If Romney and Ryan ran 7-Eleven

I agree with Paul Krugman that Romney/Ryan and the Republican party want to end Medicare.  Some people, including some reputable journalism organizations, say that is a lie.  But the plan they are putting forward for premium support (vouchers) will turn Medicare, which takes care of millions of seniors, into something that burdens all but the most wealthy seniors.   Of course, this is consistent with most of Romney's ideas.

The plan is equivalent to 7-Eleven giving you a 24-ounce cup filled only with 9 ounces of ice and saying it is a Big Gulp.

Money and meaning

There is a fascinating essay that appeared recently at the Harvard Business Review.   It asks what many of us often wonder--how do we keep our society's obsession with money from ruining the things we value.  And more importantly, how can those people who really add value to our lives be more fairly compensated so that we stop this mad rush to a winner-take-all economy.

Now I am a sports fan.  And I think Derek Jeter should make as much or more than a Wall Street CEO.  I know that very few people can hit a 95-mile-per-hour fastball 400 feet.  Almost any of us could ruin the economy.

Seriously, I understand that high-paid athletes are the best at what they do, have a small window to earn money from their talents, and compete in what is an almost truly free market.  So if billionaire owners want to pay them tens of millions of dollars a year, good for them.

However, we as tax payers should not participate in a broken market that values winning at sports more than making the world a better place.  I am thinking about this because the Nobel prizes are being announced this week.  So here is my simple proposal:

No single member of a coaching staff at a public university can earn more than the award for a Nobel Prize.  

Now I know that the money is not the important part of winning a Nobel.  Still, we are sending the wrong message to our students when we say we "value" a winning season more than an advance in physics or chemistry that will make all our lives better.

As citizens of a state (and some of my readers will, I hope, be legislators) we can demand this.  It won't solve the huge problem of trading money for meaning, but it is a start.

My mom is not a victim

One-third of the adults in my household don’t pay any federal income tax.

As those of you who heard me last year when I first entered the 5th District race may recall, my mom has an apartment in my wife’s and my home.  She is 78 and lives off Social Security.  I think she earned every penny of it.  

When I was in elementary school, my father lost his job and it took him several months to find a new one.  So my mom went to work.  She worked from 6 pm until 2 am.  She chose those hours so she would be home when my brother and I returned from school and could also sleep a few hours before seeing us off in the morning.  It couldn’t have been easy.  

Now, however, she doesn’t pay any federal income tax.  She is “dependent” on the government.  Or so we are told.  Well I say this not only because I love my mom but because I respect how she took responsibility for herself and her family 45 years ago:

Mitt Romney can take his candidacy and shove it.

Mose knows the 5th

When I read about the endorsement from former President Clinton, I heard yet another Mose Allison song playing in my head.

"Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken for a ride?
The bigs ones eat the little ones and there's no place left to hide.
Just don't drink the water, try not to breathe the air.
I'm not discouraged, I am not discouraged, but I'm getting there."

While still in the race I received some unsolicited feedback after the Cornwall debate from two women visiting from New York.  "We can't vote because we don't live here--but you were by far the best candidate during the debate."  Which made me think of what Mose sings:

"The best is supposed to come in first, but they're at the mercy of the worst."

So no matter who wins the Democratic primary tomorrow, I will be listening to the great philospher from Tippo:

"Stop this world, let me off.  There's just too many pigs in the same trough.  Too many buzzards sitting on the fence.  Stop this world, it ain't making sense."

My endorsement

Since there is only one week until the primary in the 5th district and I know quite a bit about the three Democratic candidates, it is time for me to provide some direction to all the folks who supported me at the convention.

Here is my take on the candidates (in alphabetic order to be fair).

Chris Donovan

1. He seems to be the most progressive/liberal candidate, though not as progressive as I am, so that is in his favor.  
2. However, there is no realistic way for him to escape the taint of the alleged corruption among his top staffers.  Any indication that he was involved will not only damage Mr. Donovan but the Democratic party.   
3. Also, while he is progressive, his campaign has not been nearly bold enough in its positions. 

Elizabeth Esty

1. She has many admirable traits--sincere, hard-working, thoughtful.
2. My main issue with Ms. Esty is that winning seems more important to her than making a difference.  It was a huge mistake not to commit to the "positive campaign" pledge that was proposed at the first debate.  People who served on multiple town committees, the first people each candidate had a chance to represent, asked for a positive campaign.  (Now I know that the campaign has been a study in hypocrisy.)  If a politician is not willing to take a position proposed by the people doing the hard work at the grass roots level, then that says something about how she will "represent" the district.  To me it says that political expediency is more important than listening to constituents.  
3. The fact that will be hardest for her to overcome--taking money from businesspeople her husband regulates--is reflective of the same mindset.  It would have been harder for her campaign to get a strong start with less money, but it would have been the right thing to do do refuse the money that caused the appearance of conflicted interests.  

