Signed an Executive Order this week that bars “every executive appointee in every executive agency” from engaging in “lobbying activities with respect to that agency” for five years after leaving the agency. It also bars them permanently from lobbying for any foreign government or political party.

 

So if you are an appointed executive in the Trump Administration, you aren't going to run straight to a fat Lobbying Gig as soon as you leave. If you are a Defense Appointee for example you can't take a job with a contractor to Lobby on their behalf to the Pentagon or Congress. Trump Appointees also are banned for life from lobbying on behalf of other countries or political parties.

 

No previous administration that I can find, has ever put such restrictions in place.

 

Can we all agree this is a good thing?

Yes this is good on its face. I'll be curious as to potential legal challenges to this.

Can we extend this to all of congress and their staffers and spouses....#draintheswamp

I thought Obama had the same thing for but his was only a 2 year ban.

 

I also add that lobbyists found a way around this ban by simply not doing things under the label of a lobbyist. Folks can still make money doing the exact same thing. They just have to not register as a lobbyist and they'll be fine. Not to mention, if you get enough money from it then it may not matter if you are banned for life. Everyone has a price.

I thought Obama had the same thing for but his was only a 2 year ban.

 

I also add that lobbyists found a way around this ban by simply not doing things under the label of a lobbyist. Folks can still make money doing the exact same thing. They just have to not register as a lobbyist and they'll be fine. Not to mention, if you get enough money from it then it may not matter if you are banned for life. Everyone has a price.

 

I think doing what you are talking about is regulated and along with this order would open them up to even more charges. Can any law stop all crooks, no...but at least this is making an effort.

 

BTW don't you think if even ONE Trump appointees tries to do this the Democrats won't jump all over it and call them out?

Can we extend this to all of congress and their staffers and spouses....#draintheswamp

 

It would be nice, I'd extend it to the Pentagon as well.

It would be nice, I'd extend it to the Pentagon as well.

 

Yes sir, yes sir.

Yes this is good on its face. I'll be curious as to potential legal challenges to this.

 

Legal challenges coming from some Trump Appointee in the future or some challenge brought about now by some third party?

Legal challenges coming from some Trump Appointee in the future or some challenge brought about now by some third party?

 

There will have to be some sort of a test case somewhere of a firm wanting to hire an executive agency employee since federal courts will require an actual case or controversy in order to hear a challenge to the rule.

 

At first glance, without constitutional changes, I'm unsure how an executive order has the authority to regulate post-governmental employment or empoyment which may involve congressional lobbying.

I think doing what you are talking about is regulated and along with this order would open them up to even more charges. Can any law stop all crooks, no...but at least this is making an effort.

 

BTW don't you think if even ONE Trump appointees tries to do this the Democrats won't jump all over it and call them out?

 

Doesn't matter if they do. No democrat can say anything. The practice of not registering as a lobbyist to get around the ban began in the Obama administration. It would be hypocritical to call anyone from Trump's administration out on it.

There will have to be some sort of a test case somewhere of a firm wanting to hire an executive agency employee since federal courts will require an actual case or controversy in order to hear a challenge to the rule.

 

At first glance, without constitutional changes, I'm unsure how an executive order has the authority to regulate post-governmental employment or empoyment which may involve congressional lobbying.

 

Same way in the real world. I've been forced to sign a non-compete for some of the companies I've contracted and worked for that extended for a time frame post employment or contract.

Doesn't matter if they do. No democrat can say anything. The practice of not registering as a lobbyist to get around the ban began in the Obama administration. It would be hypocritical to call anyone from Trump's administration out on it.

 

That should be illegal no matter who does it.

Same way in the real world. I've been forced to sign a non-compete for some of the companies I've contracted and worked for that extended for a time frame post employment or contract.

 

Most non-competes have to be signed at the time of hiring. At least in Kentucky, a non-compete is invalid if an employer attempts to institute it after hiring unless its contracted for and the employee is given some amount of consideration for it. Does this only effect future appointments?

 

And government hiring tends to be different, not least because lobbying can easily be interpreted as a constitutional activity and the government could conceivably have a whole lot to show in order to restrict it at this level. I truthfully don't know.

That should be illegal no matter who does it.

 

Talking to the wrong guy. I don't have any issues with this.

This sounds like a good idea. How does Trump feel about trting to get term limits passed while he's at it?