Trump administration will ban lobbyists | Hacker News Reader

Trump administration will ban lobbyists

washingtonpost.com

26 pointstmptmp22 comments

It would be interesting to see how media will respond. Last time I watched them they were upset he went to dinner without inviting them or some such thing.

One complaint I heard on a Washington, DC forum was that it would destroy DC culture. I imagine "lobbyist struggling to make ends meet after being laid off" might be an angle.

> The five-year ban will make it harder for Trump to recruit people to work in the administration.

I imagine anyone in Washington who knows how things run is a lobbyist of some sort. Wonder how or who they'd have to hire who wasn't some insider of sorts. If people don't know the system they'll probably make mistakes or take too long to get started. If they know too much they are probably corrupt and lobbying for someone else as well.

This won't clean up Washington much at all as it only involves the Trump administration appointments. IF Trump was serious about clamping down on the revolving door between Lobbyists and Congress he would have to enact this ban for Congress as well as his administration. Congress is the "swamp", not the Trump White House, correct?

Sadly I think this is nothing but smoke and mirrors, an attempt to appear to "clean up" Washington whilst at the same time doing as little as possible to actually sort out the problems at hand.

Ah good point!

Wasn't he talking about term limits. Let's see how well the Congress will like the idea to enact term limits for the ... Congress.

Legislature is funny like that. They can change the rules which are used to make the rules so to speak. But I want to see him pull that off.

FTA: "On its face, the lobbyist ban appears stringent, but it could be easily skirted if a lobbyist were to deregister to be eligible to join the administration. One sign indicates that it may already be happening: A close aide to Pence who is a Washington lobbyist, Josh Pitcock, filed paperwork with the Senate on Monday to terminate his status as a federal lobbyist."

In other words, this is meaningless for people being hired into the administration, and of course they can become lobbyists again after they leave government service.

However, there is a registration involved when going through the revolving doors, both ways?

Is that public information? Sounds like a good service to American society?

It's pretty easy to skirt. Just incorporate and have your firm be a consultant.

Obama had a similar policy in place (2 year ban instead of 5 years), but ended up making exceptions left and right to hire people he wanted.

A podcast talked about this recently (can't remember which one). Basically said that government employees make so little that anyone worth their weight has to eventually be allowed to make lobbyist salary, otherwise they won't go work for the administration.

NPR politics podcast (I think the most recent episode) ;) I listened to the same one

Wasn't this one of Obama's promises?

Not likely to become a law either. Many congresspersons have an excellent backup plan in becoming a well-connected lobbyist if they are ever voted out of office. They are not likely to vote that away from themselves.

Sorry on mobile. Should have been in reply to Jotato

Unless a law is enacted, I wonder how legally binding the 5 year waiting period is. That is one long non-compete agreement!

You put it in their hiring contract, similar to non-compete clauses. No law needed, just force people to tie their own hands in the future if they want the job now.

But if it's not a law, who are they making the agreement with? Suppose Trump is voted out in 4 years, is he going to go after any of these guys for breach of contract if they become a lobbyist? It seems strange to make it anything but a law if you want it to have teeth.

Maybe him making it 5 years is a statement that he plans to be in office for a second term, but you're right someone needs to be there to enforce the contract.

I think a law would be ideal, but I have little hopes of that being passed (similar to Trumps plan to add term limits), the lobbyists don't like it and they control the purses and the purses control the congressmen/women.

Previous HN discussion on the legality of lobbying.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11508551

Thanks for linking to that. I found kbaker's input interesting, that transparency of Congressmen's votes leads to powerful lobbyists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11509420

yeah.. but, theyll introduce a more exclusive, effective version for the elite insiders

Title makes it sound like a lot more than it is.

First they came for the lobbyists and I did not speak up because I was not a lobbyist.

Then they came for deplorables.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com