BISMARCK, N.D. - When members of Congress leave office, an industry lobbying role often is in their future. A new report says states such as North Dakota could provide a model to help the federal government slow this revolving door.

The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen applauded North Dakota and two other states for their strong restrictions on lobbying after lawmakers leave office. Report co-author Craig Holman, Public Citizen's government-affairs lobbyist, said the ethics measure passed by voters in November prohibits former officials from influencing public policy during a two-year "cooling off" period.

"And it not only has a longer cooling-off period," he said, "it also just prohibits - during that two-year cooling-off period - former elected officials from doing any kind of lobbying activity."

Holman said this kind of reform would close a loophole that allows former lawmakers to become lobbyists so long as they avoid directly lobbying to people in office. This year, Public Citizen found nearly two-thirds of former members of Congress have gone on to work for groups that seek to influence federal policies, including lobbying firms, consulting firms, trade groups and business groups.

Holman called the pipeline of former lawmakers into lobbying jobs "one of the most pernicious influence-peddling schemes available to wealthy special interests," adding that a lucrative job after leaving office has the potential to corrupt politicians.

"If he or she curries favor with that special employer, special interest," he said, "it's hard to make sure that the officeholder is acting on behalf of the public interest, rather than his or her own interest."

While the U.S. Senate has a two-year cooling-off period for for lobbying activities, it remains only one year for the House. Holman said the minimum should be at least two years, because that's the length of a legislative session and it takes at least that long for old staff contacts to turn over. Florida lawmakers recently passed a six-year cooling-off period - the longest to date.

The report is online at citizen.org.


get more stories like this via email

Most West Virginians pay taxes on every dollar they earn, while large corporations and billionaires use tax loopholes to pay as little as zero in income taxes, and in turn use the money to pump tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns, according to a new report released by West Virginia Citizen Action Group in collaboration with Americans for Tax Fairness.

The report found almost half the nearly $190 million dollars raised by the House and Senate GOP super PACs in the first 16 months of the 2022 campaign cycle came from 27 billionaires.

Gary Zuckett, executive director of the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Mountain State residents end up footing the bill for roads and other local government services.

"Why does this make a difference to middle- and working-class West Virginians?" Zuckett asked. "The reason it makes a difference is that every dollar that billionaires and millionaires don't pay in taxes, that tax-dodging corporations don't pay on their profits, is our tax dollars that the working class has to make up to keep our government functioning."

Billionaire political donations in 2020 were nearly double the $682 million poured into campaigns in 2016, according to data from the OpenSecrets database. Monday evening, activists rallied in Charleston outside West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin's office, calling for the passage of climate and tax-fairness legislation.

Zuckett believes lawmakers should be focusing on major campaign finance reforms ahead of the 2024 presidential election campaign, including reforming the 2009 Supreme Court decision, which paved the way for unlimited political contributions by corporations.

"We need to fix the Citizens United Ruling," Zuckett emphasized. "We need legislation that said that corporations can't spend unlimited amounts of money in politics, buying our elections."

According to the report, the nation's billionaires increased their wealth significantly during the last two years of the pandemic, from a collective $2 trillion among around 700 individuals to more than $5 trillion dollars as of last April.

Pennsylvania's Senate race is garnering national attention, with Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz running to replace retiring Republican Sen. Pat Toomey. A new report examines how outside spending from Super PACs and national donors affects voters.

The report from American Promise includes recent survey results that say more than 70% of Pennsylvanians think big donors have too much political influence.

As they can expect to see hundreds of millions of dollars poured into political ads for the Senate race, Bill Cortese of American Promise said "dark money" can create a sense of mistrust among voters.

"Pennsylvania voters deserve to learn about the candidates who are running and make their own decisions on this, without being influenced by outside groups," said Cortese. "Democrats, Republicans, Independents all agree that this outside money - from people who, most of the time, don't reside in Pennsylvania - is troubling."

Lt. Gov. Fetterman's team has raised over $16 million, a large portion from organized labor, as well as a big donation from a D.C.-based progressive super PAC.

TV Celebrity and patent medicine pitchman Oz has raised over $15 million. He's supported in part by the American Leadership Action PAC, which raised over $4 million.

Jennifer Mann is an Allentown-based consultant and former state representative. She said over the years, the money funneled into races has skyrocketed, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Mann added that when a majority of campaign donations are coming from a small but wealthy group of people, it discourages others from participating in the electoral process.

"What we want to do is go back to what the intent is, in the founding of this country," said Mann. "And that's for citizen legislators, for regular folks from all walks of life, to participate in the process. They're just being drowned out by specific agendas and big money."

State Rep. Meghan Schroeder - R-Bucks - is calling on Congress this month to enact the "For Our Freedom" constitutional amendment, which would give state lawmakers the "authority to regulate" political campaign donations.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Ohio's primary election includes candidates in the race for governor as well as many U.S. congressional districts, but the race to fill retiring U.S. Sen. Rob Portman's seat is getting national attention.

It is an open-seat race in a quintessential swing state, with the possibility of a competitive general election in the fall.

Jacob Rubashkin, reporter and analyst for Inside Elections, explained former President Donald Trump held a firm grip over the field of eight candidates.

"Making all these candidates come down to Mar-a-Lago, really relishing in the fact that almost all of these candidates, of course with the exception of Matt Dolan, are going above and beyond to try and win his endorsement because the former president is still the most influential figure in the Republican Party," Rubashkin observed.

Trump endorsed J.D. Vance, an author and political newcomer who reversed his anti-Trump stance when he entered the race. Vance had been neck-and-neck with former state treasurer Josh Mandel, who is backed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and retired General Michael Flynn. But now Vance holds a slight edge in polling over Mandel and Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls.

On the Democratic side, Rubashkin said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, of Youngstown is the clear front-runner over attorney Morgan Harper, who worked for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"Morgan Harper is a credible candidate," Rubashkin noted. "She was not able to generate the same level of enthusiasm as some other progressive challengers in recent Senate primary memory. Tim Ryan has the support of pretty much the entire Democratic establishment. He's got the money, he's got the campaign infrastructure."

Whether a Democrat or Republican wins, Rubashkin said Ohioans can expect a different approach from whoever fills Portman's seat.

"He is a figure from a previous era of politics," Rubashkin observed. "This is a guy who served in the George W. Bush Administration. He represents perhaps a more at least temperamentally moderate, pragmatic wing of the party."

Portman served in the U.S. House from 1993 to 2005. He's been a U.S. Senator for Ohio since 2011.