I've been seeing a political football in the media recently, making hay, whenever a lobbyist is selected to work in the new administration. I worry that the discussion is moving in the wrong direction; instead of recognizing two key elements of the Obama administrations' success, we are going to end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I see criticism coming from both the left and right, and it concerns me.
First, the Obama administration has requested, to date that I am aware of, only a small number of waivers to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. Secondly, the requests for waivers are carried out in public, and are open to public scrutiny. I can't find any numbers on how many (hundreds?) of lobbyists Bushco employed, but how many of them had public disclosures of their possible conflicts of interest? Even more importantly, how much harm was done by Bushco's 'culture of secrecy' which prevented abuses from being spotted and corrected quickly?
Having a former lobbyist or contractor, or significant other of a lobbyist or contractor working for the government isn't necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, familiarity with processes, technology, or academic credentials of a former contractor can be an invaluable asset for the government in dealing with a contractor.
In the world of military acquisitions, there is a rule, sometimes called the 15000 dollar rule. Any individual serving on a SSB (Source selections board) must disclose to an ethics officer if they have any stake worth $15000 or more in any potential bidder on a contract. If possible, that individual will simply be recused from that contract; the same is true of KO's (Contracting Officers, don't ask) and others. There are even husband-wife civil-servant/contractor teams who, under those disclosure rules, simply don't work within the other's sphere.
The key issue from the military side is the separation of decision-making authority from conflict of interest where possible, and full disclosure of those conflicts of interest where not. From an insider's perspective, there is actually a strong incentive for civil servants to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars; one of the major factors in determining career success is getting a strong 'bang for the buck'. Money efficiency leads to successful programs, which leads to surprising frugality at levels below what is reported on CNN.
Also, Let's remember that not all lobbyists are bad; there are progressive lobbyists working to support causes we all want enacted. Second, lobbyists, like everyone else (except government organizations, who use their contractors as proxies) have a constitutional right to lobby the government.
Given all that, here is my argument: visibility and disclosure trumps 'kicking the bums out' every single time. There are always lobbyists and others (former CEOs, former this, former that) who will offer to come to the government side and do some work on behalf of the taxpayer. What is, or should be, important, is the public disclosure of those former or current ties.
Watchdog groups are valuable sentries of government spending, and I am surprised at how often they can piece together little bits of data to identify and call out abuses or conflicts of interest. Just as importantly, as anyone who follows the KC-X program (debacle) knows, corporations are quick to call out and question any perceived impropriety. Imagine the kind of microscope William Lynn will be under from Lockheed, Boeing, BAE, and Northrop Grumman since he is known to have a stake and interest in a competitor? There are techniques that can be used to force even thieves to come to an honest bargain; I see no reason why we can't use those techniques on companies who suckle at the government teat?
I say that the openness and transparency view towards lobbyists is far more important that preventing them from working in the government in the first place. The same is true of gifts; its disclosure that is important, not 'monetary value'. Civil servants who accept gifts open themselves up to accusations of graft, but it is the disclosure of those gifts that is more important than their monetary value. Remember, a senator risked his career (and lost) to conceal a gift of only a few thousand dollars. Trying to force austere rules for gifts and hiring will only create abusable exceptions that won't prevent abuse anyway; openness and disclosure is the only 'simple fix'.
Let me close with this thought: I agree in principle with Obama for wanting to hire as few former lobbyists as absolutely possible, and I agree with the ethical principles of limiting gifts to lawmakers. I do not agree, however that making exceptions to the rule (even exceptions that are not 'absolutely necessary') will somehow cheapen or weaken the commitment to openness or change. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.