Today, The Hill published a detailed analysis on the ethics rules introduced by the Obama Administration, including insight from Thorn Run's Andy Rosenberg. The administration has been successful in hiring fewer former lobbyists to executive agency positions, but many in Washington are skeptical of the benefits that policy has supposedly brought about. "I don't think it's been to their benefit," said Rosenberg. "If you have been involved in policymaking for any considerable amount of time, it's likely that you will have lobbied at some point."
 

Lobbyists could make a comeback after Obama

While the president’s policies have been tougher than what came before, the restrictions have hardly been foolproof.

For one, the order only covers political appointees, providing a loophole for most federal employees.

Additionally, a person must register as a lobbyist if he or she spends 20 percent or more of their time advocating before government officials, a requirement that some say has some wiggle room.

In Obama’s first term, reports surfaced that lobbyists were altering their activities to stay under the threshold required for registering. Subsequently, the number of registered lobbyists began to drop.

While other factors — including the economic downturn and congressional gridlock — likely also contributed to a decline, critics say Obama’s policies drove more of the influence industry underground.

“I think that the spirit of the executive order is good, and the idea behind it was certainly sound. The problems are unintended consequences that the executive order had and a reality of the way Washington works,” said Joshua Ian Rosenstein, a partner at Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock who handles lobbying compliance issues.

“An administration can try as hard as it wants, but as long as a statute itself is flawed,” Rosenstein said, “everything the administration does to fix it is just patchwork.”

The first major blow to Obama’s policies came in 2014, when the administration reversed course on blocking registered lobbyists from serving on executive branch advisory boards. The decision came after a group of lobbyists sued, saying the policy violated their First Amendment rights.

Additionally, reports show the Obama administration has hired anywhere from 70 to more than 100 former lobbyists and advocates.

“It is still a much smaller number than it has been in any administration in recent times,” said Andy Rosenberg, a partner at Thorn Run Partners. “I don’t believe it’s been to their benefit. If you have been involved in policymaking for any considerable amount of time, it’s likely that you will have lobbied at some point.”

At least four lobbyists-turned-officials had to be granted waivers to serve in the administration because they had lobbied in the previous two years. Even more people have left the administration for K Street in one capacity or another.

“To tell the truth, originally, a year or two ago, I believed that whoever was going to win the White House would revoke the executive order — Democrat or Republican,” said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen.

None of the Democratic or Republican candidates for the White House answered questions from The Hill about Obama’s lobbyist policies and whether they would strike down or alter the executive order. Only one campaign responded at all.

A spokesman for Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) said that the camp had not “made any announcements about this yet.”

Holman said he has been reaching out to presidential hopefuls in both parties to make the case for stronger conflict-of-interest rules in the next administration.

On Monday, he sent all the candidates a pledge asking them to agree to two promises. The first is to not appoint anyone who receives a “golden parachute” from a former employer, a bonus that some private-sector firms give to those who go to work in government. The second is to require that appointees not take any official action that directly or substantially affects clients they have had in the last two years.

His effort mirrors a similar, more targeted movement playing out on Capitol Hill, where watchdogs are pushing the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act, a bill that would codify and strengthen some of Obama’s provisions in law as they relate to financial services agencies.

Although that bill has not gained much traction, it includes Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a co-sponsor.

The Democratic presidential candidates, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have both come out in support of the legislation. Other observers, including Tim LaPira, an associate professor at James Madison University, say the political climate is not yet right for stricter reforms.

“What would it take to actually solve this problem regardless of who is in the White House?” asked LaPira, who is writing a book about the revolving door and lobbying.

“It would take a scandal to put both parties in Congress and whoever is in the White House under the gun in how we evaluate how people influence the government,” he said.