Executive Order on Lobbying Signed-Removing the Swamp!

This is repetitive(just keep reading, sorry), but this EO is on government-lobbyist relations.

It appears the cleansing of the swamp in DC will be occurring with this new EO(executive order) signed by Donald J. Trump.

www.whitehouse.gov...

The EO deals with government officials not entering the lobbying field immediately after their employment in the US Government is terminated(being fired or simply leaving).

"1. I will not, within 5 years after the termination of my employment as an appointee in any executive agency in which I am appointed to serve, engage in lobbying activities with respect to that agency.

"4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

It also deals with the relations between government and lobbyists.

"5. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

I'm glad to see this being done and it should come as no surprise. Shortly after election night President Trump(then President Elect) released this video/statement.




I apologize for my limited input. I hope to see this discussed, reasons for opposing this move and reasons why this is a positive thing. Mind you I will likely edit this post with my thoughts. My place of residence is a high stress area this moment.

Another good one for Trump

That is one EO I can agree with I only hope there are no loopholes in it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Perhaps a careful inspection of the EO's text can help determine if there is. Certainly a step in the right direction.

a reply to: Grimpachi

However, an issue here could be that it deals with only(?) the executive agencies.

Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2017, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

The foreign one is obvious, but the domestic falls way, WAY short.

In other words, not good enough, Donald, both should be lifetime bans.

HAHAHA!!! I LOVE THIS ONE!!!

a reply to: ksiezyc

Does it stop lobbying?

If not, then, it really isn't doing anything.

a reply to: daskakik

It limits it. He's doing what he said he would. I personally feel if it were a lifetime ban there would be more legitimate arguments against it.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
It appears the cleansing of the swamp in DC will be occurring with this new EO(executive order) signed by Donald J. Trump.

Funny how Trump ignored Obama's EO on ethics....

europe.newsweek.com...

When ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson signed on to work for Donald Trump’s new administration, he set himself up to receive a quick cash infusion: Exxon committed to giving him an $180 million retirement package just as he moves to lead a State Department that oversees Exxon-related public policy.
For years, ethics watchdogs have said such payouts could be a way for corporations to buy influence from incoming government officials. But, watchdogs said, at least for federal officials' first two years in office, they were barred by a rule from participating in government business affecting their former employers.

That prohibition may no longer apply. As Trump stocks his administration with Tillerson and other moguls whose companies have business with the government, the eight-year-old rule appears to be going unenforced—even if it is still on the books.

A review of agreements between Trump’s top appointees and federal ethics regulators shows that none of the compacts mentions the 2009 executive order that requires incoming officials to sign a pledge to avoid participating in policies that “directly and substantially relate to [their] former employer or former clients” for the first two years of government service. Obama-era ethics agreements included standard language obligating political appointees to follow the rule.

How does Trump's EO on ethics compare with the ones by previous Presidents?

a reply to: hellobruce

I suppose reading it could help provide an answer. Any link to Obama's EO?

originally posted by: ksiezyc
It limits it.

How?

He's doing what he said he would. I personally feel if it were a lifetime ban there would be more legitimate arguments against it.

He might be but you said this was removing the swamp and it really isn't.

a reply to: daskakik

Some times, to evade an incoming meteor, one has to just knock it off course and not necessarily have to completely destroy it completely to suffer of its consequences.

The reason it is appointees only at the moment is two fold. First, their "employment contracts," as it were, are under more strict control as appointees, who are "at will" employees. Your average government service worker is under no such contract as a civil servant. You saw this when all the high level employees resigned. As appointees THEY WERE REQUIRED TO RESIGN. For garden variety civil servants free speech and free association rights come into play. It's a Constitutional issue and even if you don't agree that it should be, that's where the lawsuits will come from. This may be what Trump could get away with for the time being.

Secondly, these guys are the most important. It's one thing to retire as a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy and go to work for a contractor. You don't really want to prevent these guys from employment in the one field they know well. It's quite another to have a high level executive acting as a lobbyist for a foreign nation. This is perhaps more surgical than you would like, but it's least disruptive to a machine that is still required to function. It's a good start.

Edit to add: The ban against lobbying for a foreign government is a lifetime ban.

a reply to: daskakik

Watch the video if you want to understand removal of the swamp...instead of using your own interpretation. Really...how? You didn't read the OP it seems. By limited the time into lobbying.

a reply to: ttobban

Lobbying isn't something that flies by once in a lifetime. It is constant.

a reply to: schuyler

Thanks for the great response and reasoning for the limited application.

a reply to: ksiezyc

I don't care how he (re)defines draining the swamp, if it doesn't change anything then, it doesn't change anything. Call it and define it however you want.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes, and just like a cancer in the body. Maybe surgery is the best treatment? Maybe its proton therapy? Maybe its radiation?

Cancers that will always be out there somewhere in life just need to be pushed away... not eliminated. We need to walk before we run... and crawl before we walk.

a reply to: ttobban

I thought this was a nasty cancer that was already diagnosed and was going to be dealt with but, maybe not.