It wasn't all that long ago that a legislator could resign on a Friday and be back in the legislative hallways the following Monday as a paid lobbyist responsible for winning votes from former colleagues.
State law now prohibits former legislators from becoming lobbyists for at least six months after they've resigned. But if the results of a recent Public Policy Polling survey are correct, the great majority of North Carolinians think there should be an even longer break.
They're right.
The poll of 624 likely North Carolina voters found, within the 3.9-percent margin of error plus or minus, that 70 percent prefer a waiting period of at least two years, and half of those voters say legislators should never be allowed to work as lobbyists.
Much is misunderstood about lobbyists. Most are hardworking professionals with integrity. They obey the law while representing their employers' First Amendment rights. Lobbyists often assist the legislative process. They bring expertise to debates and often help legislators reach compromises.
But lobbying didn't get its bad name without good reason. Lobbyists advocate for their particular employer and not necessarily for the overall public good. This makes them look greedy. It is the legislator who, in occupying a very different role, must consider all arguments and mold them into what is best for the general public.
Back when a legislator could become a lobbyist overnight, such abrupt changes immediately cast doubt on all of the former legislator's previous work. The public was justified in asking whether that legislator had worked for the public good while arranging for the new job or had used the reins of power to please a future employer.
The current six-month moratorium is not adequate to remove that question. A legislator can resign at the end of one legislative session and go to work as a lobbyist at the opening of the next.
Legislators, therefore, should extend the required break to two years to reduce the likelihood that such deals are being cut. Given that legislators serve a two-year term, it would mean that former legislators sit out an entire legislative cycle before returning to the hallways.
The main argument for a required moratorium between the two jobs involves the influence that a legislator can retain even after resignation. Old friendships die slowly and inside information remains pertinent. A two-year moratorium would reduce all of those advantages.
Public sentiment is absolutely right on this issue. A two-year break from Raleigh is appropriate for former legislators.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement