July, 22 2019, 12:00am EDT

Iowa, North Dakota and Maryland Lead the Way on Curbing the Revolving Door Between Government and Industry
States Can Help Show the Federal Government How to Rein in Lobbying Activity by Former Public Officials
WASHINGTON
Three states in particular - Iowa, North Dakota and Maryland - have developed revolving door restrictions that effectively prevent former state officials from conducting any lobbying activity for a period of time after leaving public office - something the federal government should implement, a new Public Citizen analysis finds.
As "laboratories of democracy," the experiences among the states in trying to slow the revolving door between government and industry offer lessons for the federal government.
The revolving door is a practice in which former public officials cash in on their government service by becoming lobbyists or strategic consultants after they leave government, then selling their inside connections and knowledge to corporate interests. This revolving door muddies whether public officials are representing the public interest or corporate interests.
Several states have determined that a one-year ban on lobbying by former public officials is far too short. At the very least, the "cooling-off' period should be a full two-year legislative cycle so that turnover fades the former officials' inside connections. Florida imposes a six-year cooling-off period.
More importantly, states like Iowa, North Dakota and Maryland prohibit former officials from conducting any "lobbying activity" for compensation during the cooling-off period, not just banning "lobbying contacts" during that period as is done at the federal level.
The worst states - Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Wyoming - have no restrictions, the analysis found.
See how other states manage the revolving door here.
The government-to-lobbyist revolving door is potentially corrupting. Public officials may be influenced by the implicit or explicit promise of a lucrative job in the private sector with an entity seeking a government contract or to shape public policy. In addition, public officials-turned-lobbyists have access to lawmakers that is not available to others - access they sell for a hefty price.
Federal restrictions on the revolving door are woefully inadequate. While former U.S. senators are subject to a two-year cooling-off period, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and most executive branch officials are subject only to a one-year ban.
Worse yet, all former federal public officials are prohibited only from making lobbying contacts during the cooling-off period. They can immediately join a lobbying firm and organize and direct a lobbying campaign; they just can't pick up the telephone to contact their former colleagues.
A recent Public Citizen report that found 59% (26 of 44) of former members of the 115th Congress (2017-2019) who have found employment outside politics have gone through the revolving door and are conducting lobbying activities.
As several states have shown, an effective revolving door law should be more comprehensive than the narrow ban on lobbying contacts now prohibited under the cooling-off period at the federal level, and the cooling-off period needs to be longer than a single year.
Following the example of the "best" states, federal revolving door laws should be strengthened by:
* Extending all cooling-off periods to a minimum of two years or longer to allow the inside connections to sitting government officials to fade;
* Banning "lobbying activity" such as of conducting research, preparation, planning and supervision of a lobbying campaign as well as banning "lobbying contacts" during the cooling-off period; and
* Applying the ban on lobbying by former elected officials and very senior staff across the board to prohibit lobbying all agencies and both the legislative and executive branches of government during the cooling-off period.
"Public officials are supposed to serve the public interest of the American people," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. "Increasingly, however, these public officials are leaving government service to work on behalf of private interests, as well as their own, as lobbyists or strategic consultants on behalf of lobbying campaigns for special interests. If we want government to work for us, we need to slow the revolving door."
Read the full report here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
House GOP to Skip Town Early for Holiday Recess as Healthcare Premiums Soar, Epstein Files Loom
"The same GOP that voted last summer to give the richest Americans and most profitable companies trillions of dollars in tax cuts somehow can't find the funds this winter to ensure 20 million Americans can afford their health insurance."
Dec 18, 2025
The US House was originally scheduled to be in session on Friday, but the Republican leadership gave members a green light to skip town on Thursday for the two-week holiday recess without voting to prevent massive health insurance premium hikes for tens of millions of Americans.
The decision to let members leave early came after House Democrats secured enough support from swing-district Republicans to force a vote on legislation that would extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are set to expire on December 31, sending premiums soaring.
Democrats on Wednesday demanded an immediate vote on the proposed three-year extension of the ACA tax credits, but Republicans instead pushed to the floor and passed their own healthcare bill that would leave around 100,000 more Americans uninsured per year over the next decade—on top of the millions set to lose coverage due to the expiration of the enhanced subsidies.
The GOP bill is doomed to fail in the narrowly Republican-controlled Senate, which voted down a Democratic push for an extension of the subsidies earlier this month.
More than 20 million Americans relied on the tax credits to afford health insurance. With their expiration, ACA marketplace premiums are set to more than double on average, pricing many people out of coverage entirely.
"Congressional Republicans could have followed through on their promises to help families afford the basics by extending the premium tax credit enhancements to help them enroll in affordable, comprehensive coverage. Instead, they recycled old ideas, refused to address the current affordability crisis—and made plans to go home," Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement Wednesday.
"On the brink of this deadline, some Republicans have recognized that the stakes for families are too high to do nothing," Parrott added, pointing to the four GOP lawmakers who signed the discharge petition. "A House bill to extend the premium tax credit enhancements now has the required signatures on its discharge petition to force a vote on the House floor. Republican policymakers should step up and put the needs of individuals and families first."
"If Speaker Johnson refuses to bring forth the vote, he’s telling the American people loud and clear that rising healthcare costs are acceptable to him."
It's unclear when the discharged House Democratic bill will get a vote, as the chamber is not scheduled to return until January 6, 2026—after the ACA tax credits expire.
"If Speaker Johnson refuses to bring forth the vote, he’s telling the American people loud and clear that rising healthcare costs are acceptable to him," said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who is running to unseat Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in next year's midterm election.
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement Thursday that "instead of siding with millions of everyday Americans, they voted to increase healthcare costs which will now put affordable coverage out of reach for millions."
"Congressional Republicans once again revealed whose side they're on," said Kass. "The same GOP that voted last summer to give the richest Americans and most profitable companies trillions of dollars in tax cuts somehow can't find the funds this winter to ensure 20 million Americans can afford their health insurance."
The House Republican leadership's decision to start the holiday recess also came ahead of the Friday deadline for the Trump administration to release most of the Epstein files, as required by recently enacted legislation.
"View all political developments for the rest of the week in light of the fact that the Epstein files are supposed to be released on Friday," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "House Republicans just suddenly cancelled congressional session Friday and are sending everyone home Thursday evening."
Keep ReadingShow Less
63% of US Voters Oppose Attack on Venezuela as Trump's March to War Accelerates
The new poll comes as the US president openly plots to seize Venezuela’s oil supply.
Dec 18, 2025
President Donald Trump has taken increasingly aggressive actions against Venezuela in recent weeks, but a new poll released Wednesday shows US voters are not on board with a new war.
A new poll from Quinnipiac University found that 63% of voters oppose military operations inside Venezuela, with just 25% registering support.
What's more, a US military strike in Venezuela would draw significant opposition even from Republican voters, 33% of whom told Quinnipiac that they would oppose such an action. Eighty-nine percent of Democratic voters and 68% of independent voters said they were opposed to a US military campaign in Venezuela.
Trump's policy of bombing suspected drug trafficking boats in international waters, which many legal experts consider to be acts of murder, drew significantly less opposition in the new survey than a prospective attack on Venezuela, but it is still unpopular, with 42% in favor and 53% opposed.
A potential war is also unpopular with Venezuelans, as a recent survey from Caracas-based pollster Datanalisis found 55% opposed to a foreign military attack on their nation, with 23% in favor.
The Trump administration's boat strikes, which have now killed at least 99 people, have been just one aspect of its campaign of military aggression against Venezuela. The US military last week seized a Venezuelan oil tanker, and Trump has said that it's only a matter of time before the military launches strikes against targets inside the country.
Trump on Wednesday also said that one goal of his campaign against Venezuela would be to seize the country's oil supply.
“Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had—they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn’t watching,” Trump said while talking to reporters. “But they’re not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Venezuela first nationalized its oil industry in 1976, and the US has no legitimate claim to the nation's petroleum supply.
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Dismisses Premature 2028 Polls, But Says ‘I Would Stomp’ JD Vance
A survey this week showed the congresswoman leading the vice president 51-49 in a hypothetical presidential matchup.
Dec 18, 2025
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave a cheeky reaction after a poll suggested that she'd slightly edge out Vice President JD Vance in a hypothetical presidential election in 2028.
The survey of over 1,500 registered voters, published Wednesday by The Argument/Verasight, showed Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) leading Vance 51-49 and winning back several key voting demographics that propelled Trump's return to the White House last year.
As she walked out of the Capitol building Wednesday evening, the Bronx congresswoman was asked about the poll by Pablo Manríquez, the editor of Migrant Insider.
She responded to the question with a laugh: "These polls three years out, they are what they are. But, let the record show I would stomp him! I would stomp him!" she said before getting into her car.
Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Vance has officially announced a presidential run. But Vance is considered by many to be a natural successor to President Donald Trump. The president and his allies have suggested he could run for an unconstitutional third term.
Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, is reportedly mulling either a presidential run or a bid to take down the increasingly unpopular Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
More than two years out from a Democratic primary, Ocasio-Cortez is considered a likely choice to fill the progressive lane in 2028, with support for increasingly popular, affordability-focused policies, including Medicare for All.
However, despite her strong support among young voters, early polls show her behind California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris for the Democratic nomination.
Wednesday's poll showed that in a hypothetical contest against Vance, Newsom had a 53% to 47% edge, a margin only slightly larger than Ocasio-Cortez's.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


