Another Ex-Lawmaker Takes a Shortcut Around the Lobbying Ban
When the new Democratic Congress passed a sweeping ethics bill in 2007, controversy erupted over the proposed new "revolving-door" ban on ex-lawmakers and aides lobbying their former colleagues. Senators wanted to double the ban to two years, while House Democrats pushed for keeping a one-year ban that would allow them to nail down lucrative lobbying gigs after leaving the Hill.
But no matter the length of the revolving-door ban, both Republicans and Democrats have long taken advantage of its enormous loophole. Let's call it the "senior adviser" route -- instead of lobbying current lawmakers directly, defeated members of Congress are flocking in droves to become behind-the-scenes consiglieres to the lobbyists that are allowed to contact sitting members.
The "senior adviser" club got another member just this morning ...
... Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), who lost his race last year but just landed an advisory post at Covington & Burling, a prominent K Street shop.
Who else is comfortably ensconced in "senior adviser" slots? Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) got one last year. Abramoff-linked Republican Conrad Burns (MT) landed at a firm that he was excessively cozy with during his years in the Senate. Another lawmaker ensnared by the Abramoff scandal, former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), tweaked the term of art to "senior partner" as opposed to "senior adviser" when he joined lobbying firm PacWest in 2007.
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) liked the "senior adviser" path so much that he never actually registered as a lobbyist -- which came back to haunt him during his brief bid to become secretary of health and human services.
So it seems that ex-Sen. Smith is in good company ... and that both parties have ample reason to keep this loophole in the lobbying ban wide open.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Isn't Coleman a senior adviser to some group right now - he couldn't even wait until his court case was settled.
March 3, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an idea; lets create a Virtual Congress, make them stay home with their constituents and do their debating online, and publicly.
That will move them PHYSICALLY away from the vultures on K-Street, and forces them to answer to their constituents on a daily basis.
he only way to remove the K-Street influence is to remove the lawmakers from DC, except for formal functions and special events.
The horse-and-buggy era that spawned our DC-centric national government are long gone. Our Government needs to catch up with our technology.
March 3, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I think this is a legit distinction. The revolving-door rule is to prevent former members from using their prestige and congressional relationships to curry favor with the government on behalf of private interests. Being an "advisor" is different than lobbying -- the advisor may be using his/her knowledge and expertise to advise companies on legislative strategy, but that is qualitatively different and more defensible than lending your name and status to a lobbying effort.
For example, law clerks to federal judges can't appear before their judge for a period of one or two years after the clerkship ends. But there's nothing wrong with a former clerk giving advice to colleagues in private practice about the judge's style, courtroom practices, about arguments the judge is likely or unlikely to be receptive to, etc. Again, there's a legitimate distinction between trading on your status as a former government official as opposed to making use of practical knowledge obtained during government service.
March 3, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to this article, senior advisors "are allowed to contact sitting members."
So how is it different than lobbying?
March 3, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric no offense but that is the point of the article
March 3, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gordon Smith is such a ridiculous man. Thank God he's no longer my Senator. It was obvious to anyone who has ever followed his career that he was destined to stay in Washington and attempt to peddle his meager influence, probably at a mediocre lobbying firm.
He was useless in the Senate and I'm guessing that he'll be fairly useless as a senior advisor.
I bet he regrets the fact that his old benefactor, Jack Abramoff, isn't around to keep him busy anymore.
March 3, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink