A.O-Cortez and Ted Cruz Make a Deal? Yes, It's True

[Hank77]

Conversation on Twitter....

“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. “At minimum there should be a long wait period.”


A short time later, former Republican presidential candidate Cruz tweeted, “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?”


The freshman Democrat replied “if you’re serious about a clean bill, then I’m down. Let’s make a deal.” She said if they can agree to legislation “with no partisan snuck-in clauses” then “I’ll co-lead the bill with you.”


“You’re on,” Cruz replied.

The highest hurdle for the AOC/Cruz bill on lobbying reform

Wouldn't it be nice to see bipartisan cooperation working together to get the people's work done. Let's start with Immigration.

 

[JackRT]

I agree. I would also extend the ban to include not just former senators and representatives but also senior civil servants who know as much or more about the inner workings of government.

 

[Go Braves]

Well that's refreshing to read. (Seriously, not being sarcastic)

 

[SimplyMe]

On the flip side, I'd love to see a similar ban on lobbyists being hired to fill government political appointments.

 

[Pommer]

Conversation on Twitter....

“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. “At minimum there should be a long wait period.”


A short time later, former Republican presidential candidate Cruz tweeted, “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?”


The freshman Democrat replied “if you’re serious about a clean bill, then I’m down. Let’s make a deal.” She said if they can agree to legislation “with no partisan snuck-in clauses” then “I’ll co-lead the bill with you.”


“You’re on,” Cruz replied.

The highest hurdle for the AOC/Cruz bill on lobbying reform

Wouldn't it be nice to see bipartisan cooperation working together to get the people's work done. Let's start with Immigration.

It’ll work wonders...until it’s struck down by the High Court.

 

[JackRT]

On the flip side, I'd love to see a similar ban on lobbyists being hired to fill government political appointments.

And those appointments to be filled by people who are actually qualified for the job and free of conflicts of interest.

 

[JackRT]

It’ll work wonders...until it’s struck down by the High Court.

Can you think of a reason it would be struck down? I can't.

 

[Hank77]

It’ll work wonders...until it’s struck down by the High Court.

Why would it be struck down?

 

[hislegacy]

Wouldn't it be nice to see bipartisan cooperation working together to get the people's work done.

Agreed

 

[Arcangl86]

Can you think of a reason it would be struck down? I can't.

Freedom of association.

 

[JackRT]

Freedom of association.

So it should not be illegal for a soldier regularly be seen entering the Russian embassy.

 

[Arcangl86]

So it should not be illegal for a soldier regularly be seen entering the Russian embassy.

American law allows for fundamental rights to be curtailed for compelling government interests. But that is a term that tends to be very narrowly defined, and it's a good chance that the courts won't see preventing former congressmen from lobbying to be one.

 

[Pommer]

Can you think of a reason it would be struck down? I can't.

“Freedom of speech” number one.
Limiting a person’s “commercial speech” is tricky ground. The bill would have to be delicately crafted to nullify as few rights from as few people as possible.

I think that that is possible, (though not likely on the first go-around, given whom we’re dealing with here), but the necessary hearings that will be needed to show how bad the corruption is, [in order to get support for the legislation] will be embarrassing to the donor-class.

It might not even make it out of committee?

[/cynic]

 

[SimplyMe]

And those appointments to be filled by people who are actually qualified for the job and free of conflicts of interest.

Let's not go for the impossible.