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

Leading up to this week's election, Wisconsin voters have been inundated with campaign ads for the high-profile state Supreme Court race, and watchdogs say the massive spending should lead to more calls for reform.

The race to fill a seat on Wisconsin's high court has shattered campaign spending records, with nearly $40 million in contributions. The outcome of the contest will affect the court's ideological balance, making it attractive to donors.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, said the loosening of state campaign finance laws in recent years is a big factor here.

"The campaign finance laws in Wisconsin have been totally decimated in the last 10 years," Heck contended. "We now allow in this state coordination between outside special interest groups and candidate committees, including for the Supreme Court."

The court has had a conservative majority for some time now, sparking backlash about such matters as gerrymandered political maps favoring Republicans. Even with those concerns in mind, Heck argued all voters lose when judicial campaigns are allowed so much access to financial support. He noted the candidates now have to run like those seeking other offices, shedding their impartiality in the process.

Republicans led the charge to overhaul the state's campaign finance laws, and Democrats have made unsuccessful attempts to bring back restrictions. Those who supported the changes argued they were necessary because these activities were already happening. But Heck countered it is grown out of hand, especially for judicial races.

"And I think that's a tragedy, because that's not what Wisconsin used to be like," Heck recounted. "We used to have a reputation for having one of the most impartial, least corruptible court systems in the country."

He warned justices are not required to recuse themselves from a case if there is a conflict of interest stemming from a campaign donation.

Common Cause is not endorsing any candidate, but Heck acknowledged a flip to a left-leaning majority could lead to decisions on election policy his group supports, included overturning a ban on drop boxes for ballots.

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


get more stories like this via email

New York's Public Campaign Finance Program is facing delays from the very people who approved it - New York legislators. The program was approved by the Legislature in 2020 and aims to level the playing field of campaign donations for everyday New Yorkers and special-interest groups. One element of the program is a matching system, which allows contributions of less than $250 to be matched by a public fund. This means candidates would have to interact more with constituents for campaign funding instead of dialing for dollars. Legislators feel the uncertainty surrounding the state's redistricting process is why the program needs to be delayed.

Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America said there is another reason why legislators want to delay the program's rollout.

"I think that they're nervous, first about having a little competition because this will mean folks who aren't necessarily connected to money donors in the same way you often need to be in New York to get elected to begin with, will also have access to funding that they need to run campaigns and win, " she said.

This means grassroots candidates, low-income, minority and women candidates have better access to funding they need to get their message out. Most New Yorkers support the program, according to a poll by Data for Progress and Stand Up America. 61% of New York voters support the small-dollar matching program, the poll said.

According to an analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice, the 200 largest donors in New York's 2022 elections gave almost $16-million while 206,000 of the state's small donors raised about $13.5 million.

Karen Wharton, democracy coalition coordinator with Citizen Action of New York, said this is not what democracy is about.

"We know that this system will bring some equity, equalize that a little bit so that we all have a say in our democracy. An equal say in our democracy," she said. "Democracies shouldn't be just for the wealthy."

The Brennan Center's analysis also notes the financial power of small donors would increase sixfold under this program - from 11% in 2022 to about 67% percent in state Senate and Assembly elections due to all the small donors who live in each candidate's district, the analysis said.

Control of the U.S. Senate could once again be decided in Georgia as a tight race between Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker heads to a runoff.

Peach State voters are bracing for a four-week blitz of campaigning and massive spending as each candidate and his supporters pump record cash into the race.

So far, Warnock's campaign has spent $135.8 million, while Walker's has spent $32.4 million, according to data from the Federal Election Commission. Millions in outside spending are also expected to keep flooding the state.

Sarah Bryner, director of research and strategy for the group OpenSecrets, said the expenditure is par for the course.

"Georgia being a purple state is going to likely see huge amounts of spending in the future," Bryner projected. "So long as those races are the ones that have the potential to make or break the outcome."

This will be the second runoff for Warnock, who first won his seat in January 2021 in the most expensive congressional elections to date, drawing nearly $363 million. Other close-call contests in Arizona and Nevada could tip the scale for control of the Senate but for now, the Georgia race will be decided Dec. 6.

Neither candidate surpassed the 50% threshold to win the race outright, so they will be making their pitch yet again and Bryner pointed out it will take a lot of money to do so in Georgia and other contests around the country.

"Huge amounts of money, especially if this again is the race that makes the difference between a Democratic majority and a Republican majority," Bryner explained. "Every eye in the country is going to be on it and that means that the money will follow. "

As the race advances, voters can expect more high-profile notables to barnstorm the state including former President Donald Trump, who endorsed Walker, and President Joe Biden, who is supporting Warnock's return to Washington.