to Defense secretaries in some quid pro quo transaction?
Part of the problem is in devising a realistic set of guidelines…rules that are both fair and enforceable.
We know what Ashcroft is doing stinks by the bad odor reading about it gives off. But Ashcroft is uniquely qualified to sell ‘homeland security technology’ in a way that he is not qualified to sell, say, real estate. Should he be denied a chance to make good money? Is that the price we want to attach to public service? Or, should we only attach it to cabinet positions?
No matter what we decide on the rules, the perception is important too. Ashcroft’s new business is a black eye to the office of the Attorney General.
Former lawmakers and other senior government officials routinely pass through the Washington revolving door and become advocates for commercial interests seeking to influence government, but the practice of former attorneys general has been to move to think tanks or academia or return to the practice of law.
Think tanks or academia? Not a lot of money in that.
So, we can all agree that Ashcroft’s new lobbying outfit is unseemly. But, should it be against the law? Can we put a blanket ban on lobbying on all retiring public officials (for say 3 years) without violating their constitutional rights? Would such a ban have enough of an effect on curbing corruption that it is worth the infringment of law and policymakers’ liberties?
Simple rule: You can’t lobby for anyone who has business with or before the agency from which you came.
It would eliminate much of the concerns we have. It will also never be passed into law.
Okay, but for how long?
And for someone that worked at the Pentagon that would involve tens of thousands of companies. Is there a practical way to limit the list of prohibited companies?
Yes, this is an easy one.
Anyone who serves in Congress as an elected official, or as an official of the executive or judicial branch of the federal government is prohibited FOR LIFE from lobbying unless they are willing to give up their lifetime pensions.
i think that is too extreme.
Why? Is public service supposed to be a profit making venture. Since when did we turn serving your country into business?
If you want to go into lobbying then do it. If you want to serve your district, your state, your country then do it. Don’t mix the two.
Further, if I go work for Microsoft design software and then leave, can I use the code that I wrote at another firm? No, I am prohibited for life from doing that because it belongs to Microsoft. Well, as long as the government is paying you a pension for service to the country, why should it be allowable to use the knowledge you gained while serving to your financial gain?
(Compromise is supposed to be what makes America great. So I will admit that I would compromise on this issue — say a ten year ban on lobbying. But if we start with some sort of minor time period you will end up with a worthless one or two year on lobbying.)
Is public service supposed to be a profit making venture.
Hell no! Remember when the term “public servant” was commonly used? And what about the argument that the salaries have to be competitive to attract supposedly qualified people to elected office? Total bullshit. What person cannot live on the salaries that are currently the norm in DC? Compare that amount to what a person who is dependent on SSI receives–around $600.00 per month. Shit, with all of the bullshit that I have had to go thru, don’t tell me that I don’t understand how to interpet/understand/appeal/write the legalistic government regualations!!! And that skill could apply to millions of others in this country who have had to go thru the same crap that I did!
Damn, maybe I should in 2008–that would take down that son of a bitch asshole in my district!!!!
Coming across the wire . . .
Lots of companies ask employees to sign non-compete clauses that prohibit them from working in the same industry for a specified time period after employment has been terminated (either voluntarily or involuntarily) Perhaps a non-lobby clause for gov’t workers (elected and not) for 3 years. A guy like Ashcroft could surely write his memoirs or make the rounds on the speaker circuit.
3 years is too short!!!!
What if it’s combined with a mandatory probation of some sort? Possibly moitoring the transactions of not only the lobbyist but all interactions of the process including the results of the lobbying? Complete oversight.
Remember the changes in the FOIA?
Is it possible that the words “national security” will be used to justify the witholding of the monitoring information?
That’s what they’ve been using the national security excuse for so far, just covering their ass.
We can’t eliminate lobbying and shouldn’t do it if we could. It’s part of the free speech and representation that needs to be protected. We just need to stop the revolving door policy and make it nonprofit.
One suggestion I heard was that any money donations could go into a general fund and not fund a specific cause. We also have to think a step ahead and figure what would be exploited next after a proposed change is considered.
What you say makes sense. But, I still feel that we have to go for a lifetime prohibition against former government employees turning lobbyists.
I don’t have any problem with that when everything is considered. I agree with the points made above that it can be a career choice between one or the other.
Really. If one wants to lobby, then lobby. If one want to hold public office than do that. This switching from one to the other for the $$ involved is crap.
5 years?
Agree w/numediaman on this one. Gotta go for lifetime on this! See above post re: changes in FOIA.
…then again, he could start up his own church and snare us sinners to repent our sins…on but there is that lobbing things again…the christian coalition…they lobby don’t they??? shucks..I thought I was onto something…then again he could invest in the cloth that covered lady justice..that might help him with his and his mrs make ends meet..
What I think of this one man is not good..no in the least….
Can you imagine the “contributions” he’s receive? Wonder if that alone would balance the federal budget?
:o)..well, it might be a start…lol
I can’t stand the man.. I worked the phones so hard during his nomination for AG. Man, I can tell you right now, I do not like the man….Whata jerk…