Elizabeth Warren unveils radical anti-corruption platform

So Elizabeth Warren is pitching some reforms aimed at addressing lobbyists after public service by setting rules on what some officials can do after their time in office. I definitely don't see eye to eye with her on much of her views, but frankly this has been a stain on American government for some time, and I don't care who gets the conversation started or the ball rolling, it needs to happen.

In broad strokes, Warren is attempting to take the profit motive out of public service by making it extremely difficult for former lawmakers and government officials to cash in on their government experience, while simultaneously giving Congress and federal agencies the resources needed to effectively govern without the motivated assistance of K Street.

Warren proposes much stricter restrictions on the revolving door between public service and lobbying, but, more fundamentally, flat-out bans on any lobbying on behalf of foreign governments, an industry that has come under increased scrutiny as a result of the trial of Paul Manafort, who made his fortune carrying water for foreign governments in Washington, often whose interests ran against those of the U.S.

Under current law, foreign agents must register and disclose any contacts with government officials — they would now be banned and under Warren’s law, all lobbyists would have to do what foreign agents do now.

Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws. She would create a new Office of Public Integrity to enforce the new ethics laws.

The Intercept

These are just parts of what the article addresses, and to be honest, I'm not sure if there is any bill in writing yet.

I don't know what the impacts would be, or if this would even really tackle the issue....

But I sure as hell think our employees (senate and congress) can do something in the CITIZENS interest and take care of money in politics, and lobbyists writing bills.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Obama essentially promised the same. No lobbyists in the White House, no more revolving door...

Then packed the White House with lobbyists, no restrictions put on them with a super-majority House and Senate...

As a Cherokee, I think Lizzie speaks with forked tongue...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I hate to admit I agree at least in spirit with the anti lobbying aspects of the proposel. I find the w2 and conflicts of interest aspect fairly Trump directed, however if it applied to all Federal Government, like congress, State Dept etc...I could support it.

The Autumn Witch of November is 77 days away.

Get ready for all the usual promises and idealistic bright ideas to surface.

💥🎃💥

a reply to: xuenchen

fair point, none of it will be done...wish it would, dont care which party

She’s getting all MAGA....American companies only.

Does that mean if one is not allowed to lobby for the criminals that are illegals?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

She seems to be working hard to keep her job?

Guess she doesn't like life back on the Reservation.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree something needs to be done.

As a Cherokee, I think Lizzie speaks with forked tongue..

As an American mut Warren lies like the wind beneath her wings.

Not a fan of Warren, but something needs to be done. I'd want to see some specific details, but I think it sounds like a step in the right direction.

I want politics to be somewhat of a losing position so that the only people who really want to do it, do so for love of country. I think significantly reducing pensions and making the job part-time is a start along with severe restrictions on lobbying of any kind after serving. Of course, term limits would also help too.

a reply to: Edumakated

I'm with you, like I said earlier, I'm just happy that the conversation is at least starting, sad it's come to that. My faith isn't too high anything will come of it, but if it gets people talking.....

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'm all for the banning of lobbying for former public officials (and it should go for state and federal government), but the releasing of tax info is a killer for me.

The releasing of guaranteed-by-law private documents and personal information simply should not be a mandate for running for office--it's nobody's business, and tax returns give zero details about anything, other than income, dependents, charitable giving (claimed), etc. None of that should be the public's information.

Running for public office should not be a relinquishing of all guarantees of privacy by law.

We also do not need any new taxpayer-funded offices at the federal level, that's for sure.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I hate to admit I agree at least in spirit with the anti lobbying aspects of the proposel. I find the w2 and conflicts of interest aspect fairly Trump directed, however if it applied to all Federal Government, like congress, State Dept etc...I could support it.

There is one big problem. I don't like lobbying because it has its bad side; it truly does, but there is another side no one talks about.

Very often, government regulators are just as stupid, venal, and corrupt as anyone in any industry could ever be. My husband has spent a lot of time in his career dealing with regulatory and he's very familiar with it. In fact, he's part of an industry lobbying organization himself and has sat across from government regulators arguing against proposed regulatory changes, not because they're expensive, but because they'd be a plain bad idea.

I can't go into detail for reasons of anonymity, but I'll say this: husband works in a pharma-related field, and when you are talking about medicines, particularly vaccines, more is not always better. It's especially not always better when you are talking about the immune system. However, seriously, some of the regulators think that higher numbers are always better and seek to push the numbers higher.

That's because when hiring their desk jockeys, the government agencies don't necessarily have to hire people who know much of anything about what they're regulating. So they really don't have practical knowledge. I expect this holds true across the board for most areas where regulators are involved, and under the Obama admin especially, the atmosphere between regulatory and most industries because markedly more adversarial with agencies specifically looking for hires with no links to the industries they were regulating/inspecting and the attitude that all businesses were automatically doing something wrong.

What lobbying can do in these circumstances is keep the channels of communication open so that no one makes an incredibly bone-headed decisions or rewrite that suddenly kills off whole swaths of industry because they make a rule that's plainly impossible to follow.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Possibly over asking to give room to negotiate? I see where you are coming from though. I don't think this is drafted yet, so this seems to be purely conversation at this time.

a reply to: neo96

As an American mut Warren lies like the wind beneath her wings.

Not being American I don't quite get this, please explain.

Trump already signed this as an EO replacing what Obama had put in place. What else is she trying to accomplish or is she simply promoting something existing so she does not have to do anything in the end?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Darn it! Here I thought she was gonna restore some faith and say get rid of the CIA...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

As most things at this point before a critical election are--just talk. This makes the Dems seem on board with the 'drain the swamp' idea, and is probably a talking point that's been floated to many focus groups before she publicly made the points.

My bet: This is just something that they think will help them win some elections and give some candidates talking points that will never actually come to fruition.

a reply to: Freeborn

American mut simply means I don't play favorites with my ancestry.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ketsuko,
I hear you, and for redress of grievences etc... I totally get the higher intention invoked by the initiation of lobbying congress.

Something needs to happen, especially regarding foreign countries, and companies closely tied to foregn governments. There are plenty of domestic problems too, but you make a fair point.

The appropriate resolution? I think not allowing Government officials to lobby after leaving their positions, especially highly sensitive ones, ways and means, intel etc.. is a move in the right direction.