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
'It Will Kill People': HHS Proposal Targeting Transgender Healthcare Could Cause Even More Hospitals to Close
One advocate said the proposed rule would force hospitals "to choose between providing lifesaving care for trans people or maintaining the ability to serve patients through Medicare and Medicaid."
Oct 30, 2025
A pair of extreme new Trump administration rules aimed at functionally banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth could force even more hospitals to close down.
NPR reported Thursday that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) drafted a proposed rule that would prohibit federal Medicaid reimbursement for medical care provided to transgender patients younger than 18 and prohibit the same from the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for patients under 19.
Another proposed rule goes even further, blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding to hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to youth.
As Erin Reed, an independent journalist who reports on LGBTQ+ rights, explained, this "would effectively eliminate access to such care nationwide, except at the few private clinics able to forgo Medicaid entirely, a rarity in transgender youth medicine."
The policies are of a piece with the Trump administration and the broader Republican Party's efforts to eliminate transgender healthcare for youth across the country.
Bans on gender-affirming care for those under 18 have already been passed in 27 states, despite evidence that early access to treatments like puberty blockers and hormones can save lives.
As Reed pointed out, a Cornell University review of more than 51 studies shows that access to such care dramatically reduces the risk of suicide and the rates of anxiety and depression among transgender adolescents.
The new HHS rules are being prepared for public release in November and would not be finalized for several more months.
But if passed, the ramifications could extend far beyond transgender people, impacting the entire healthcare system, for which federal funding from Medicare and Medicaid is a load-bearing piece. According to a report last year from the American Hospital Association, 96% of hospitals in the US have more than half their inpatient days paid for by Medicare and Medicaid.
It is already becoming apparent what happens when even some of that funding is taken away. As a result of the massive GOP budget law passed in July, an estimated $1 trillion is expected to be cut from Medicaid over the next decade. According to an analysis released Thursday by Protect Our Care, which maintains a Hospital Crisis Watch database, more than 500 healthcare providers across the country are already at risk of shutting down due to the budget cuts.
Tyler Hack, the executive director of the Christopher Street Project, a transgender rights organization, said that the newly proposed HHS rule would be "forcing hospitals to choose between providing lifesaving care for trans people or maintaining the ability to serve patients through Medicare and Medicaid."
"Today’s news marks a dangerous overreach by the executive branch, pitting trans people, low-income families, disabled people, and seniors against each other and making hospitals choose which vulnerable populations to serve," Hack said. "If these rules become law, it will kill people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Demand for Trump's Social Security Chief Bisignano to Resign After $30 Billion Implosion of Former Company
"Bisignano is in charge of the American people’s hard-earned Social Security benefits, as well as the collection of our taxes," said one advocate. "If he engaged in wrongdoing, the people need to know."
Oct 30, 2025
The new CEO of the financial services technology company Fiserv said Wednesday that the firm's financial outlook was grim, sending its stock collapsing by more than 40% and erasing $30 billion in market value—and laid the blame squarely with a Trump administration appointee whom the president has praised as "amazing."
When nominating former Fiserv CEO Frank Bisignano as Social Security administrator earlier this year, President Donald Trump said the executive frequently "takes troubled entities and turns them around."
With current Fiserv chief Mike Lyons warning on Wednesday that Bisignano had made major missteps as CEO, overinflating its sales projections and relying on short-term cost-cutting before selling his stock for $500 million, the advocacy group Social Security Works said beneficiaries of the government's anti-poverty program for senior citizens should be alarmed that the former executive is now in charge of their crucial benefits.
"Fiserv lost 40% of its value because the former CEO, Frank Bisignano, is a liar," said SSW. "But Bisignano is Trump's buddy, so he can only fail up. He's now in charge of your Social Security."
Lyons told analysts and investors that when Bisignano was leading Fiserv from 2020 until earlier this year, the company made sales projections that "would have been objectively difficult to achieve even with the right investment and strong execution."
He added that Bisignano made "decisions to defer certain investments and cut certain costs [which] improved margins in the short term but are now limiting our ability to serve clients in a world-class way, execute product launches to our standards and grow revenue to our full potential.”
Translating Lyons' comment, Brett Arends wrote at MarketWatch that "under Bisignano, the company made forecasts it could not plausibly have achieved" and that the former CEO "was chasing short-term quarterly results, not building the business."
"Did Bisignano know that Fiserv’s stock was about to tank, and ask his friend Donald Trump for a life raft?"
Lyons broke the news to investors weeks after a police pension fund sued Fiserv and Bisignano, as well as the new CEO, for "artificially inflating [Fiserv’s] growth numbers."
But along with causing his former company's value to plummet, emphasized SSW president Nancy Altman on Thursday, Bisignano personally benefited from overestimating his firm's performance—selling more than three million shares after he was appointed Social Security administrator for at least $500 million.
"That sale saved him $300 million (and counting) in stock value," said Altman. "Did Bisignano know that Fiserv’s stock was about to tank, and ask his friend Donald Trump for a life raft?"
Altman demanded that Bisignano "resign immediately" from his roles at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, where he was also named the first-ever CEO earlier this month.
"Bisignano is in charge of the American people’s hard-earned Social Security benefits, as well as the collection of our taxes—despite his total lack of expertise, or even basic knowledge, of either," said Altman. "He infamously admitted that he had to Google ‘Social Security’ when Trump offered him the job. If he engaged in wrongdoing, the people need to know."
Altman called on the US Department of Justice and Congress to launch "immediate" investigations into Bisignano's conduct as CEO of Fiserv, but noted that with Republican allies of Trump running the government, the former executive is unlikely to be held accountable."
"The only recourse," said Altman, "is for Democrats to win control of Congress and make investigating Bisignano a top priority.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Even During Shutdown, Senate GOP Does Big Oil's Bidding With Vote to Gut Arctic Protections
"This vote will authorize the fossil fuel industry's continued destruction of habitat and landscapes that are critical for wildlife to survive."
Oct 30, 2025
The Republican-controlled US Senate voted Thursday to scrap a Biden-era policy that protected millions of acres in the Alaskan Arctic from fossil fuel drilling, even as the government shutdown continued with no end in sight.
The final vote on the resolution, led by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), was 52-45, almost entirely along party lines. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the only Democrat to join Republicans in voting for the measure, which aims to use the Congressional Review Act to revoke a 2022 Biden administration decision protecting swaths of the Western Arctic.
The resolution still must pass the House, which is also controlled by Republicans.
Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said the vote shows that President Donald Trump and his Republican allies are "exploiting" the prolonged shutdown to "hand over our public lands and wild places to corporate polluters."
"Donald Trump's government shutdown has dragged on for nearly five weeks, and what is the top priority for Congressional Republicans? Opening up the western Arctic to oil and gas drilling, not funding services or making sure our military is paid?" said Manuel. "It's shameful."
Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, warned that "this vote will authorize the fossil fuel industry's continued destruction of habitat and landscapes that are critical for wildlife to survive."
"The Trump administration and its allies in Congress are prioritizing profits for oil executives and billionaires over the basic needs of hardworking Americans."
The Senate vote comes days after Trump's Interior Department, led by billionaire drilling enthusiast Doug Burgum, wrenched open all 1.56 million acres of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing.
Trump campaigned on a pledge to accelerate climate-destroying fossil fuel drilling and openly promised oil and gas executives that he would move swiftly to gut regulations in exchange for their financial support in the election.
One estimate released in the wake of the election found that oil and gas interests spent nearly $450 million to boost Trump and Republican candidates and bolster their legislative priorities on Capitol Hill.
Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at the Alaska Wilderness League, said in a statement that Thursday's vote "is yet another reminder that the Trump administration and its allies in Congress are prioritizing profits for oil executives and billionaires over the basic needs of hardworking Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular