Donald Trump’s transition team has announced that everyone being vetted for a high-level appointment must pledge not to become a registered lobbyist for five years after they leave Trump’s administration — and never lobby for a foreign government.
In addition, all current registered lobbyists must be prepared to deregister in order to be considered for a post.
This is nice, but largely meaningless, especially given the rest of Trump’s actions. It’s like draining a tiny corner of the Everglades even as you ship in thousands more alligators and anacondas to wallow in the rest of it.
Most importantly, as the richest president-elect in history, Trump has shown no interest in addressing the gigantic, never-before-seen conflict of interest of his own business empire. Literally everything he does as president could have some effect on his personal wealth. As Laura Friedenbach, press secretary for the public interest organization Every Voice, puts it, “If Trump is cleaning house, he needs to start by addressing the head of the household. … He has a clear opportunity to show that the American people come before his personal interests by simply setting up a true blind trust.”
A true blind trust would mean that Trump would have to appoint an independent trustee, with no connections at all to Trump or his family, who would then sell all of Trump’s assets and use the proceeds to make other investments that Trump knew nothing about. Every president for four decades has done this or simply held the kind of publicly-disclosed, widely-diversified investments that an independent trustee would choose anyway.
This matters because, as anyone knows who’s ever worked in any human organization, corruption at the top inevitably cascades downwards. If the most powerful people refuse to pay any price themselves, those further down the ladder will inevitably take their cue from this no matter what piece of paper they sign.
That’s especially important since the lobbying ban has nothing to do what people actually do while wielding government power. Trump is considering corporate moguls for top posts who will have daily opportunities to affect their industry. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said that Trump is creating “perhaps the most conflict of interest” potential of “any administration I’ve ever seen.”
Barack Obama dealt with this problem by issuing an executive order requiring appointees to agree not to participate “in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.”
Holman points out that Obama’s rules, and the fact that he personally demonstrated that he took them seriously, made his government strikingly scandal-free when compared with the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. “Trump needs to do that more than anybody,” says Holman, and if he doesn’t, “His administration is going to be riddled with scandals … with businessmen rewarding themselves and their clients.”
As of now, Trump’s barebones “plan for ethics reform” mentions nothing along these lines.
Finally, in terms of the specifics of Trump’s lobbying ban, there are two huge problems.
First, there’s no ban on present-day lobbyists. Republican National Committee Chief Strategist Sean Spicer said today that instead of “looking back,” Trump’s plan “looks forward.” Someone who spent the past 30 years lobbying can just deregister this afternoon and they’re good to go.
Moreover, any former lobbyist who snags a plum Trump position will realize there’s no way on earth the ban will ever be enforced. In 2006, then-Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd pointed out that during the past three years the Senate’s office in charge of keeping track of lobbyists had “referred over 2,000 cases to the Department of Justice, and nothing’s been heard from them again.”
Second, there’s a huge problem with the legal definition of “lobbyist” and how exactly the ban will be enforced.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 set up three thresholds that must be met for someone to be considered a lobbyist. The most important of these is that you have to spend at least 20 percent of your time in any three month period lobbying for any one client.
So you can make $3 million a year lobbying, but if you limit yourself to pushing Exxon’s interests to just 19 percent of your time, you’re not a lobbyist.
And everyone in Washington is free to make this determination on their own. Just don’t register as a lobbyist, and as Dodd said, it’s extremely unlikely anyone at the Justice Department is going to come looking for you.
This initially didn’t matter because there were no consequences to registering as a lobbyist beyond the fact the public would be able to find out about it. In fact, says Holman, lobbyists wanted to register so their clients would take them seriously.
That changed with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which prohibited ex-cabinet officials, members of Congress and their senior staff from lobbying in various ways for periods of one to two years after they left office.
This did not necessarily lead to less lobbying, but it did lead to over 5,000 lobbyists de-registering in 2008 and 2009. There are fewer than 10,000 federally registered lobbyists – but there are likely at least another 10,000 who would be considered lobbyists under any common sense definition.
