Revolving Door Provisions and Free Speech Rights
In August, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
granted a former state representative a <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/18102368/16-PI-Order" target="”_blank”">temporary
restraining order</a> with respect to a state revolving door provision
that prohibits state representatives from representing anyone other
than a state political subdivision before the state legislature for one
year after leaving office.<br>
<br>
The representative is an unpaid spokesperson for an anti-tax
organization. The court found that the law "severely burdened" the
organization's First Amendment free speech rights by preventing the
organization from choosing the best possible spokesperson before the
legislature. The court also found that the revolving door provision
could have been more narrowly tailored so that it did not include
uncompensated representation, which it felt involves no likelihood of
corruption. The legislative ethics committee argued that the rule is
also intended to prevent the use of inside information, but the court
found that the rule was not limited to matters in which the legislator
was involved.<br>
<br>
With respect to a legislator, limiting to matters in which the
legislator was involved seems absurd, since legislators vote on issues
across the board. It's not like an agency official who deals with a
limited number of matters that come before the agency, where such a
limit is reasonable.<br>
<br>
As for uncompensated representation, this seems relatively harmless
when it involves an ideological position such as generally opposing
taxing and spending. But what about a legislator who leaves office and
immediately represents entities with concrete interests, such as an
industrial association or union, before the legislature for no
compensation? This doesn't seem so harmless.<br>
<br>
Distinguishing between "good" and "bad" representation is a problem. It has
been a thorn in the side of the Obama administration, because good
government lobbyists feel the Obama lobbying exclusions shouldn't apply
to them. And in many ways they're right. But it's easier to exclude all
lobbyists than to make the sort of distinctions that would separate
"good" from "bad" in a way that wouldn't cause serious arguments.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---