There is a popular meme on social media where you start with the Avengers movies and go “the most ambitious crossover since…” and then fill in whatever. Senator Ted Cruz and Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez apparently want to give it a whirl:
The unlikely pair share the popular opinion that Washington is corrupt, and needs to be reformed.
On Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted an analysis by Public Citizen which found that nearly 60% of former members of the previous Congress who have taken jobs outside of politics — including Ocasio-Cortez’s predecessor, Joe Crowley — are now working as lobbyists or influencing policy in some way. Certain laws prevent members of Congress from lobbying for a certain period of time, but they are loosely enforced.
“If you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn’t be allowed to turn right around&leverage your service for a lobbyist check,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. “I don’t think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you’ve served in Congress. At minimum there should be a long wait period.”
Cruz then replied to Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal, writing in his own tweet: “Here’s something I don’t say often: on this point, I AGREE with @AOC.”
“Indeed, I have long called for a LIFETIME BAN on former Members of Congress becoming lobbyists. The Swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation?” Cruz wrote.
Ocasio-Cortez took it a step further, asking the Republican senator to join forces to pass a bill prohibiting former members of Congress from becoming paid lobbyists.
“Let’s make a deal. If we can agree on a bill with no partisan snuck-in clauses, no poison pills, etc – just a straight, clean ban on members of Congress becoming paid lobbyists – then I’ll co-lead the bill with you,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
Cruz’s reply was simple: “You’re on.”
It sounds so good. Yeah, let’s ban all those icky lobbyists and corrupt leeches on the American system of governance. Deus Vult! Bipartisanship! End the Corruption!…
Oh, spare me.
Let’s start with the problems with the premise here: Bipartisanship good, lobbyist bad.
Lobbying, despite the untoward aspects that it devolves into, is petitioning of the government, which is expressly protected in the constitution. Former congress critters are private citizens and have a right to advocate like anyone else. The corruption involved in lobbying comes from the takes-two-to-play with the active congress critters, so lets slow our roll on pretending only one side of Mt Corruption needs cleaned up. Since such a proposal is also almost certainly unconstitutional, the fact that it is bipartisan doesn’t make it a good idea, just that party lines do not prevent such an idea from being popular. Noted constitutional lawyer Cruz almost certainly knows this, and AOC is on brand here and probably wouldn’t care if she did.
What we really have here is a made-for-social-media confab of two individuals who really, really like such attention. That’s more than enough common cause, and the seal claps from the general populace Greek chorus who take the anti-corruption vibe at face value is payment enough. Governing and legislating is hard, cheap media pops like this are not, so it’s no wonder of wonders when Cruz and AOC go for the latter when opportunity presents.
Hard pass. Call me when they get busy on the open, blatant corruption on the hill, not just the pop music singalong version.
Commercial speech is constitutionally protected but subject to regulations that are not allowed for other kinds of speech. I admit that determining what is and what is not commercial speech can be very hard at times.
Do you remember the Lisa Blatt affair from when Brett Kavanaugh was before the Senate? This was possibly before the allegations of teenage sexual assault came up. Lisa Blatt wrote a column for Politico or some equivalent publication with the title “I’m a feminist, liberal Democrat. My fellow Democrats better support Brett Kavanugh for the Supreme Court.” Or something very close to that. What was unsaid but obvious from anyone that can spend two minutes on Google is that Lisa Blatt is a big-time partner at Washington powerhouse Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer. This was a firm formed by Abe Fortas in the late 1940s. They are indeed Democratic leaning.* But they make their massive profits (net income was 383.5 million in 2018 according to an April 2019 National Law Journal article) from representing big, corporate clients. Brett Kavanaugh is much more likely to make decisions favorable to big Corporate clients than any Democratic-appointed Justice.**
Lisa Blatt made some lip-service comments about abortion and precedent in her essay but what rankled many on the left is that she is from a class (white, wealthy, connected, well-educated) that will never have any problems seeking an abortion or access to birth control for herself or people in her circle that need it. Abortion rights are for those without such connections. Lots of liberals were able to see that while Ms. Blatt might vote straight-down Democratic, she is essentially a careerist looking out for the size of her bank account and what helps her career first over any of her other values.
The most “bipartisanship” in politics seems to come from a small group of high-level party functionaries that switch from government to private work based on the party in control of the White House. They are always in high-level positions in both sectors. This group has known each other since they were eighteen if not before. They represent the same clients that they later regulate. Or they regulate the clients that they later represent. It should be pretty easy to see how this is a big problem and might lead to regulations being less tough than they should be and need to be. There should be a way to combat this.
*In the field of BigLaw, there are firms that lean Democratic and firms that lean Republican. Arnold Porter was always known for attracting Democratic types because of the Abe Fortas connection. Kirkland & Ellis and Williams Connelly lean Republican.
**A good example is this case which went well for plaintiffs’/ordinary Americans only because Justice Thomas’ idiosyncraticies lead him to unique positions from time to time. If Merrick Garland was appointed, the corporate Defendants would not have had a chance:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/clarence-thomas-home-depot-consumer-rights-class-action-liberals.htmlReport
Let’s start with the problems with the premise here: Bipartisanship good, lobbyist bad.
Nope, that’s not the premise. For starters, the premise of the AOC/Cruz convergence has nothing to do with bipartisanship being good. For seconders, the view isn’t that lobbyists are bad, but that CCers-becoming-lobbyists are bad. And honestly, if the libertarian view is to let the nexus of money, government and connections roll, I’m disappointed in libertarians.Report
Oh please. The issue isn’t that lobbying is bad per se, its that Congresspersons go to firms that are not lobbying for you and me – because those don’t exist and instead go to the big cushy firms that handle large donor clients. None of those congressman are using their private citizen stature to lobby for something they personally believe in (which is what the Framers were after since in England you had to be a Courtier to get the Kings favor).Report
So it’ll create an additional layer of inefficiency?
Rep. John Jackson is barred from being a registered lobbyist, but Lobbyist Jack Johnson has to hire former Rep. John Jackson as a consultant?
Eh, that’d be a good way to give sinecures to nephews and whatnot.
I guess I’m for it.Report
The issue as I see it isn’t that lobbying is inherently corrupt (I don’t think it is) or even that big money lobbying firms lobby for people with big money (sure but that really is a free speech issue even if the speech is distasteful).
It’s that the promise/prospect of a lobbying job in the future can create a conflict of interest where a Congresscritter might decide to do something the a lobbying firm wants in order to get a cushy gig once they’re done Crittering.
And even the appearance of impropriety is bad.
Does this make it a good idea, or even Constutional? No, but there’s a big difference between obviously not good and not obviously good.
If it is a good idea, does that change the fact that AOC and Cruz are grandstanding? Of course not. But grandstanding is at least as essential to the way Congress works as lobbying is.Report
Of course they’re grandstanding. I don’t care about that. I don’t even see it as a relevant criticism.
Will it work? No. But I don’t care about that either.
Is it actively harmful? No. This is a point in its favor.
Is other stuff that they’d be likely to agree on going to be more harmful than this? Yeah, probably.
So is this preventing harm from being done? Yeah, probably.
There’s no downside and it will irritate those in power.
So I’m for it.Report
that is an endorsement so faint I would have had a hard time seeing it if you hadn’t pointed it outReport
Faint? I wholeheartedly and fulsomely endorse any and every policy that is harmless that also irritates those in power.Report
For that matter, “this makes it more annoying and expensive for lobbyists to entice Congresscritters with the prospect of future jobs,” actually kind of serves the stated goal?Report
What’s not to love?Report
Weird how in the efficient private sector, the idea an employee can take their insider knowledge of how things work, then turn around and use it for personal enrichment with a competing firm is widely understood, and made illegal.Report
[Note: Private sector efficiency = private sector profits in this discussion.]
The most interesting thing to me about this post is that it reduces Cruz’ and AOC’s position on lobbying to “two individuals who really, really like such attention.” The wonderful thing about that take is that it’s even more cynical than the politicians it’s ostensibly critiquing. Yet libertarians consistently shoulder that heavy burden – no one’s coercing them! – and persist.Report
Is Andrew even a libertarian…?Report
{{He sure writes and argues like one.}}Report
noReport
Oh come on. The particular type of cynicism you express in your posts didn’t/doesn’t emerge in a vacuum.
Or are you one of those people who can’t be forced into labels? 🙂Report
We should allow people to identify how they choose, Stillwater.Report
“No labels”Report
I didn’t realize “cynical” and “libertarian” were synonyms, or even rhyme.Report
How would you describe his political ideology/philosophy?Report
I’m not sure actually. Maybe Trumwillian centrist?Report
I’d go with “hot take specialist” before Trumwillian centrist since his posts lack the depth and nuance Trumwill brings to a discussion. The simplicity of his critiques, the one-dimensional focus on partisanship as the sole driver of politics, is a giveaway of … something.
