I may be wrong, but didn't obama make this no lobbyist decree by executive fiat? Since there's no law, bill, whatever banning them, can't he just say "oops, my bad"? The phrase "I screwed up" comes to mind. . .

Sorry CB, but if you ban lobbyists for business, you have to ban lobbyists for unions as well. If not, you're picking sides.

I think it's the wrong idea to back out on this one. Fill the positions with the best eligible people possible now. If there's someone you really need in, well, there are four years of presidency and in two years they could potentially be eligible.

Any advocate can make the case that what they are doing is for the public good, and just about all of them believe it. I'd guess most of the oil lobbyists thought, and probably still think they serve the common interest.

A person advocating for the public good cannot be defined as simply what the current administration perceives to be the public good, or the whole ban would mean nothing. Do what's right, keep the ban, even if it isn't convenient.

Not sure if it would work, but how about lifting the ban for lobbyists whose employers were forbidden to make political contributions?

I don't buy it. Over 300,000 submitted resumes to work for the administration. There's talent out there, it just isn't coming from the usual greased mechanisms for insiders. They are going to have to beyond hiring the friend of somebody's friend.

I don't mind an occasional exception to the rule, but I don't think the cabinet departments should have a lot of what are essentially salesmen (or activists). Instead they should be primarily managers with an expertise in the related subject. The agenda comes from the top. When Obama tells the Sec Def we need to concentrate on al-Qaeda and diplomacy, I don't want the Sec Def to be worrying whether his old clients will feel betrayed.

Meanwhile, if Geithner's problem is he wants more lobbyists, he's the wrong guy for the job. He should be hiring accountants, economists and tax law experts.

Yes the revolving door is a problem, but it is one of the rare incentives for even going into public service in the first place. As good as it sounds, I never liked the idea. Too many good people have simply been sidelined. Unfortunately, I don't see Obama changing course. Worse yet, I see very little incentive for anyone to enter public service, unless you are independently wealthy. There are simply not enough bright people, who are in the know, to have a continuous reservior of talent.

Boxer's comment has merit. "Special interests" lobbyists work for those who will profit financially from their efforts. They do not represent the good of the people, just the good of their self interests.

Special interest lobbyists vs public service advocates...There is a big difference and allowing them in should work like a line veto.

btw...using their guidance and expertise doesn't have to be "official" while waiting for that 2yr period to go by.

This reminds me of that time during the Democratic primary when Hillary got pilloried for making that very same lobbyist distinction...

It is hard to believe that the only people who know how to do a particular job served as lobbyists.

This must be an over-hyped piece of nonsense.

Think about it. An environmental group must employ more than just a team to lobby congress. Surely there are academics who understand how the Treasury department works. Maybe nobody wants to work at a government job right now.

Don't water down the rule! How else are we going to get a real changing of the guard?

Since I don't mind repeating myself, here is my apropos comment that went to Kevin Drum's website this am:

Obama's "no lobbyists" rule ignores the valid distinction between public interest groups and private interest groups. The latter are made up of individuals or organizations--typically corporations, trade associations and labor unions--whose members have a fairly direct pecuniary interest in policy. Public interest groups represent broader interests without a clearly identifiable "self-interested" constituency--like the environment, or consumer rights, or pro- or anti abortion rights. Of course, there will be cases in which it may be tricky to classify a group, but that's not a reason for not recognizing the distinction in principle. Public interest lobbyists should serve in government without any restrictions. The basic idea is that they're clearly not in it to enrich themselves or their friends. They may well have pre-existing ideological inclinations or policy preferences, but so what: an administration is perfectly right to try to implement its ideas and appoint people qualified to do so.

Putting any sort of ban on lobbyists is problematic for this exact reason; if you attempt to make distinctions between "types" of lobbyists, it just ends up looking arbitrary. For instance, what REALLY is the difference between a former insurance lobbyist and a former "patient's rights" lobbyist? Kinda seems like their employer. It's not like one of them is inherently "on the right side" -- we might think so, but that is mainly because we AGREE with what one of them lobbied for, which makes ignoring the fact that they were a lobbyist much easier.

It just ends up looking arbitrary in the end, for which reason the ban shouldn't have been put into place. People should be judged on merit, not who they've worked for in the past.

So an environmental lobbyist who might be hired as an EPA regulator were stringent regulations passed (to say nothing of their colleagues) doesn't have a "pecuniary" interest?

Geithner's problem is that Treasury is in a very difficult bind and his plan (a lost decade of shoveling tax dollars to zombies) ain't something I'd want on my resume. It's not as if there aren't plenty of unemployed bankers around...

I'd like to see more evidence that the talent pool for these administration posts is actually so highly concentrated in lobbyists. All lobbyists may describe themselves as advocacy workers but surely not all advocacy is lobbying? Naturally the administration is going to think of the lobbyists first for these positions because *they already know them* - it's the job of lobbyists to develop those relationships. The administration just might have to look in nontraditional places for non-lobbyist talent. Maybe Obama should try a little harder before abandoning the ban.

"Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) suggested the White House's ban should acknowledge distinctions: "I think if you lobbied for a public interest it's a whole different thing than if you lobbied for a special interest."

What a beautiful illustration of the fascist mindset that Orwell was describing in "Animal Farm" when the 10 Commandments for Animals was replaced by the single Commandment after Napoleon had achieved total control over the Farm and began acting the same way toward the other animals as the human farmer who the animals had overthrown: "All animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others."

good point Barrick Arnold. i currently work for an employer who represents local cities and towns. our advocacy work in part involves making sure that costs currently paid for by the state aren't passed down to these cities and towns and paid for by local property taxes instead of state income taxes. is this bad? anyone can be the judge of that, but the important point, i think, is that "lobbyists" is a term that has been tossed around in a negative way that may not be appropriate, largely because many in washington have abused their positions. don't lump everyone together.

Someone for Labor who did advocacy for workers?

How is this qualitatively different than hiring some one who lobbied for an industry group except that the interest served is traditional supporter of Democrats/progressives?

Obama should hire who he wants to hire, and shouldn't tolerate incompetence or corruption in his administration, but that shouldn't preclude hiring people who have been active for causes they believe in or for groups who they are associated with.

I like Boxer. I've met her and she's my representative but her comment/idea smacks of a double standard...and I can't agree with that. I agree with The Dude. 300,000 resumes and nobody outside of K street is qualified? I kinda doubt the merit of that. I think it's best to stay with the no lobbyist policy and not go back on that. After the last eight years enough is enough.

Just make sure they've paid their friggin taxes. Man that is getting lame. What's up with Dems not paying their taxes...maybe we are just too stupid to get away with it.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) suggested the White House's ban should acknowledge distinctions: "I think if you lobbied for a public interest it's a whole different thing than if you lobbied for a special interest."

The problem with that is that there are many Rs who would say that women's rights, worker's rights, minority rights, environmental protection, etc. are not "public interest" by "special interests". I've heard them say it. Shows how screwed up they are.

IMO Obama should just go out and find the best people who have shown they will do right by the people and the Constitution. The distinction with the bushies is that they got people in there who were benefiting their industries. That shouldn't be a problem with those wanting to work in the Obama admin. as I have a feeling they are much more principled and ethical.

Argh... should be "The problem with that is that there are many Rs who would say that women's rights, worker's rights, minority rights, environmental protection, etc. are not "public interests" but "special interests".

If they would just outlaw lobbying in all it forms then the problem is solved.
Lobbyists do not represent the American people, only greedy businesses that cheat, avoid taxes and screw the American people. So they have no redeeming value what so ever.

Ah the Fuzzy Minded Left with its Good Causes. Of course banning lobbying as such is impossible, Freedom of Expression, communicating with elected leaders and all that. Idiotic simple minded idea. The fine leftists above are all ready to make the faux distinction between "public" (i.e. my side) versus "private" interest as if the world was black and white.

Special interests are not public interests. What is good for GM is not necessarily in the best interests of the rest of the nation.

Lobbyists do not represent the American people, only greedy businesses that cheat, avoid taxes and screw the American people. So they have no redeeming value what so ever.

I will be sure to tell the American Association of Clinical Pathologists about your concerns, since we have a couple of the critters working for us to assure that standards of professionalism and testing don't get watered down. Our nursing colleagues have lobbyists as well who lobby for standards of patient care, workload, etc, etc, etc.

But never mind, we aren't real people, and neither are the patients we hire those lobbyists to advocate on behalf of.

Put me in the column for upholding the ban. Can't find talent, my ass. People are losing their jobs left and right -- good people. Or is the administration now copping the "jobs non-lobbyists won't do" attitude?

I voted for change, not more K Street.

The concern is about administrators who use the revolving door to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying and then want to return to regulate the same companies that just made them millionaires. I don't know that anyone really thinks there is a problem hiring people who pulled down $25k-$45k a year lobbying for a nonprofit.

I don't have any sympathy for Obama over this issue. He took this approach in order to distinguish himself from HRC during the primary. HRC made the contention that there are lobbyists that represent typical Americans and do work in the public interest. Obama sought a necessary short-term political advantage.

Now he faces three problems.

1)There are good candidates for some positions that were lobbying in the public interest previously. Those candidates are disqualified by the Obama administration's criteria. There are also plenty of good applicants who never worked as lobbyists. But the Obama administration is reluctant to hire them because they have no Washington experience. If you are determined to hire people that have no experience in Washington then you had better get started doing it.

2)He stood behind Geithner and Daschle (to a certain extent) for too long despite their tax problems. Both had egregious tax problems that should have been disqualifying and Daschle drew attention to the lobbyist issue. Now they are flushing anyone that has any sort of tax issue come up during vetting. It is not unusual for successful people to make mistakes on their taxes. They have property, they move, they live overseas, they may have businesses, they have many legal deductions. Its not hard to make a mistake (even a big one). In the past appointees typically settled up and assumed their appointed positions. The Obama administration expended too much political capital on Geithner and is now gun-shy on this issue.

3)Most importantly, the approach at Treasury is all wrong. They don't need personnel so much as they need the right policy, that is Obama's responsibility.

Two points: Sen. Boxer's remarks are perfectly in line with the idea that the Federal government is there for the benefit of the entire citizenry. On the whole, those who lobby for "patient's rights", for example, are doing so to improve the lives of ALL patients in this country. Those who lobby for, say, the Heath Insurance companies are lobbying solely for the benefit of those companies. If any of the results of that lobbying eventually did benefit their customers it would be serendipitous as the intended beneficiaries of the lobbying are the owners/investors of the Health insurance scam...I mean, companies.
"What's good for the USA, IS good for General Motors; what's good for General Motors may, or may not, be good for the USA."
And secondly; concerning the "pool" of talent available to staff the government: lobbyists (whether "public" or "private") are already a known quality. They have been tested in dealings with public bodies/figures and their positions are already known; often on subjects that don't even directly bear on the position they are being considered for, but will be brought up during confirmation hearings. This is something that many "not in the loop" have never had to face and possibly couldn't stand up to.
I fully agree with Sen. Boxer that there IS a difference between public and private interest lobbying and say go ahead and use as many of the "public interest" lobbyists as necessary. The Republicans and their enablers are going to whine no matter what we do, so ignore them. That doesn't rule out, however, continuing to increase the size of the "pool" available for government service by vigorously searching for suitable choices outside the circle of those already known by/for their activities.

I'm disappointed in you Steve.

If officials keep the ban, the administration will continue to struggle to fill key posts, and lock out qualified, talented people whose services are needed.

Oh cry me an river...now that democrats are in charge, we have to drop lobbying restrictions??? What a load of self-serving BS.

Might it be possible to let union lobbyists work in the environmental departments and vice versa?

Sure it's not their area of expertise, but there is substantial overlap in skill sets and they could switch after the two years perhaps stronger for having dipped their toes in two fields. Furthermore, not all the department heads will have a problem since not all candidates lobbied.

This is still allowing lobbyists in, but with an eye of disposing of the payola angle.

Not sure if all the bending over backwards is worth it. I doubt it can install anything like a tradition. It's history come 2016.

Waaah, wassh wassh. Look, I'm sure there are good people out there excluded by the ban. But I feel quite certain there are good people out there completely unaffected by the ban. The frikkin' real unemployment rate is 14%, and I'm supposed to believe the government is having a hard time recruiting people??

Shades of Tim Geithner, etc. Hardly anyone is THE indispensable someone.

Solution simple: people who work for corporate interests are lobbyists, whereas those who work for regular citizens are advocates. No ban on hiring advocates.

"But what about hiring someone for HHS who represented nurses' interests on the Hill? Or maybe someone for the Justice Department who lobbied against torture? Someone for Labor who did advocacy for workers?"

These people have an obvious conflict of interest and should not be appointed to such positions.

What a bizarre posting.

Hiring an ExxonMobil lobbyist to work at the Energy Department is unappealing, and exactly the kind of politics we had under Bush/Cheney. But what about hiring someone for HHS who represented nurses' interests on the Hill? Or maybe someone for the Justice Department who lobbied against torture? Someone for Labor who did advocacy for workers?

Lobbyists in government are good when you agree with their policies and bad when you don't?

To me it's a First Amendment issue: People who exercise their right to petition the government for redress of grievances do not thereby become disqualified for government service. I assume that you really are focused on "lobbying", distinct from "bribing".

I fully agree with Sen. Boxer that there IS a difference between public and private interest lobbying

There might be a difference between "unpaid" and "paid" lobbyists, but people who claim to lobby in the "public" interest represent some narrow interest of the public: for example, people who lobby for federal support for opera, or federal support of research and development of cellulosic ethanol (one of my favorites), or for price controls of cross-border conduction of electricity.

Blue Girl: I will be sure to tell the American Association of Clinical Pathologists about your concerns, since we have a couple of the critters working for us to assure that standards of professionalism and testing don't get watered down. Our nursing colleagues have lobbyists as well who lobby for standards of patient care, workload, etc, etc, etc.

Excellent examples of righteous lobbying. I would claim that cheap electricity and domestic petroleum supplies are also in the "public" interest (at least until we no longer use petroleum at all), though the narrow commercial interests are obvious. Nurses get paid by nursing customers, and oil workers get paid by oil customers; lobbyists for either group, as long as they don't try outright to buy votes, are equally qualified to serve in government.

I can't imagine that there aren't enough talented and dedicated people who could be hired and hadn't been lobbyists. Fire Geithner, replace him with someone whose hands are cleaner and let *that* nominee start looking for untainted troops.

Though, to be sure, me, I'm more worried about the traffic in the opposite direction, a couple of years down the road. All those little govt beavers moving into the "private sector" on K-Street (or J-Street, since that's where the Dem lobbyists seem to congregate) and trading on their past power and contacts to work against the "common good" but for "special interest good".

"If officials keep the ban, the administration will continue to struggle to fill key posts, and lock out qualified, talented people whose services are needed."

You're kidding, right? Not enough people to fill posts because they were all lobbying!? That would be ridiculous even if we weren't in a recession with tons of qualified people begging for work.