A bipartisan trio of senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would ban congressmen from working as lobbyists after their time in Congress. Lobbying is a lucrative career that former congressmen often pursue; lobbying firms seek them out for their contacts and familiarity with the various levels of the federal government.

Sponsored by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Al Franken (D-MN), the Close the Revolving Door Act of 2017 seeks to shutter the Capitol Hill to K Street pipeline.

“Washington has become all too comfortable with the spin of the revolving door,” Bennet said in a statement, referring to the common “revolving door” metaphor to describe the non-stop flow of congressmen to lobbying firms. “By banning members of Congress from lobbying when they leave Capitol Hill, we can begin to restore confidence in our national politics.”

The bill would institute a lifetime ban on current members of Congress from working as lobbyists after leaving Capitol Hill. Former congressional staffers would not be allowed to work as lobbyists until six years have passed since their time in Congress. Currently, that moratorium is one year.

Lobbying firms are common destinations for former U.S. senators and representatives. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, over half of the congressmen that either lost re-election or left Congress in 2014 now work as lobbyists. President Donald Trump pledged to combat the issue in January, when he issued an executive order to severely restrict the flow of former federal employees to lobbying firms.

Past presidents–including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama–also issued executive decrees aimed at reforming the lobbying practices of former congressmen. Current law dictates former members and staff of the House have a one-year “cooling off” period, in which they cannot accept a contract from a lobbying firm. For former senators and their staff, the “cooling off” period is two years.

In a statement, Franken said “our democracy can’t function the way it’s supposed to when well-connected special interests have more power than the American people.” Acting against moneyed special interests was a rallying cry for camps on both sides of the political spectrum during last fall’s campaign. Both Bernie Sanders and Trump railed against what they saw as a corrupt (or to Trump, a “swamp”) Washington crippled by vested interests.

This bipartisan effort “would put in place much-needed reforms-by not only banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, but also making the industry more accountable and transparent,” Franken said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trio of Senators Seek to Ban Former Members of Congress from Lobbying appeared first on Law Street.

Ajit Pai is not a fan of net neutrality. Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump on Monday to chair the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), once said net neutrality would mean “permission-less innovation is a thing of the past.” Net neutrality supporters now worry that Trump’s latest appointee could spell the end for a level playing field on the web.

In February 2015, the FCC enacted new rules to “protect and maintain open, uninhibited access to legal online content without broadband Internet access providers being allowed to block, impair, or establish fast/slow lanes to lawful content.” In essence, internet providers–Comcast and Verizon, for example–could not put a speed limit on certain websites, while fast-tracking others.

Trump is coming for net neutrality. He wants his buddies in big cable and telecom to put the screws to content. This affects us all.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 24, 2017

But Pai, a current FCC commissioner and former lawyer for Verizon, is a vocal and sometimes colorful, opponent of net neutrality. “On the day that the [rules were] adopted, I said that ‘I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered,'” Pai said in a speech last month. “Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true.”

Trump has not come down strongly on the issue, though he has criticized President Obama’s regulatory agenda as a whole. The closest Trump has come to voicing his opinion on net neutrality came from this 2014 tweet:

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

If Pai wants to formally roll back net neutrality it will likely take some time, but he could start by directing the FCC to be lax in enforcing the rules. If Pai pursued that route, big internet companies like Google and Netflix could be popular enough–and have enough money–to buffer them against any major changes. In a recent earnings report, Netflix addressed the possibility that net neutrality could be a thing of the past:

“Weakening of U.S. net neutrality laws, should that occur, is unlikely to materially affect our domestic margins or service quality because we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable,” the company wrote. But for smaller companies that might not have the same mass appeal, the future is less certain.

Pai is certain to have one ally if he decides to take on the net neutrality law: AT&T. In a congratulatory note posted on their website, the internet behemoth said: “No one is more prepared to reframe the agency to address the needs of this rapidly changing marketplace.”

Some members of Congress are already girding for any changes that might come. In a statement on his Facebook page, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) said if Pai and Trump decide to clamp down on net neutrality, he “will fight them every step of the way.” He added, “Net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time, and the internet should remain the free and open platform that it’s always been. It is critical to our democracy and our economy that it continue to operate this way.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the New FCC Chairman Unravel Net Neutrality? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s absolutely no secret that college is incredibly expensive. One of the biggest complaints about college costs is how exorbitant the prices of textbooks have become. But, if Senators Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Angus King (I-Maine) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) get their way, that will be changing soon. The three legislators just introduced a bill, the Affordable College Textbook Act, that will make some online textbooks free and ultimately help to cut textbook costs for college students.

An average student in 2013 spent roughly $1200 on books per year, or up to $1250 if just private universities are taken into account. The prices of textbooks have skyrocketed in recent years–increasing an average of 82 percent in the last 10 years. There was an 812 percent price jump between 1978-2013. Experts attribute the shocking jump in prices to a lack of competition in the market, but these high costs are certainly detrimental to students. Roughly 70 percent of students have foregone certain textbooks in an attempt to save money, even if they realize that doing so may affect their academic success. It makes a lot of sense–if you’re desperate to save money, it’s a lot easier to forgo textbooks than housing or food.

The bill was introduced last week and, if successful, will provide grants to institutions of higher education. Those institutions will then work on programs for “open” textbooks–essentially textbooks that are online and freely accessible to students. Franken explained why this program would make sense based on his experience in Minnesota, stating:

At The University of Minnesota they’ve started a program of open sourced textbooks and that is basically paying professors there to write textbooks and put them online and so that professors and teachers can use and students can use that material instead of a $150 textbook.

Durbin also explained his motivations, citing similar success in Illinois:

As I said, we did this at the University of Illinois. Now there are certain rules of the game. If you’re going to have an open text book, it really has to be open, available to everyone, for the public, and what were finding is there’s a lot of good response to it and I think its catching on.

This, overall, is a smart suggestion that alleviates a real problem for students. A corresponding bill has been introduced in the House by Representative Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colorado). But, it has a very long way to go before it becomes anywhere near a viable piece of legislation, and given the current Congressional climate, probably doesn’t have a good shot of being enacted. That being said, as more pressure is exerted on our government to address the rising costs of college expenses, these kind of common sense and intelligent proposals will become key. While the bill may not make it through this time, be on the lookout for similar proposals at the state and federal level moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Senate Take Action to Combat Rising Textbook Costs? appeared first on Law Street.