Can Ben Sasse Actually Drain the Swamp?

Judging by the substance, Senator Ben Sasse has made a forceful case that an ethics reform package he introduced on Thursday would help unclog Washington’s “swamp.” Draining the capital of conflicts of interest is not a rhetorical task—it requires a frank diagnosis of the city’s institutional failures, but also an aggressive response to them. Perhaps it’s good timing for the Nebraska Republican that “he says what he thinks” is such a compliment of a politician these days. Sasse’s proposals aren’t subtle: Rather, they are in direct response to specific people and events, without regard to partisan affiliation. They are the work of a sharp-tongued ombudsman.

Sasse’s reforms are grouped together as five bills. Three of them pertain to Congress: One prohibits elected members from trading individual stocks, another bars them from lobbying after leaving office, and a third updates the process of handling congressional settlements, requiring more and speedier disclosures about the arrangements and personal reimbursements for money rewarded. The other two are relevant to the executive branch: One bars the immediate family members of cabinet officials from soliciting foreign money, and the other mandates the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the major parties to release their tax returns.

Lobbying bans are always the headliners of government ethics legislation. Lawmakers have made repeated passes in the last 30 years at cracking down on such activity, establishing a two-year “cooling-off” period for former members in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Members of the current session of Congress, both right and left, have advocated a lifetime prohibition, including Colorado senators Cory Gardner (R) and Michael Bennet (D) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). President Trump wanted to police his own branch of government: He issued an executive order in January 2017 preventing appointees who leave the administration from lobbying their former agencies for five years, among other restrictions.

But the good-government ambitions that have turned into law were watered down by amendments and negotiation during the legislative process. The loose definition of “lobbying” hasn’t been tightened since a 1995 statute, for example—unsurprising, since so many of the senators and representatives involved in reform discussions go on to lobby after departing elected office. This precedent suggests that Sasse won’t have much more success than his predecessors extending lobbying limitations.

However, he brings some new ideas to the table—and he’s naming names in doing so. His proposed ban on cabinet members and their families raising funds from abroad mentions the first family of Democratic politics: “No more Clintons using high office to line their own pockets,” he stated in a release announcing his legislation. Requiring presidential and vice-presidential nominees to disclose their tax returns has an obvious inspiration: “In 2016, Donald Trump became the first major party nominee in modern American history not to release his tax returns. … Every presidential nominee prior to 2016 understood that voters deserve basic information about the financial situation of their potential chief executive,” Sasse wrote in a USA Today op-ed.

The ban on congressmen trading individual securities? That doubtlessly has some roots in present times. Former Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price came under fire during his confirmation hearings for his stock activity while in office. One of Price’s former colleagues, Rep. Chris Collins, was sunk in recent months after being charged with securities fraud. The two men were intertwined by their investments in an Australian drug company.

The reforms to congressional settlement procedures? Former Rep. John Conyers may be a case study in why they’re needed.

These proposals hit Republican and Democratic malefactors alike: For every Trump a Clinton, and for every Collins a Conyers. It may not be the best way to make friends in Washington. But voters in the 50 states may have a different take.

Related Content