Ben Sasse's ethics proposals

[B-Fly]

What do y'all think?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/13/washington-ethics-drain-swamp-congress-trump-release-taxes-corruption-column/1283909002/

https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/9/sasse-drain-the-swamp-for-real

Here are his proposals stripped of Sasse's arguments if you want to ponder them before reading his explanations/justifications in the links above:

1. Prohibit cabinet members and their immediate family from soliciting donations from foreign sources.


2. Require that presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ tax returns are disclosed.


3. Create a public database of congressional HR settlements, make disclosure quicker, and increase personal financial liability for members of congress.


4. Prohibit members of Congress from buying or selling stocks during their time in office.


5. Put a lifetime ban on members of Congress making money lobbying.

[Moonlight J]

Love #5

Sad that we even have to put #2 into a proposal now

[B-Fly]

#5 is the one I can see potentially being struck as an unconstitutional constraint on liberty. I see a lot to like in it, but also worry that it might serve as a further barrier to entry for candidates who are not independently wealthy. If you read the text of the proposed legislation it is incredibly prescriptive in what it defines as "lobbying", e.g., you can't so much as receive compensation for providing advice or making any written or oral communication regarding any proposed federal legislation, rule, regulation, executive order or policy, or the administration or execution of an existing law or policy, or the nomination or confirmation of any individual.

https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/730d311c-68c8-49f0-a161-51a8121ca5ba/congressional-revolving-door-ban-act.pdf

There is a necessary exception for other government employment, so a former House member can later work for a federal agency or as a White House advisor or in state/local government. But it basically prevents you from being even so much as a lawyer or consultant providing advice to a private client or non-profit entity in an area of personal policy expertise. If you're not wealthy, that's a tough risk to take when you might be voted out after a single two-year term in the House.

[chancellor]

Hmmm...interesting. While nice on the surface, I'd have these concerns:

1. I'm not sure why members of the Executive Branch should be more limited than the Legislative Branch in this matter.
2. Same as 1, but I'm even more - much more - skeptical of those who clamor to see someone's tax returns without disclosing their own.

So, on 1 and 2, I'm going to label this "anti-Trump grandstanding".

3. I agree with the concept; however, as an esteemed member of the Bar (which I am not), explain to me how such a concept/law does not violate established Congressional qualified immunity.

4. Agree, and also agree this falls within Congressional legal reach.

5. Again, much as I like the concept, there's no way this gets by Buckley v Valeo. While I realize Senator Sasse is not an attorney, nor does he have a legal background, this one seems pretty patently obvious to me. Conceptually, if we really want to limit members of Congress from lobbying, Glenn Reynolds has the most elegant and legally feasible concept - tax any income from lobbying above a Congressional salary at a 90% tax rate. This preserves the free speech rights of the individual while providing a law that would withstand legal challenge fairly easily that would also significantly disincentivize lobbying.

[onejayhawk]

Too many of these things are already being circumvented by proxy. The Congressman may not become a lobbyist, but her husband does. Several conservative sources long complained about the Dianne Feinstein's family's ties to China, for example.

J

[B-Fly]

3. I agree with the concept; however, as an esteemed member of the Bar (which I am not), explain to me how such a concept/law does not violate established Congressional qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shouldn't protect Congresspeople against charges of inappropriate conduct/harassment, which has nothing to do with their discretion/judgement in the execution of their official job duties. Congress has self-legislated their protection here, and thus can legislate it away as well.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/27/how-congress-plays-by-different-rules-on-sexual-harassment-and-misconduct/

[nots]

Maybe I am being obtuse, but I can’t really see Congress enacting laws that inhibit their potential to profit from their ‘service’. Maybe a small percentage would, but not enough in both houses to actually pass a law. What am I missing?

[B-Fly]

Maybe I am being obtuse, but I can’t really see Congress enacting laws that inhibit their potential to profit from their ‘service’. Maybe a small percentage would, but not enough in both houses to actually pass a law. What am I missing?

You're potentially missing their self-assessment that supporting such a measure will be viewed so positively as to bolster not only their hopes of re-election but also their hopes of pursuing higher office. If the media gives this enough attention and the polling and grassroots constituent pressure is strong enough, there is a greater chance that they'd arrive at such a calculation. And then there's the even more cynical view that they might vote for Sasse's lobbying ban knowing and expecting that it will be struck down as unconstitutional such that they'll get the political shine of their vote and yet not be bound by it in their post-Congress career.

[nots]

You're potentially missing their self-assessment that supporting such a measure will be viewed so positively as to bolster not only their hopes of re-election but also their hopes of pursuing higher office. If the media gives this enough attention and the polling and grassroots constituent pressure is strong enough, there is a greater chance that they'd arrive at such a calculation. And then there's the even more cynical view that they might vote for Sasse's lobbying ban knowing and expecting that it will be struck down as unconstitutional such that they'll get the political shine of their vote and yet not be bound by it in their post-Congress career.

I suppose the first might be true in a vacuum, but given that somewhere between 300-350 house seats are always safe, I am not sure that would hold much sway. I can’t see a Dem in NYC or a Rep in Wyoming needing to pass such a law to retain their seat.
The cynicism of your second point is probably a more realistic reason.