Notorious examples of this include former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Since leaving office both have engaged in quiet orgies of self-enrichment, trading on their government connections as non-lobbyist lobbyists. (For unknown reasons Daschle did recently register as a lobbyist, 10 years after leaving office.)
In fairness, part of Trump’s plan does say he’ll “expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.” But he’s provided no specifics about what this means.
So all in all, Trump’s purported desire to drain the swamp has not manifested itself yet in plans to do anything meaningful about Washington, D.C.’s gluttonous self-dealing.
Still, says Holman, “it gives me some hope to see Trump come out with these policies. … I’m not giving up on it.” Another small flicker of hope could be seen in the panic of Politico, a publication about and for the swamp, which initially headlined an article today “How President-elect Trump’s lobbyist ban threatens to hobble the transition.” It’s since been changed, presumably after non-swamp feedback, to the less-revealing “Trump tries to steady rocky transition.”
Love this line about Politico: “a publication about and for the swamp.”
Gotta start somewhere.
Drain the Swamp.
It’s BIG. Lots of nasty crocks in there.
People who say they don’t get the analogy here are either being deliberately disingenuous or are mentally incapable of connecting two thoughts. The President Elect said he would “drain the swamp” of Washington D.C.. Because, D.C. is built on a swamp, this has long been a metaphor for eliminating corruption in the nation’s capitol. The key word here is “disingenuous”–Donald Trump never meant toeliminate corruption. That his supporters thought that was his intent is a convenience for him that will in no way alter his sincerest intentions to grab America by the same organ he grabs random women.
“never-before-seen conflict of interest of his own business empire”
Well if we could elect meth-mouth Manny down the street to run the gov. (and we should be able too) then this wouldn’t be a prob.
What’s wrong with lobbyists?
I’m being slightly facetious, but the problem is that I suspect things aren’t as clear cut as we are led to believe.
For example, I am a member of a very small association for a minority “interest group” who could potentially be adversely affected by future legislation. No media would be interested enough to take up our cause, the general public probably couldn’t care less, and the majority of politicians know next to nothing about what we do.
So the obvious thing is to try and meet these politicians, so that when they think of ‘topic’ they think of a face, not a label. And the day the legislation comes up, they think “oh, I know someone who’s into that and can explain it to me”.
Is that acceptable lobbying? And if so, at what point does it become unacceptable?
I don’t get the Everglades analogy. There’s nothing good about draining a natural swamp, and the Everglades is an endangered ecosystem. On top of that, conflating native alligators with non-native anacondas is especially idiotic, as anacondas are a huge problem in the Everglades, killing massive numbers of native species.
This is a perfect example of the worst aspect of the left: myopic obsession on an issue while ignoring or being on the wrong side of an environmental issue. No wonder a Native American friend once told me that he and fellow traditional activists hate the left as much as the right.
Wow.
I didn’t see that coming.
A man sued for multiple refusals to pay creditors, who declared bankruptcy … waht … six times? … a man who pays no taxes, a man under investigation by attorneys general for Trump university, an American who colludes with Russian oligarchs, a peach of a guy who refuses to release his own tax returns while calling his opponent crooked … whew … who would expect this stand up guy to shave the rules for himself?
What a surprise!
Good going Republicans … not only are you going to collapse the economy again, you’re going to make the worst of them rich while they do it.
I suppose if you like metaphorical train wrecks, the next few months are going to be entertaining … entertaining in the same way as your eyeballs exploding because you can’t look away.
Good going termites. You finally get to the destroy the government. You should be proud. The Soviets couldn’t do it, the Nazis couldn’t do it, Reagan and the Bushes couldn’t quite do it, the Republican Senate couldn’t do it — none of them failing for want of trying — but finally you’ve found your own treacherous fatman with a Mussolini scowl and a family of American Psychos.
Destroy the government, really? By exposing corruption and good ol’ boy tactics? What rock did you crawl out from under?
