link to article
Possible presidential nominee, Elizabeth Warren, said that she would work to stop large corporations from hiring former senior government officials for at least four years, in an effort to decrease the influence of big money in government. She defined "large corporations" as any corporation that is worth more than $150 billion or has a great deal of control over their industry's market. She has incorporated several measures into her proposal aimed at getting rid of the "revolving door" between lobbyists and the government. (The revolving door is a term used to describe the process of the government hiring industry professionals for their expertise and connections to campaign donations, and in turn, the industries hiring ex-government officials to gain access to more sectors of government.) The proposed penalty for breaking this policy would be a fine equal to 1% of the company's net profit, which could be hundreds of millions of dollars for the bigger companies.
Questions:
1. If she becomes president, do you think Warren could successfully implement a policy like this?
2. If she is able to put this policy to action, is the penalty enough to deter companies from breaking the policy, or should there be more of a penalty?
3. Do you think the "revolving door" is something that needs to be addressed right away, or are there other issues that candidates should be focusing on first?
I think it is very unlikely that Warren would be able to implement a policy like this just because of the fact that really large companies have immense influence over the government. There is no way that large corporations would allow a policy like this to become a law because it takes away the power that they currently have. The corporations would try as hard as possible to prevent this from happening, probably spending millions of dollars on lobbying. I also don’t think the “revolving door” is really a problem that needs to be addressed. This system is clearly beneficial to both sides that use it, and it evolved this way because it is very effective in accomplishing its goals. The “revolving door” makes sense for the government and the industries because it is meeting a demand in the market. Just because someone used to work in the government, doesn’t mean they should be barred from employment by corporations because personal connections and personal experience aren’t things that are illegal to use. They aren’t things like the private information that makes insider trading illegal.
ReplyDeleteLike Nathan said, it's unlikely Warren will be able to implement such a policy as industries would vehemently oppose it. Though I can see why people would like a restriction on government officials being hired by corporations after they leave office, as we have learned this position by senior officials is beneficial to both the government and corporations. I think the revolving door is the least of the government’s worries and the time it would take to get a bill that begins addressing the issues attached revolving door would probably have been better spent addressing more pressing issues like climate change.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Warren seems to head the more progressive end of the Democrats, and her policies are hopeful, as one may say. However, I have to disagree with Nathan on the third issue. The "revolving door" is an issue, but it does not need to be addressed immediately. The fact that ex-officials have connections is not inherently unequal, but the idea that these connections are used to further businesses is unequal. A trend common in China, kickbacks are when a business executive or employee uses their connections to the government for profit. Warren's plan, though aspirational and tough to enforce, is a necessary step toward a less corrupt business scheme.
ReplyDeleteIf we've learned anything from the Obama administration, it's that policies like this are incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible to implement. In this case, it's not political polarization blocking legislation, it's resistance from businesses. If it does pass, however, I'd think that businesses would simply take the issue to the courts. As for the issue of the revolving door, I really think it depends on who you ask. I don't really know what to think about it. On one hand, it has been beneficial in allowing the government to see what corporations want to bolster the economy, but on the other hand, it takes power away from the hands of working-class people.
ReplyDeleteP.S. what happened to the website? it's probably gonna be fixed soon, though.
I don't think that Warren will be able to implement such a policy because generally, Republicans are more supportive of large corporations and because they have the majority in the Senate, I don't see them supporting a policy like this. In addition, like Nathan said, there is no way that the big corporations in Congress will allow this policy to pass. I don't think that the penalty is enough to deter companies from breaking the policy because a few million will not make that much a difference to a billion dollar company. I do not think that he "revolving door" issue is something that should be addressed right now because it isn't something that will have a quick fix and cannot be regulated easily.
ReplyDeleteIf elected, I do not think Warren would be able to implement that policy. I do think she is doing a great job in pointing out a clear problem--but I do not believe she has the solution. The money is definitely on the other side with this issue. I think the best path forward would be to make it in company's best financial interest to work for the people and not their constituents, but a 1% fine really isn't enough to motivate them to do so.
ReplyDeleteIf Warren becomes president, the policy that she is proposing could receive a lot of support from politicians and the American public, but passing it would be extremely difficult. Because nearly every politician in government has some kind of relationship with large corporations, the new policy would spell a lot of trouble for wealthy politicians and businessmen in the US, so in an attempt to preserve their own self interests they will more likely than not try to bring down Warren’s proposal. Considering how the bill would fine corporations 1% of their profits and how it applies to the largest businesses and industries in the US, companies have a lot to lose, so they would probably be willing to spend millions and even billions of dollars on lobbying or negative ad campaigns to protect their profits. Although I recognize that Warren intentions behind this bill are benevolent and in Americans’ best interests, I don’t think it’s the most important issue that she could be addressing right now. Even if the bill passes, it may not be very effective, as politicians and businessmen will try to find ways to go around the new rules. Nevertheless, I still think that it’s worth a shot, but because corporations have such a strong hold on American politics, it would probably be better for Warren to focus her efforts on different issues that plague our nation.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 3, I think that addressing the "revolving door" issue is imperative to the resolving of the main issues plaguing our country. Elizabeth Warren's campaign is partially (or even largely) focused on the corruption within Washington. Fixing it may very well be impossible, but she may be on the right track. The country would get far more done if the Washington process was more like the model created before intense campaigning, financial involvement, and huge corporation persuasion. Perhaps what the country really needs is a new Washington, again dedicated to only the people rather than just self interest and reelection and money post-congress. The place to look for the solution of some of the greatest problems in history has always been the root of those issues, and in this case, that may very well be the incapable body Washington is becoming.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think the influence of big money in government and politics is a large problem, but I doubt that Warren will become to able to change that with this approach even if she is elected as president. It's basically looking to have the large corporations overthrow themselves, since they already have so much influence on what is passed and not passed. So while I think the 1% fine would be an effective deterrent, the policy has such a low chance of becoming actuality that I don't think it really matters.
