On the Subject of Lobbyists Entering Government ...
As Josh just observed, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is still under investigation for his role in alleged trading of congressional earmarks. A major figure in that inquiry, which you can read more about here, is GOP congressman-turned-lobbyist Bill Lowery.
Lowery's lawyer during the initial days of the Lewis probe, and during the height of the Randy "Duke" Cunningham scandal, was former Clinton administration counsel Lanny Breuer -- who was recently nominated by President Obama to lead the Justice Department's criminal division.
Breuer was also a registered lobbyist as recently as last year, representing Yahoo on "law enforcement demands for user information," according to the Senate disclosure database.
Does that mean Breuer will have to seek a waiver from the Obama administration's ethics order on prior lobbying, as Pentagon No. 2 nominee Bill Lynn recently did? Perhaps, though his was a far narrower involvement than that of Lynn or former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson, the new Treasury Department chief of staff.
Either way, it's worth noting that private sector employment isn't an automatic black mark for those re-entering government service.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
There is a problem that the attempt at diminishing lobbyist influence in government has a hard time facing up to.
Many people who have great talent and who devoted themselves to public service for most of their careers are nevertheless enticed to earn the big bucks after their service where the primary private sector skill they have attained is to lobby. It is regrettable that cashing in is so common among the type of people you want recycled into government service when their party comes back into power.
People who have made their careers out of representing the financial interests of private business who enter government with the full intention of carrying out policies that help that business and other like them are unambiguously bad.
Is it worth making this distinction or does the same stick apply to everyone who represents a private interest for lots of money?
January 28, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a lot of problems with Patterson and Lynn, specifically because of the type of lobbying they did and the recent nature of it. I think it will be especially hard for Patterson to separate from the inherent conflicts that will be raised.
That said, if one lobbied in up to the spring of 2008, I'm not sure that a big deal should be made of the appointment. This doesn't mean that I don't have concerns, but I do think that the fixation the trad media has on this issue when they couldn't be bothered to ask about any conflicts in the previous Administration is maddening.
January 28, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
SO you think their past lobbying, no matter how long they had previously devoted themselves to public service means they should be disqualified? Is this because they did lobbying at all? What "type" of lobbying did they do that is especially objectionable? I am trying to figure out if we have to be categorical.
If the guy was lobbying on behalf of, say, victims of fraudulent investment schemes would you say that he is then OK to work in Treasury? I am not insinuating; I am just trying to guess what you mean by "type" of lobbying.
January 28, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink