HR-9822-119
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Tony Wied (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would extend the existing "cooling-off" period during which former Members of Congress are prohibited from lobbying Congress — from 1 year to 10 years for House members and from 2 years to 10 years for Senators. It would also create a new, separate prohibition barring former Members of Congress from accepting compensation as federal contractors for 10 years after leaving office. Both restrictions would apply to Members who leave office on or after the bill's enactment date.
Who benefits
The general public and voters who favor stricter limits on the influence of former legislators. Incumbent Members of Congress who did not plan to enter lobbying or contracting, who face no personal cost. Smaller lobbying firms and advocacy organizations that do not rely on former Members for access. Newer or less-connected lobbyists who currently compete against former Members with established congressional relationships. Taxpayers who believe the restrictions reduce conflicts of interest in federal contracting.
Who is hurt
Former Members of Congress who planned to work as lobbyists or federal contractors after leaving office — their career options would be significantly narrowed for a decade. Lobbying firms, trade associations, and advocacy groups that rely on former Members for their institutional knowledge and congressional relationships. Federal agencies and contractors who value the policy expertise that former Members bring to government contracting work. Law and consulting firms that employ former legislators. Potentially, some constituents and industries who rely on experienced former Members to navigate complex regulatory and legislative processes on their behalf.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current 1- and 2-year cooling-off periods are too short to meaningfully break the "revolving door" between Congress and the lobbying industry, and that former Members routinely leverage their personal relationships and insider access to benefit private clients at the public's expense. They contend that a 10-year restriction would create a genuine deterrent, reduce the financial incentive to cultivate relationships for post-congressional profit, and restore public trust in a Congress where approval ratings have remained below 30% for over a decade. The federal contracting ban addresses a separate but related concern: that former Members could steer contracts toward employers or clients during their time in office.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a 10-year ban is so sweeping that it effectively imposes a lifetime career penalty on former Members, raising serious First Amendment concerns about the right to petition government and to engage in lawful employment. They contend that the restriction would deter qualified professionals from seeking congressional office in the first place, shrinking the talent pool and potentially favoring independently wealthy candidates who do not need post-service income. Critics also argue that former Members possess genuine policy expertise that benefits clients and the government alike, and that the existing disclosure and registration requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act already provide meaningful transparency without restricting constitutionally protected activity.