Dan Roberti

1. I don't know where to start.
2. OK. Saying you wish a Super-Pac would not attack your opponents is laughable.  Especially when its donors number fewer than 10 folks all of whom you surely know.
3. Running a highly negative campaign after pledging to remain positive is what Repbulicans do.
4. Using "different" as a campaign theme for a campaign based on raising money and attacking fellow Democrats is the height of cynicism.  

All that being said, I want a Democrat to win this election.  And I want all Democrats to stop the madness that has caused three good people to do questionable things and try their best to diminish each other.  

While none of the candidates can change how they have raised money, any of them can commit to shut the revolving door.  

I will endorse whichever candidate pledges: "I will not, nor will any member of my staff, accept a job as a lobbyist or working with a lobbying firm for five years after the last day on the taxpayers' payroll." 

Jail time does wonders

Jack Abramoff is trying to make amends and telling anyone who will listen that money spent by lobbyists is, if anything, even more corrupting than we imagined.

When a public servant has a debt to someone seeking a favor from the government, the foundation of our government is at risk. Each time a lobbyist or special interest makes a political contribution to a public servant, a debt is created. Lobbyists are very adept at collecting these debts. Unfortunately, the true debtor on these obligations is the American people. In a very real way, congressmen who take contributions from lobbyists and special interests are selling our nation to repay their debts of gratitude. That is the price of their votes and offices -- and it must stop. 

The problem is that no one is listening.  Least of all the Democrats.  Instead of banning contributions from lobbyists and committing to shutting the revolving door, each candidate is doing his/her best to convince us that he/she is different. Every piece of campaign mail I have received in the past two weeks tells me that all we need do is elect the correct candidate and he/she will "change Washington"  by the force of his/her special moral strength.

That will not work.  If a candidate has not changed the influence of money in his/her own campaign, there is no chance of that candidate changing Washington.  Once a politician is addicted to money, those plying Jack Abramoff's erstwhile trade are still in control of debt collection.

I have been eating sour grapes*

Now that I have been out of the race for more than 2 months, I think I can comment on Connecticut's 5th Congressional District with the perspective of distance.

Boy am I disappointed.  Just today I received campaign mail from the Roberti and Esty campaigns.

Roberti tells me:  "Chris Donovan and Elizabeth Esty's CROOKED HARTFORD POLITICS aren't what we need in Wahshington."

Esty uses a shattered graphic to let me know:  "Washington IS BROKEN.  Chris Donovan Part of the Problem, More of the Same."

Sure, my hope that one of the Democratic candidates would adopt some version of my non-compete clause to shut the revolving door was wishful thinking.  But it seemed possible that Chris Donovan's finance problems would provide the opportunity for Elizabeth Esty and/or Dan Roberti to make the plague of money in politics their own issue.

If anything, the opposite has happened.  I have been following the campaign through The Register Citizen's excellent blog.  The campaign leading from the convention to the primary has incorporated all the problems folks told me they wanted changed.

1. Much of the campaigning is negative;
2. Out-of-state money is playing a large and unsavory role;
3. Even issues that should unite Democrats are being misrepresented for political advantage.  

I understand the cliche that "politics ain't beanbag."  But at some point we Democrats must commit to seeking politic success for the purpose of better governance.  I hear too many co-workers and friends who have become apathetic because "politicians are only in it for themselves."  Nothing that has happened in CT 5 recently is going to change how such people feel.  

When Democratic politics becomes mostly about gaining power for its own sake, then we might as well be Republicans.  

*I know in the fable the grapes are sour because they can't be eaten.  However, in all honesty, I am bothered by having made so little impact.

The man from Torrington

I just finished reading Tony Horwitz's Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid that Sparked the Civil War.  Highly recommended--a gripping tale of an important part of American history.

One of the things I glean from history is that we are much too eager to label things the "most," or "best," or "worst."  (An Australian friend pointed this out when we were watching tennis more than a decade ago and the announcer proclaimed Pete Sampras the "best ever.")

Of course many of us keep saying that our politics are "more divided" than at any other time.  My response is: "Really??"  While our current Congress has accomplished little, none of its members has attacked another with a cane.  And while the income inequality in America is at historic levels, fellow citizens are not being arrested and beaten for demanding the right to vote.

