Trump’s Watered-Down Ethics Rules Let a Lobbyist Help Run an Agency He Lobbied

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,044
Reputation
6,780
Daps
90,001
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Geoff Burr spent much of the last decade as the chief lobbyist for a powerful construction industry trade group. Burr sought to influence a host of regulations of the Department of Labor, opposing wage standards for federal construction contracts and working against an effort to limit workers’ exposure to dangerous silica dust.

In the Obama administration, someone like Burr would have been barred by ethics rules from taking a job at an agency that he had lobbied.


In the Trump administration, Burr now has a top job at the Labor Department.

Burr is the first publicly known example of a former lobbyist who was able to take a job in the government as a result of President Donald Trump’s watering down of ethics rules in place during the Obama administration.

As a candidate, Trump regularly railed against lobbyists and led crowds in chants of “Drain the swamp!” But as president, Trump last month signed an executive order that weakened significant aspects of the Obama ethics policy, including scrapping a ban on lobbyists joining agencies they had recently lobbied.

Ethics experts say Burr’s hiring is a troubling example of how the new administration has greased the revolving door.

“A lobbyist like Burr may de-register on Monday and enter the Trump Administration on Tuesday,” said Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen. “The very same agency Burr has been lobbying as a hired gun is now Burr’s to help run. This is a grave problem for the public because the agency may well represent the special interest rather than the public interest.”

It also raises questions about ambiguous language in the Trump executive order.

Instead of banning lobbyists from working at agencies they lobbied, the Trump pledge, which has to be signed by all executive appointees, imposes restrictions on what such officials can work on. Specifically it says they cannot “participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied … or participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls.”

Ethics lawyers are now puzzling over what exactly that language means.

That task is made more confusing because of an apparent error in the Trump executive order: It says the phrase “particular matter” has the “same meaning as set forth in section 207 of title 28, United States Code.”

That part of the U.S. code does not exist.

There is a definition for that term in section 207 of title 18. (The error is doubly strange because much of the Trump executive order was copied word for word from an earlier Obama order. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

While it was cited incorrectly, the phrase “particular matter” does have a clear legal meaning, which has been detailed by the Office of Government Ethics.

Another phrase in the Trump order, “specific issue area,” was also used in the Obama order but its meaning is unclear.

“It is not defined in the Trump pledge. There’s uncertainty within the government and outside the government about what that particular term means,” said Robert Walker, an ethics lawyer at Wiley Rein in Washington. “The same lack of clarity was a problem with the Obama pledge in this area."

Because the Obama pledge included a blanket ban on lobbyists joining agencies they recently lobbied, the ambiguity of the restrictions on what lobbyists could do was less urgent.

The Obama administration was criticized for issuing a handful of waivers to allow former lobbyists to join the administration, thus skirting its own lobbyist ban. Out of thousands of appointees, there were five such waivers over the course of the Obama administration. None were at the Department of Labor.

Because Trump weakened the Obama rules, he won’t have to issue waivers in such situations. But if Trump issues a waiver allowing, say, a former lobbyist to work directly on issues that he lobbied on, we may not even find out about it: The executive order removed the mechanism for public disclosure of such waivers.

In the case of a former lobbyist like Burr, who worked at the Associated Builders and Contractors, there was a consultation with a Labor Department ethics lawyer. “If recusals were deemed to be necessary, it’s likely that there would be some documentation of the contours of those recusals,” Walker said.

Department of Labor spokeswoman Jillian Rogers declined to detail how Burr will comply with the ethics order. She offered the following statement:

“Mr. Burr has signed the Ethics Pledge and received a full ethics briefing on his first full day at the Department. He has been in frequent consultation with the DOL Ethics officer to ensure he is fully compliant with all ethical obligations in his role at the Department.”

Enforcement of the Trump’s ethics rules will also be at the discretion of the administration, as it was with the Obama order.

Whether Burr’s work at the Labor Department will be significantly limited by the president’s ethics rules depends on how the administration interprets the order.

Burr is now a member of the so-called beachhead team at the agency and is reportedly in line to be chief of staff to Labor Secretary nominee Andrew Puzder.

That role is shaped by each labor secretary’s needs, according to Seema Nanda, who was chief of staff through January 20 of this year.

Under Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez “anything significant that is happening in the department or anything that is a change in policy you are discussing as chief of staff,” Nanda told ProPublica.

That includes reviewing documents that need the secretary’s signature, such as new regulations, reports to Congress, or letters.

The chief of staff and his or her deputies “regularly meet with the agency heads to see what they’re thinking about. You are really going over in depth what each agency is working on."

Trump’s Watered-Down Ethics Rules Let a Lobbyist Help Run an Agency He Lobbied
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,044
Reputation
6,780
Daps
90,001
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Trump's Executive Order On Ethics Pulls Word For Word From Obama, Clinton

In signing an executive order imposing tough ethics standards on executive branch employees, President Trump followed a path laid by the two Democratic presidents who preceded him, almost word for word.

"This is a five-year lobbying ban," Trump said at the ceremony where he signed this and two other orders. "It's a two-year ban now, and it's got full of loopholes, and this is a five-year ban."

He joked that the senior staff standing near him for the signing had "one last chance to get out" before they would have to stick to limits on lobbying laid out in the directive.

"This was something, the five-year ban, that I have been talking a lot about on the campaign trail," Trump added. By the end of his campaign, supporters were chanting "drain the swamp," so this order, like many of his others in the past week amounts to Trump trying to show he's keeping a campaign pledge.

But what Trump is doing is derivative of what his two immediate Democratic predecessors did. On his first full day in office, Jan. 20, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order titled, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees." Twenty four years, a week and a day later, President Trump signed an order bearing the exact same title.

But the similarities don't stop there. As Trump's team drafted his order on ethics, they appear to have borrowed heavily from the language used in orders signed by both Clinton and President Obama. Obama also pulled from Clinton, in parts and the ethics directive signed by President George W. Bush is nearly identical to the one signed by his father twelve years earlier. But that's less surprising given those were presidents using the language of their predecessor from the same party. Perhaps more importantly, Trump not only seems to be lifting from Democratic presidents' language, but they are presidents he has condemned, including for not "draining the swamp."

"The story here is not the copying per se, it is the claim Trump has been making that he is doing something really different, new, and righteous when, apparently, in many respects he is actually copying Democrats he so thoroughly condemned as corrupt," said John Woolley, a professor at UC Santa Barbara and co-director of the Presidency Project.

The irony, he points out, is that those Democrats had also promised their own version of draining the swamp in response to the Republican president who preceded them.

Clinton ended up revoking his order in his final weeks in office, allowing his appointees to go straight into lobbying after all. And the Obama administration granted some waivers to its ethics order. It remains to be seen, of course, if Trump sticks hard and fast to his ban.

Trump criticized Clinton for backing off the ban during the 2016 presidential campaign. "President Clinton did what the Clintons always do — he rigged the system on his way out," Trump said in a statement in October of last year. "Clinton lifted the executive order so the Clintons and their cronies like John Podesta could start raking in cash." (Podesta was Clinton's chief of staff in the White House, founded a lobbying and public affairs firm with his brother and later became Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.)

The Trump administration did not reply to a request for comment.

"When a new president's executive order deals with a subject of operational concern to multiple administrations, it's not surprising that the president's lawyers would look to previous iterations as models," wrote Peter Shane, an Ohio State University constitutional law professor, in an email to NPR after reviewing the overlapping language. Shane focuses on separation of powers law and the application of law to the presidency.

"For a Republican president, reiterating the restrictive obligations prior Democratic presidents imposed on their appointees has the double advantage of using provisions vetted by other lawyers and apparently deemed acceptable to the political opposition," Shane added.

Below, we were able to trace back each bullet point in section one of Trump's order to either Clinton or Obama — nearly verbatim. For clarity, Trump's order language is in bold, Clinton's is in italics and Obama's is plain text:

Ethics watchdogs are offering a mixed reaction to the Trump executive order. In a joint statement Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Chair Norman Eisen and Vice-Chair Richard Painter say that "while there are things to like in the Trump [executive order], it tears two major loopholes in the Obama executive order on ethics it replaces."

They say it removes Obama's ban on lobbyists going to work for the agencies they had lobbied and also gets rid of revolving door restrictions on people who don't go on to become registered lobbyists but do work to "influence the system." Eisen and Painter call it "shadow lobbying."

They conclude that "Mr. Trump's [executive order], while it has some positive features, does not live up to his promise to drain the swamp."

Trump's Executive Order On Ethics Pulls Word For Word From Obama, Clinton
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
42,745
Reputation
6,637
Daps
136,949
Reppin
CookoutGang
This is what happens when people are out of their depth, but still have to put something out there. Unfortunately, by skirting over the review process of the EOs these mistakes aren't caught.

This isn't a good look for Trump. This is another EO he signed that appears he didn't read through them or if he didn't he had no idea what it meant.
 
Top