Ted Cruz Praises AOC on banning lawmakers from becoming lobbyists: I AGREE with her

Fox News ^ | May 30 2019 | Joseph A. Wolfsohn

[NFHale]

Compromising with a psychopath is never an option.

Understand the intent. But they do NOTHING without an ulterior motive.

The only thing ANYONE on our side should be agreeing with regarding Leftards is “Oh, so you’re leaving? Great! Bye. See ya. Awww-Rivaderchey’, “Chow!” Aww-Reservwoir! “Don’t Go’way Mad!” BonVoyageee!”

In your best Bugs Bunny voice too.

[Impy]

There are laws against bribery aren’t there? Enforce them.

Don’t restrict people’s employment, in my view that’s not constitutional and would therefore require a constitutional amendment. What do you think Auh?

[GOP Congress]

Free speech is one thing; financial and fraternal influence is another. Obviously there are valid lobbying efforts and organizations that don’t depend on crony relationships and insider information trading, and securely fall into the bailiwick of the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the laws have been gray-area’d intentionally to prevent proper enforcement. With this bill, the influence of former Congress critters to effectively become an extended, unelected wing of Congress, paid for by self interests, to be greatly, and Constitutionally, reduced.

[AuH2ORepublican]

It is clear that to prohibit lobbyists from serving in Congress would require a constitutional amendment (Congress cannot add to, or subtract from, the qualifications set forth in the Constitution), but a prohibition on lobbying is a more complicated question.

The “right to practice a profession” was among the privileges and immunities of citizenship listed in Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion (while riding circuit) in the Corfield Case, but that was in the context of a state denying to citizens of another state a privilege available to citizens of such state (which is prohibited expressly by Article IV. The 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, on the other hand, was strangled in the cradle by the Slaughter House Cases (which held, inter alia, that only “federal privileges and immunities” (as opposed to “state privileges and immunities”) were protected by the 14th Amendment, and that practically nothing of importance was a “federal” privilege or immunity), and SCOTUS has not shown any appetite for reconsidering that terrible precedent. And while there’s always the Equal Protection Clause, former members of Congress are not a discrete and insular minority and thus may be discriminated against so long as there’s a “rational basis” for doing so (a standard that such law clearly would meet).

So I think that the best argument to invalidate a prohibition on lobbying by former congressmen would abridge the Freedom of Speech of fiormer congressmen. However, even that argument would be unpersuasive, given that the law wouldn’t prohibit former congressmen from speaking out publicly in favor of a particular issue position or even to lobby members of Congress without remuneration; the law merely would prohibit them from charging money for lobbying members of Congress. I don’t think that the courts would strike down a law that applies to all former members of Congress (and thus that is viewpoint neutral) and prohibits them from being able to charge money to advocate for a position before Congress, but does not prohibit them from advocating for a position on their own dime.

As for whether the law is needed, I don’t believe that it is. Companies hire lobbyists with good connections and relations with members of Congress and their statfers, and the influence that such lobbyists may have could be good or bad irrespective of whether the lobbyist used to serve in Congress. And as Impy mentioned, bribery is illegal, so if a former congressman bribes a current member of Congress both persons would be subject to prosecution. Banning former congressmen from lobbying is more about optics than anything else.

BTW, a cynic would note that Ted Cruz is in favor of this ban because he’s the member of the Senate least likely to be able to monetize his congretional relationships into a lobbying career because he’s disliked by so many members of Congress. (I say this as a big fan of Cruz, but, alas, it’s true.)