On the other hand, what does seem to have been lost is the righteous outrage that is needed to bring about change.  What I experienced is that candidates and their supporters are so committed to winning, that they do not commit to making the changes in their own campaigns that are morally required.  This is why money has become such a problem.

In my next post, I will address how this is corrupting the race here in Connecticut's 5th District.  

The Corruption of Culture

The three headlines on the New York Times front page today:

1. The Penn State child abuse scandal
2. A "New Fraud Inquiry as JPMorgan's Loss Mounts"
3. The Barclays' LIBOR fixing scandal

It seems that anything that can be labelled "big" is now corrupt: big banks, big-time college football, big Pharma, etc.

And if politics can be called anything, it is big.  Spending on the presidential election this year is forecast to be close to $2 billion.  Most Senate races will cost between $50 million and $100 million.  And many House races will exceed $5 million in spending.  

Yet our election system may be the easiest to change.  Politicians all have the same primary concern--winning the next election.  If voters are willing to demand that candidates commit to limit outside spending and eliminate the revolving door that Congress and the Administration use to acquire high-paying lobbying jobs, then candidates will become less corrupt.  The key is to punish candidates that don't make the commitments.  

As much as I think the no-tax pledge is terribly damaging, I have to admit that it has been effective because those who have ignored or broken it have seen their chance for re-election diminished.  

The only effective tool for voters is denying candidates what they want--winning.  

Wall Street cheating and wildfires

Most of us have had a similar reaction to the study that found that cheating is just another tool used by executives on Wall Street.  That reaction is: "No shit Sherlock."

My take is that corruption is like the plague of wildfires that the western U.S. is experiencing--we reap what we sow.

Our you can think of it like the steroid era in baseball.  I remember hearing a player on sports talk radio when the steroid story first broke explaining why steroid use was so widespread.  He said that a minor league player who was talented and hard-working would not be able to stay clean while his equals using steroids made it to the big leagues.  This former player said too much was at stake: lifelong dreams and millions of dollars.  The same is true for executives on Wall Street.

These men (and a few women) judge themselves by how much money they make and how conspicuously they can consume.  When that sense of self is combined with our current political climate where leaders state that "regulations kill jobs" and the hyper-wealthy are "creators," then the wildfires of cheating have a perfect mix of fuel and conditions to burn through our entire economy.

Supreme Court and Health Care

My family and I were heading to Canada for what turned out to be a wonderful vacation the Thursday when the ACA ruling was announced. We were listening to the audio from MSNBC on satellite radio.  The initial reports were that the court had found it unconstitutional.  We then began listening to "The Diane Riehm Show" on NPR.  The panelists slowly determined that the court had actually upheld the ACA--ruling it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause but was within Congress' power of taxation.

Since hearing the decision I have had the feeling that Chief Justice Roberts has outmaneuvered everyone who supports health care reform.  My concern comes from much of the analysis I heard around the time the case was argued.  Almost all analysts agreed that the Court could "kick the can down the road" by stating that the individual mandate was a tax, then ruling that no one had yet paid the tax so no one had standing to challenge it.

I suspect that conservative activists are preparing to challenge the constitutionality of "taxing inactivity."  Justice Roberts will be able to argue that Congress cannot regulate inactivity; then in the coup de grace he will be able to say that while Congress has the power to tax, the individual mandate tax is unconstitutional once someone has standing to challenge it.

Now I am not a constitutional scholar.  The decision may be perfectly clear on the constitutionality of "taxing inactivity."  The wording of Chief Justice Roberts may be airtight and not allow for a future challenge once a specific individual has standing.  But I will remain skeptical until the individual mandate has been fully implemented.  Since Citizens United, I believe the conservatives on the court are willing to use any reasoning necessary to increase the power of the powerful while negating advances for middle-class and working Americans.

I hope I am wrong.

Good people, infected system

Two weeks ago, Colin McEnroe had a column in the Hartford Courant with the title "Donovan's A Good Guy--Everybody Says So."

I wasn't one of the people who said so, but I would.  The few times I met the speaker and the two times we shared a stage he seemed like a nice enough person.  His background indicates that he became involved in politics for the right reasons.  I would say the same about Elizabeth Esty and Dan Roberti.

Donovan's problem was that Esty and Roberti were raising more money--almost all of it from outside Connecticut.

