An Indiana Republican with a background in manufacturing says he’s found an inefficiency in the legislative process: The role of former lawmakers paid to influence current policy and spending debates.
Rep. Trey Hollingsworth says this influence has contributed to the national debt, and as a fix, he wants to criminalize all professional lobbying by former members of the House and Senate.
Hollingsworth told the Washington Examiner the idea is popular in his southern Indiana district, and that it would make good on President Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp.”
“November has rung loud and clear in many people’s minds, that they want to see a cultural shift in Washington,” said Hollingsworth, elected last year to his first term.
A lifetime lobbying ban would deprive former lawmakers of a popular career option. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 434 former members of Congress have worked as lobbyists.
Current law requires former House members to wait one year and former senators two years before lobbying. As a candidate, Trump suggested five-year bans.
Hollingsworth, 34, said he’s received supportive remarks from colleagues, though just one — Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind. — is a cosponsor of the BLAST Act, which uses an acronym for Banning Lobbying and Safeguarding Trust.
The BLAST Act, introduced Oct. 31, would make lobbying punishable by a fine and up to one year in prison. If violations are willful, the penalty would be up to five years in prison.
“We’ve got $20 trillion in debt, and much of that we’ve gained because of go-along, get-along politicians who weren’t focused on saying no [but] were focused on saying ‘yes’ because it was in the interest of their careers,” Hollingsworth said.
“This isn’t something that’s going to happen next week, next month, or next quarter, but I am optimistic because Americans demanded change last November,” he said.
Lifetime lobbying bans have been offered before, including by Rep. Rod Blum, R-Iowa, in 2015 and Sens. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., in 2014. The efforts did not gain traction and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has signaled hostility to more moderate proposals, such as lengthening the wait-period to five years for former House members.
“What if you want to become an advocate for the cancer society? What if you want, after you retired, to help your local hospital system and be on their board to support them and then go get legislation?” Ryan said in January.
It’s also unclear if a lifetime ban would be constitutional. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert, believes a lifetime lobbying ban would not survive legal challenges.
“The First Amendment right to petition the government includes the right to talk to one’s representatives; and, as with the freedom of speech and of the press, that includes talking for money,” Volokh said. “A lifetime ban on such speech by former legislators would be unconstitutional.”
Volokh said shorter-term restrictions might be found acceptable by courts, but that “a lifetime ban would pretty clearly not be narrowly tailored enough to any compelling government interest.”
Former Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., who was a lobbyist before his appointment to President Barack Obama’s Senate seat, meanwhile, said the bill would deprive the public of well-informed experts who can put their expertise to use.
“If you cut all of that knowledge off, it would be a disservice to the country,” Burris said.
Hollingsworth countered, however, that “I don’t want lawmakers with a sufficient knowledge of how the system works pushing their own special interests.”
The congressman conceded “I’m no constitutional lawyer,” but said he doesn’t believe the bill is a threat to free speech, as it only restricts accepting money, not wielding influence for free.
“You can call your legislator just like any other constituent,” he said. “It puts you on the same playing field and removes the incentive for you to do things in your public role only to benefit your next career.”
