
U.S. sets 5-year and lifetime lobbying ban for officials - randomname2
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_LOBBYING_BAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-28-17-31-55
======
Overtonwindow
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)

------
fictioncircle
> 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.

~~~
handedness
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
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.

~~~
chillwaves
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
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
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-
lifeti...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifetime-
lobbying-ban-officials-n713631)

[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-sets-year-
lif...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-sets-year-lifetime-
lobbying-ban-officials-45115600)

[http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-
ban/](http://time.com/4652703/president-trump-lobbying-ban/)

~~~
downandout
Here's CNN's attempt at spin [1]:

"However, Trump's move to ban his aides from cashing in on their current jobs
may be easier said than done. Lobbying can be ambiguously titled in practice,
and while former staffers may not become registered lobbyists, they could
potentially trade influence and government experience for a hefty paycheck all
the same."

They also buried the story among many negative ones on their home page.

[1] [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-
executiv...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-
actions/index.html)

------
cmurf
Not much new here.

[http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512201631/trumps-executive-
ord...](http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512201631/trumps-executive-order-on-
ethics-pulls-word-for-word-from-obama-clinton)

~~~
general_ai
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.

~~~
nkozyra
> 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.

~~~
marcoperaza
So I used to oppose term limits for Congress until I saw a very interesting
argument:

The longer you have been in power, the longer the list of prior decisions and
positions that you must defend, or else admit you were wrong. And so you end
up clinging to bad positions, opposing good laws and good repeals, or
supporting bad laws and bad repeals, because your own political fortunes are
tied up in having been correct the first time around.

~~~
WalterBright
Being called a "flip-flopper" guarantees one cannot learn from experience.

~~~
nkozyra
It's amazing how a potentially valuable human attribute has been branded as a
political handicap.

~~~
manquer
Well it depends.. if you vote someone for his current stance towards something
I would expect he keep it whether he personally has changed view or not . If
you vote for someone on their ability to think and act , for thier character I
would expect them to change.

Usually it a combination of both so there is no simple answer

~~~
marcoperaza
Also, you want these people for their good foresight. Hindsight isn't quite as
useful.

------
adjkant
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.

------
Numberwang
One of the few good Trump policies.

~~~
helthanatos
We'll see in a year... It's only been a few days.

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

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