He could end the curiousity-based gossip by just articulating where his views are centered, tho. He’s not a libertarian, so … ??? (For my part, I view his writing as expressions of bog-standard liberatarian critiques of contemporary politics regardless of whether he identifies as one, and by doing so I may help him realize his one true nature. 🙂Report
I dunno man this seems kind of unfair and to be blunt pretty dickish.
This was a great post, and a political one.Report
Megan McArdle has written lots of posts I like.
Politics and the world are complex places. Everyone’s bound to be right pretty damn often, even if less frequently than each of us think they’re wrong.Report
Nyah I mean I think the take here is weak but everybody is going to come up with weak takes from time to time.
I am… not going to discuss McArdle for the sake of everybody’s sanity.Report
It doesn’t matter what he *IS*, it matters what he says. Argue against his arguments as if the arguments are wrong. Not against the guy as if he’s *BAD*.
Just assume that he’s bad.
There. Done.
His argument still stands (or falls) whether or not he’s bad.Report
And my argument is that the libertarianish critique of AOC and Cruz is nonsense, not because it’s libertarianish but because it’s nonsense.Report
I’m with Stillwater on this one, it reeks of clownworld.
(nothin against Andrew, just the topic)Report
So nonsensical, in fact, that it requires explanation….Report
But that has nothing to do with whether he is a centrist (and certainly not whether he’s a “hot take specialist”).Report
If your point is that centrists can be idiots too, no objection from me.
I’m presuming, with adequate evidence – evidence I think we can all agree on I might add – that Andrew isn’t an idiot.Report
And we’re back to talking about what Andrew is or isn’t instead of his argument…Report
*You’re* the one who brought up his potential centrism.
My argument is that his take here is so blisteringly ridiculous that it can only be placed in priors he holds, and my hypothesis is that his priors are pop-culture libertarian.
We both agree that his “take” on the AOC/Cruz alliance is ridiculous. That doesn’t meanall his takes are ridiculous, of course (even tho that needed to be said). It’s that his take is so ridiculous it requires explanation.Report
No it doesn’t. It’s easy to look at both AOC and Cruz and conclude that anything that they agree on *MUST* be bad.
Good Lord, that’s my first inclination too.Report
Only if you pay more attention to what people think of those two than what they actually say or do, or the policy they’re both advocating.
I would expect more from a FP poster than what you just wrote in a casual comment about a trivial side issue.
Look, Andrew writes lots of posts I agree with. Hell, I think of the most recent three I co-signed with his “take” on the political dynamics in play. That doesn’t change the fact (and it is a fact) that I think he adopts a libertarianish pop-culture contrarianism in his posts.Report
Something doesn’t add up though. Do you think the libertarian position would even need to voice concern about corruption, or would that be a premise that was baked into the government cake upon it’s creation?Report
Joe, I think the libertarian view is that the corruption (as they define it) is baked right in, but that it also has to be articulated (to remind people of how much corruption is baked right in.)Report
Why would a libertarian bother, those who know it is built in don’t need a reminder, those that ignore it would just ignore it, in their own self interest. The exercise would be a waste of effort.
I could see it in a bog standard ‘political pop-culture’ offering but it would look weird in a libertarian sense.Report
Why would a libertarian bother,
Why does anyone bother? Speaking is a public act, right?
Why do you keep talking about the difference between individual and social constructs?Report
Why do you think I do?Report
Why do you ask why I asked why you do what you?
This is silly.Report
I didn’t ask why you asked.
My question was about why you think I would;
talk about the differences between individual constructs and social constructsReport
Why do you?Report
I recall trhe precise moment you publicly stated that you were no longer a libertarian. If what you say rather your ism is all that matters, them why the public pronouncement to the commentariat here at the OT? Presumably it’s because you wanted people to know that you were no longer *one of those people*. 🙂Report
Ahem: “We should allow people to identify how they choose, Stillwater.”Report
“I believe in Christ as our personal savior and the Bible as the word of God, but don’t you *dare* call me a Christian.”Report
I’m more of a Mormon, really.Report
You’re an Evangelist. What you evangelize is sorta secondary.Report
More of a sower.Report
Does anybody else remember that tech fad where people who would tech other people about computer languages or version control systems or whatever were called “evangelists”?
Like, “Yeah, I’m a Concurrent SNOBOL Evanagelist.”
That sucked.Report
Remember the Geek Code?
Good times.Report
Yep. I was a Linux evangelist for years.Report
Im all up for an open forum on what y’all want to try and categorize me. I have 300 odd posts at OT and 30K off tweets of reference materialnow so it should be great fun watching how it gets parsed out.Report
{{A view from nowhere? There is no view from nowhere.}}Report
Well if you’re cool with it I’m not gonna say otherwise. Anyway I’m sticking with my Trumwillian centrist call.Report
But are you a duck?Report
The key word there is “insider”. Companies hire people away from their competition all the time on the basis of their expertise. There’s nothing wrong with that. Now, if former Congressmen were working for foreign governments against the interests of the US, that would fit your analogy, but it’d be treason. Lobbying the US government on behalf of a foreign government or entity is legal, but under restrictions.Report
The whole point of hiring an ex-Congressperson is that they have insider information about their former organization, not expertise.
And the point of this lobbying is to have that insider knowledge used to the advantage of special, not public, interests.Report
Or, alternately., the “expertise” justifying those folks hiring is how to leverage specific politicians’ votes in favor of preferred legislation and against their retail political instincts. If it all could be done above board, on the up and up, their “expertise” wouldn’t be in demand.Report
I would say that the point is the connections. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know. If Ford brings aboard a GM exec, he’ll potentially have information about a new car line or something. That’s not the case for governance. I mean, maybe in defense contracts. But when present and former Congressmen get together, the influence is the fraternity.Report
I think the notion that a Congressperson has expertise, influence or connections that would make him/her a better lobbyist is speculative.
The value of lobbying services is difficult for the purchaser to ascertain. After all the lobbyist cannot exactly guarantee that he or she can get a law passed (or killed). So its an area that the consumer is likely to overpay because price is believed to be a signal of value; other signals can include having prominent former politicians in the lobbying group, an elite address, giving out free football tickets, etc.Report
Huh? What insider information?Report
“I know that I have this job because I helped pass H.B. 302-2012 seven years ago.”Report
Legit LOL.Report
The only useful insider information I can think of:
‘Bill 2472 is just supposed to whip up a lot of political contributions; the Speaker/Leader doesn’t intend for it to actually pass in any shape or form.’Report
They know which CCers can be bought off and each one’s leverage points.
Do folks reading this blog know those things?Report
I’m making a comparison to an employee who has inside knowledge of how the product is made, and uses that non-public knowledge to the benefit of a rival.
its not a perfect overlap, but in this case, the main reason someone hires a former Congressperson is NOT that they have any expertise about the issue;
What they have is intimate knowledge and access to other Congresspeople;
Its the access that you pay for, and is being used against the citizens since it is for a private gain.Report
The first of those examples would fall under theft of property and the second would be learned knowledge/experience. There is a very real difference in the eyes of the law, and there should be.
Insider trading is a better parallel/example in the private sector. Unfortunately, that also is based on the idea of theft.Report
Yeah, but defining things in such narrow legal terms ends up being a wordsmithing contest of how creative we can define “property”.
“What’s in your secret sauce?”
“Mayonnaise and ketchup- yours?”
“Mayonnaise, ketchup, and relish.”
“Hands up! You both are under arrest for theft of intellectual property!”
The stronger moral logic for both cases is not property, but trust.
That the employee or Congressperson is being entrusted with power and knowledge which is to be used, not for their own personal gain but the company or public’s benefit.Report
It seems to me that a principled conservative and a principled liberal could both arrive at this position. So I can’t judge them negatively on that respect. As for them reaching across the aisle, I hope to see more of that. If politicians can find common ground, and the only thing stopping them from cooperating is the letter after their names, we should want to see them work together. Isn’t that what we always hear, that both sides have supported common sense (blank) reform, but they refuse to work together because it would give the other side a win? Personally, I’d like to see more compromise where people vote a little bit against their interests for an overall win. I’m not going to complain about two politicians supporting something they arguably both believe in.Report
Bipartisanship is usually confused with non-partisan. Bipartisanship is often the most partisan partisanship of them all.Report
Twice as partisan even?Report
Is this the place where we have a long argument over whether “bipartisan” means “every two partisans” or “twice per partisan”?Report
Nice.Report
It is someone who is sexually attracted to both kind of partisans.Report
The whole point of this is not to buy partisans.Report
“Can you use it in a sentence please?”
“Sure. ‘We’ve been working with leadership on some buy-partisan legislation’.”Report