Making it seem as if Barack Obama had some kind of handle on lobbyist’s is sheer buzzfeed calibre propaganda. You seem to be remembering an anti-corruption presidency that didn’t exist, especially one that presided over one of the largest financial bailouts and protectionism in history. We’re talking about someone who actually signed a law making Monsanto immune to lawsuits. FFS
You truly forget how scandal-free the admin was the first four years.
The bank bailouts came from GWB. (Nice try, but I’ll continue.)
“A so-called ‘Monsanto rider,’ quietly slipped into the multi-billion dollar FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, would require — not just allow, but require — the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed,” wrote Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins in a recent piece for AlterNet.
We are not talking about legislative decisions (I agree on the bank protectionism ) but agency scandals – minus the GSA Administrator who was largely scapegoated.
And I certainly don’t defend Monsanto immunity, but that was in the second term.
This is not corrupt agency scandal – so I think that you are wrong, here.
Where credit or blame is due – assign it.
2012 is still in his first term.
Draining the swamp is a terrible idea. The only viable strategy towards lobbying is to try and contain it. Washington itself is a lost cause. Trying to drain it at this point simply risks contaminating the entire country.
Mr. Trump’s best strategy would be to build a wall around Washington and dam up the lobbyists. If only someone could convince him of the utility of building a wall.
Draining a swamp seems like a lot of work for a 70 year old man to do on his own.
Maybe Progressives should show up and be part of the conversation.
There don’t appear to be any progressives left in Washington.
@Si1ver1ock and @Maisie
Very sorry to say but the so called progressives are hell bent on making sure Mr Trump fails….. just like the conservatives who had decided on day one, “Pres Obama can not be allowed to succeed”. And even if one tried, he/she would be demonised for “helping the adversary”. Wonder if anyone is thinking of the country or his/her fellow citizens!
Job one in draining the swamp would be repealing Citizens United.
Where is Trump on Citizens United? Which Supreme Court nominees would help flip it?
Judge Andrew Napolitano seems to have a libertarian streak, protecting civil rights and restraining government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano
This is from August 2015…..
https://leonardclark.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/trump-attacks-citizens-united-and-other-candidates-for-benefiting-from-it/
Interestingly, one comment for this was….
If things keep on going in the same direction the 2016 presidential BATTLEGROUND promises to be a show beyond all expectations.
And boy, was it!!
Why would Donald Trump care so much about a company he would step down from when he is inaugurated?
20% of your time? So it’s ok to be a Hobby Lobbyist, just not a full-timer.
I like it.
No, it’s OK to be fulltime lobbiest, you just can’t lobby more than 20% on a SINGLE clients behalf in a 3 month period. So, it’s perfectly OK to get 100% of your income from lobbying and still not be considered a lobbiest. Lastly, if you also missed it, the rule is not enforcable, or simply won’t be enforced in the first place. Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’ does nothing, but that’s what you’d expect when you put a gator in charge and he staffs up with even more gators.
This is a great step in the right direction without having put a huge infrastructure in place. Maybe someday the Intercept will write an article with a hint of positivity.
You are kidding, right?
Have you read Mr Trumps daily tweets? He lies about everything. He has the unbridled and unfiltered behavior of a juvenile. And almost everything he tweets about is a lie.
Taking credit for Ford.
Taking credit for ISIL airstrikes.
Millions of illegal votes cast. Where’s the proof?
Joy in the death of Fidel Castro – I assume that’s what that ridiculously high-school girlish exclamation point is. (Points are.)
This is only in the past week.
The man has no filter and no self-control. He is sowing fear here and abroad, and if you don’t think he’s behaving irrationally and dangerously, you are not YET paying attention.
If Mr Trump fails, we all fail. That is not what I want to see, but I will fight his childish, vendetta-driven behavior/policies until he grows up, behaves, or shows that he gives a damn about anybody but himself. He has big balls, but his brain and heart are very small. That’s not what we need in our President. Speaking of – we have one President at a time. When does the media remember this?