And in the world we have today, fundraising is often the raison d'etre of campaigns.  So the inherent advantage that should come with being the speaker of the state house takes a back seat to who is leading the race for money.

Maybe the finance director who has been indicted would have been corrupt in any circumstance.  But it makes sense that because Donovan was trailing in the all-important money race his staff and supporters were more willing to accept money without concern for its origins.

What is doubly troubling is that knowledge of and positions on issues are completely overshadowed by the ability to raise money.  At the last debate where I was with the three other candidates I stated that we all needed to address how we would keep 2013 from becoming 1937 (when the economy re-entered recession due to the disappearance of fiscal support from the federal government).  None of the other candidates responded to the similarities we are already seeing in our current economic crisis.

But the other three all had fundraisers scheduled following the debate.

Term Limits

I was on the Colin McEnroe Show yesterday.  It feels good to be able to have a wider forum to talk about the non-compete clause and how we get our democratic elections back to being democratic.

The other guests (Brian Hill and Matthew Oakes) both agreed that the process is broken and that money is way too important.  However, they also both spoke in favor of term limits for Congress.

On this, I couldn't disagree more.

There might be a case for term limits AFTER implementing a non-compete clause for all members of Congress, their staffs, and everyone in the administration.  But if term limits are implemented by themselves, it will be a disaster.

The most common suggestion is to limit Congressional service to 12 years--6 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate.

What that would do is give even more influence to senior members--those in their 8th-12th years of service.  And these are the exact politicians who would be looking for their "next" job.  The allure of a five-fold increase in income AND the ability to "stay in the game" would be too much to resist.

Lobbyists would be able to tell any committee chair that a "great job" awaited.  And it is human nature not to want to disappoint a future employer, especially one who is offering significantly more money.  This is pretty much the current strategy of lobbyist as described by Jack Abramoff.

I understand the appeal of term limits.  But they only address a symptom.  The underlying problem is that once elected politicians become addicted to the power of Washington--and right now all the power is connected to money.  Listen to the This American Life episode Take the Money and Run for Office, it does a great job of making all the connections.

How we win

There is a great explanation in Douglas Adams' Life, the Universe and Everything.*  


"We're not obsessed by anything, you see," insisted Ford.
"And that's the deciding factor.  We can't win against obsession.  They care, we don't.  They win."


I remembered this when thinking about how hard it has always been to get money out of politics. In fact, it seems much harder for liberals to achieve their public policy objectives than conservatives.

Lowering taxes, especially on the wealthy, has been an obsession for the past three decades.  And if that results in an economy prone to bubbles and financial crashes, then the obsession just gets ramped up with the likes of the Tea Party.

And can the wage-war-in-Iraq-at-all-costs focus of George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisers be called anything other than obsessive?

When I talk with other committed liberals about getting the corrupting influence of money out of politics and shutting the revolving door, it doesn't quite raise to the level of obsession.  The most common response is something like:  "The amounts of money are outrageous.  Let's make sure we elect our candidates by raising more for them."

We must make the focus on changing the process an obsession.  If fundraising is the main qualification of a candidate, then we must call that candidate unacceptable--even if he is liberal.  If a liberal member of Congress or one of her staffers goes through the revolving door to become a high-paid lobbyist, then we need to object as loudly as possible.

The formula for success is:  We can't lose if were obsessed.  We care, we win.

*The Hitchhiker's trilogy is great satire, and great satire often has insights not found in more serious analysis.  This piece by Ezra Klein is a perfect example.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on tail risk

We are the Champions

My company is implementing new processes.  Consultants have told us we need to appoint several employees in each office as Change Champions.

This is exactly the role citizens should play in American Democracy.  Both Tea Partiers and Occupiers demonstrated it can work.  Money and power continue to be increasingly concentrated.  Yet even the Roberts' Court cannot deny that We are the Champions.

Of course, we have to participate like champions.  To borrow a few sports cliches: we must never give up; we have to contest every "play;" to be champions we must COMPETE.

We must demand that candidates for public office respond to each voter equally.  If they refuse, then we need to become candidates ourselves.

We must demand that corporations become better citizens by reducing unemployment, protecting the environment, and helping educate our children (if the SCOTUS says they are individuals then we give them rights AND responsibilities).

We must see ourselves as equal to the rich and powerful.  "No time for losers--we are the Champions of the World."

Senator Blumenthal is wasting his time

I don't mean what the senator is doing is a waste of time.  I mean his time would be better spent finding ways to increase employment, help the middle-class overcome two decades of income/wealth stagnation, and doing something significant on climate change before we hit a catastrophic tipping point.

