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

Campaign-finance watchdog groups are standing up in favor of Washington's disclosure law in court. Facebook parent company Meta has challenged the constitutionality of the state's disclosure law, which requires ad sellers to keep records of how much buyers paid and who the ad targeted. Meta has called the law burdensome on free speech and nearly impossible to comply with.

Tara Malloy, senior director for appellate litigation and strategy with Campaign Legal Center, said her organization and other election oversight groups have filed a brief weighing in favor of Washington's disclosure law.

"To discuss the huge public interest in electoral-disclosure laws like Washington and to outline the many challenges that the move to online political advertising has begun to pose for democratic discourse and voting in elections," she explained.

In 2022, Washington state filed a $25-million penalty against Meta for more than 800 violations of the campaign transparency law. The law has been on the state's books since 1972. Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

While Meta has argued the law is burdensome, there is evidence that may not be the case, Malloy said.

"The state trial court took a look at the record and said actually, you know, Meta collects all this information that it claims is so voluminous and burdensome anyway in the ordinary course of its business," she continued. "It just doesn't want to turn over the information."

Malloy added the campaign disclosure law shines a light on the basic information voters need to cast a meaningful ballot, and that it can be very hard to assess an ad when it's coming from an anonymous source.

"Time after time, we see that if voters know who is funding the ad - they know that the NRA is funding the ad as opposed to the Environmental Protection Fund - they are very, very able to better assess the credibility and biases of the speaker of the advertising," Malloy said.

Meta's challenge to the law is currently before a Washington state appeals court.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for "clean" elections in Maine are gearing up for a November ballot referendum that would ban foreign government spending in state elections.

The Maine Legislature recently passed a bill to enact a ban with broad bipartisan support, but it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Janet Mills, who said the bill's language raised First Amendment concerns.

Kaitlyn LaCasse, a campaigner for Protect Maine Elections, said the ban makes sense to voters.

"This campaign is really driven by the grit and determination and grassroots support of Maine voters," she said, "but our opponents will have tens of millions of dollars."

Companies from Canada and Spain are already spending some of that money on statewide television advertisements opposing a public takeover of two New England-based power companies.

LaCasse said more than 80,000 signatures have been collected to place the ban proposal on the November ballot.

Advocates for "clean" elections suffered another setback this session with the repeal of a recently enacted ban on corporate campaign contributions to legislators. Critics said the ban didn't go far enough, and that money could still flow to political action committees.

Anna Keller, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, called it "a step backwards."

"We had over 600 letters go to legislators from their constituents protesting the repeal of the corporate campaign contribution ban," she said, "and it made a big difference."

Keller said the bill repealing the ban does direct the Maine Ethics Commission to come back with a new bill that makes clearer the distinction where corporate contributions are allowed in Maine elections, while attempting to preserve the original aim of the ban.

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


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers in Maine are considering legislation to allow candidates seeking county level offices to receive taxpayer funds under the Maine Clean Election Act.

The landmark 1996 law was the first in the nation to create a voluntary program of full public financing for gubernatorial, state senate and state representative campaigns.

Anna Keller, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said the bill is needed as outside spending on county level candidates is increasing, especially for sheriff races.

"It's especially important that people can trust that those officials are not biased and are not going to be partial to donors," Keller asserted.

The bill has drawn both bipartisan support and criticism with some lawmakers saying the tax dollars would be unevenly distributed to counties. Keller argued while the bill is not a perfect solution it helps to better ensure elections are determined by voters and not donors.

While some lawmakers are hoping to expand Maine's Clean Election Act, others are working to amend it by repealing a ban on corporate contributions. Critics of the ban say it does not go far enough and money can still flow to political parties and their political action committees. Keller recommended rather than repeal the ban, lawmakers should work to strengthen it.

"It's really upsetting to see after years of Maine being a leader on campaign finance reform that we might actually move backwards this session," Keller stated.

Corporate donations were the largest source of spending in Maine's 2020 election cycle, including some from foreign-owned companies. Federal law and 22 other states prohibit corporate contributions to candidates.

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


get more stories like this via email