But instead he is doing this:

Dear Randy, Help us demand an explanation: “Why did a defense contractor pay a $500,000 “bonus” to a guy named Thomas MacKenzie on the Armed Services Committee?” Demand an answer. Add your name. Let’s pretend I’m a weapons manufacturer. I make fighter jets and spy drones and stuff like that. And let’s pretend you work for me. Imagine you just got offered a position in Washington on the U.S. House Armed Services Committee — the one that givesme billions of dollars in government contracts. Cool, right? Now, let’s say I gave you a $500,000 bonus just three weeks before you stopped working for me to go join that committee. OK, stop pretending. Last week, we found out a guy named Tom MacKenzie actually did this! If that sounds an awful lot like bribery to you, you’re not alone. He’s being questioned. Help us demand an answer. Add your name. Let’s get Thomas MacKenzie fired, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal is leading the charge and we need to stand by him. Sign your name to tell Blumenthal he’s right. If it looks like a bribe and smells like a bribe... you guessed it! Our investigative news team at Republic Report broke this story late last week. The giant defense manufacturer Northrop Grumman actually did give one of its lobbyists half a million dollars in bonus pay right before he left to serve on a key congressional committee dealing with defense issues. In fact, it was Republic Report’s research that got the Senator riled up and started making national headlines. Now, it’s our job to follow up on their great work and put some shoulder behind this effort. The last time we spoke out against corruption, Pennsylvania Representative Tim Holden lost his seat in the House. That’s because the combined voice of thousands of us can’t be ignored. Add your name to show that you won’t stand for this kind of corruption. To read Republic Report’s original story, click here. Thanks for keeping up the fight against corruption.

Why are we fighting this corruption when we can put an end to it.  Conservatives and CEOs often tell us that the government can learn a lot from how businesses operate.  So let's agree with them and DEMAND that all members of Congress and their staffs sign a non-compete clause.

Because if Mr. MacKenzie was giving up lobbying for 5 years he would not be going "to serve on a key congressional committee dealing with defense issues."

There are many other battles to be fought.  This one has an obvious solution.  Let's win this battle and move on.

Democrats are failing (cont.)

"The Baseline Scenario" should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand the inter-relation between our economic problems and political failures.

In the latest post, James Kwak hits the bulls-eye when he addresses Peter Orzag's analysis of our current situation:

Peter Orszag wrote an article for the latest Democracy** about political dysfunction and the “looming fiscal showdown” at the end of this year. A lot of it is a warmed-over description of political polarization, although Orszag ignores one of its most important causes: the growing influence of money in politics and the resulting need for politicians to go chasing after contributions from extremist billionaires. (Orszag instead subscribes to the theory that political polarization results from public polarization, which has been pretty well debunked by Fiorina and Abrams.)

But Kwak doesn't go far enough.  His reference to "extremist billionaires" obviously relates to the impact of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and other right-wing funders.  It is just as accurate to define the problem as the need for politicians to spend the majority of their time chasing after donors who can give them thousands of dollars.

As outlined in my first post on this topic, the middle-class is financially where they were in the mid 90s.  One of the things that means is that almost no one below the 90th percentile of income/wealth has thousands of dollars sitting around to donate to any candidate.

The New York Times magazine had an article about President Obama's Wall Street donors.  One of them asked why the president didn't make a speech similar to his race speech from 4 years ago to make Americans "understand" how beleaguered those in the financial sector really are.

This is one of the reasons why I say Democrats are failing.  The pursuit of more money doesn't allow Democrats to "hear" middle-class voters.  Because candidates spend so much time listening to the folks who can sign a $2000 or $5000 check.

Candidates need to self-limit the maximum contribution to their campaigns.  It must be an amount most voters can give ($200 or $500).

Many folks will say this concedes elections to those candidates who are willing to court large contributors.  That may be true for an election or two.  But if the middle-class has stagnated for almost 2 decades, what do Democrats call success.

If candidates quit playing by the rules that hugely favor the wealthiest, then they can truly listen to and represent middle-class and working families.

If we want to know how a candidate will represent us, we should require that she be willing to start by changing the balance of power in her own campaign.

Democrats are failing

As someone who ran as a Democrat, I believe that my party offers better solutions than the opposition to the nation's problems.  However, I am beginning to wonder.
Here is the lead from a New York Times article yesterday:
The recent economic crisis left the median American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, the Federal Reserve said Monday.


Because Democrats have not found a way to diminish the influence of money and lobbying in politics, they must share the blame.  


As long as it cost millions of dollars to be a "serious" candidate for the House, or tens of millions to run for the Senate, then Democrats as well as Republicans will listen more to the donors who can contribute thousands of dollars.  


If states and municipalities use tax breaks that benefit the owners and CEOs of corporations at the expense of middle-class residents, then elected officials from both parties are being seduced by the illusion that more money for the powerful means growth for all. 


If we Democrats want to reverse the decline of the middle-class, then we must commit to removing the outrageous amounts of money from the political process.  Democrats talk about wanting to serve the 99%, but if we continue to play by the rules of the 1%, then we are doomed to failure.  

Inoculating against dishonesty

Dan Ariely is doing great work in behavioral economics.  In promoting his most recent book, The Honest Truth About Dishonesty, he recently wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal.  In it he outlines how most of us are "a little" dishonest on a regular basis--though some people are boldly and often dishonest.

The challenge is to provide people with inoculations against their daily failings.  Ariely has discovered that making people (even atheists) read the 10 Commandments before doing a task makes them more honest.  He also finds that signing insurance applications before filling them out as opposed to the traditional method of signing them on completion makes people more honest.

What we need for politicians is to have them commit to some moral guidelines before they seek office.

You can read my original post for my choice of guidelines.  What are some others you think would work?

• Top Industries by Percent of Revolvers 

  I mentioned in my first blog post that lobbyists who use the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street don't serve the interests of most citizens.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics these are the top industries associated with the Revolving Door:

  • Beer/Wine

  • Communication/Electronics

  • Tobacco

  • Finance/Credit Companies

  •  TV/Movies/Music

  The complete list and accompanying article can be accessed by the link above. 

  When you vote this November, remember you might be deciding who gets the next lobbying job for Anheuser-Busch or Verizon.  

  
  

   

  
  

Politics: Sex and Money

Put simply, there is a point beyond which economic inequality in its
own right complicates electoral control. The appropriate comparison is perhaps with a
powerful magnetic field. When The Force is with them – when, that is, Congressmen and
women, their staffs, presidential aides, and federal regulators can be sure of walking out
of their offices to become multimillionaires when they retire or step down – expecting
them to act consistently in the public interest is idle, even if all representatives were
elected on 100% public funding.  Thomas Ferguson--Legislators Never Bowl Alone:
Big Money, Mass Media, and the Polarization of Congress

When politicians fall from power, it is usually due to either sex or money.  I don't have any ready solutions for the likes of Anthony Weiner or John Edwards.  To paraphrase Montaigne, I have never had the temptation that comes with power, so I cannot boast of my moral strength.

But I do know one way in which politicians in Washington can lessen the corrupting influence of money.  Every candidate who runs for Congress and every political appointee in the executive branch should be bound by a non-compete clause.  This is fairly common practice in the private sector.  The basic purpose is to keep an employee from using knowledge gained from an employer in ways that disadvantage that employer.

That is exactly what happens when a member of Congress, a congressional staffer, or executive-branch staffer leaves and takes a high-paying lobbying job.  While all lobbying does not disadvantage every citizen, the most influential and best-financed lobbying entities are truly "special interests" that do little to benefit the greater good.  Why should citizens, the employers of elected officials and their staffs, "train" people who turn around and work against our interests.  No Fortune 500 corporation would stand for this.  Why should we?

The non-compete clause should remain in effect for 5 years after service in Washington ends.  This would ensure that our elected officials and their staffs are doing the work we send them to do.  Otherwise people we pay will continue to focus on working the system and making connections.  Because in reality much of what happens in Washington is preparing and auditioning for high-paying lobbying jobs.

Congress is not going to implement this.  We must demand that candidates commit to having a non-compete agreement in place before they take office.   

"Neither I nor any of my staff will become a lobbyist, work for a firm whose primary function is lobbying, or take a position that relies on institutional knowledge for at least five (5) years after service in Congress has ended."

The "institutional knowledge" wording can be thought of as the Newt Gingrinch clause.

Many other things need to happen to restore citizens' faith in Washington.  Other folks are doing great work trying to close the Pandora's Box that is Citizens United.  But those are big efforts that will take several years to complete.

You can ask the candidates in your district to commit to a non-compete agreement in this election.  So if you attend any debates or candidate events ask each candidate present if they will commit to serving only their constituents.  Or write to your local newspaper and ask them to publish the agreement and have candidates respond.

I think Professor Ferguson is correct--until the revolving door is shut even public financing is idle.