ReplyDeleteI think Warren poses a problem that should be addressed, but her solution is a bit premature. Even if a company's lobbyists aren't previous senior government officials, they could still offer huge incentives to current government officials for them to create pro-business policies. This indicates the "liquid theory" of money. Additionally, this policy may be unfair for former government officials who simply want a job. Furthermore, one percent sounds like an arbitrary number that has not undergone economic calculations. To address the "revolving door," I think we should address the root of the issue instead of adjusting for its consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be very difficult if not impossible to act on the desires she has made public. A evident, large companies/corporations have a large amount of power and influence on government and politics in the United States so for her to be able to get rid of their involvement, it would be incredibly difficult. Furthermore, if this policy were to be implemented, 1% seems like a good STARTING POINT but if the corporations refuse to comply, this number/percentage should be increased significantly - as a method of "scaring" them off. Finally, I think the revolving door should be addressed as soon as possible and as effectively as possible as these large companies are taking away from the people who are not as wealthy and corrupting government as a whole by doing so.
ReplyDeleteWhile big money is a large and negative influence in the government, I think that it is unlikely that Warren will be able to implement this promise especially since it impacts the jobs of people. It is common and happens quite often that presidents make promises in their presidential campaign that they won’t necessarily be able to keep. Large corporations will definitely be against this since it removes their power and businesses would definitely resist this and they would probably bring this issue to the courts to ensure that their powers are secured. With a Republican majority in the Senate, that makes it that much more unlikely that Warren will be able to pass this policy. If the large corporation has a lot of money, I don’t think 1% is enough to keep companies from breaking the policy. I don’t think that the revolving door is necessary to be addressed because there are many other more dominant issues present in our world currently (climate change, gun control, equality, just to name a few).
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt Warren would be able to implement a policy like this. For comparison, we can look at Obama’s Affordable Care Act. From the video we watched in class, we saw the tremendous difficulty it took Obama to pass his legislation. Working against the odds, it took him his entire first term before the proper reform movement could be passed. On top of this, for the first 2 years of his presidency, he was working under a Democratic Congress, and it still was hard to accomplish. With Elizabeth Warren’s proposal, working against a Republican Congress will make the task nearly impossible. Additionally, the legislation will definitely not work well for corporations and the criticism she may receive will be difficult to come back from. So, I highly doubt Warren would be able to pass any kind of legislation like this if she wins the presidency.
ReplyDeleteIf Warren becomes President, I find it highly unlikely that she will be able to pass a strong bill that would limit big corporations’ power and influence in the federal government. It is just the sad reality that the interest groups would do everything in their power to hold on to their influence. However, the “revolving door” is still a problem that should be addressed because it provides unfair input that can be viewed as undemocratic. In the near future, this problem with most definitely not be addressed. The bill itself that she proposes seems like it would be a big punishment for some corporations, however money is often not an issue for big companies who spend millions on lobbying anyways. Since there is probably not much we can do about the issue, the “revolving door” does not need to be addressed immediately.
ReplyDeleteEven if Warren was able to become elected, I do not think she would be able to pass a bill that is so controversial among a large population. Ideally, this could work if everyone had good intentions for the nation and not self interest, but as so many people have reiterated above, it is just not plausible that people would give up their power for the good of everyone else. The revolving door is problem and it is definitely undemocratic as Cindy mentioned, but there is no easy way to resolve this, as it is a complex issue that may require many many changes and not just a single one to close loopholes. Though difficult, I am optimistic that something can be done if people address the problem directly.
ReplyDeleteIf Warren is elected, she may make this bill the one that defines her presidency, as Obama did with the ACA. Enough democrats would support a bill like this, and Warren is clever for running on this campaign platform. If she is elected on these promises, she will have a duty to at least try to follow through. It could be difficult with the republican controlled congress, as many other commenters have said, but Warren is highly motivated.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is interesting about this is bill is its potential to make it easier to pass further bills. How much progress could Warren make on climate change without big oil lobbyists in the way? How much progress could she make on income inequality without the financial elite in the way? If she were able to pass a bill like this, many doors would open.
I am more confused about the feasibility of this measure than the possibility of it getting passed. I don't see the problem with the "revolving door" that Warren states. It is natural for the government to seek out industry professionals for government projects, since they have a good reputation and expertise. Also, it makes sense for industries to hire ex-officials, since they also have the same reputation and expertise, just with dealing with the government. Industry can then get experienced lobbyists to further their interests. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system, as it is just how interest groups work. This seems like a radical attack on the system that, although has its flaws, makes logical sense.
ReplyDelete1. I am not in any way qualified to answer that question; I trust that like Obama did when passing Obamacare, she can try to find people well-suited for implementing the policy proposal and place them appropriately, but it could either be a pipe dream or an elementary implementation. Realistically it will err toward the former, but we don't know.
ReplyDelete2. 1% is a lot. Could it be more? Probably. But when this number is in the hundreds of millions, 1% v. 2% is the GDP of a small country.
3. I don't see the revolving door as a terrible issue. Sure, it may lead to graft or simple corruption, but despite lobbyists' ills a reality without their influence could be worse. I shudder to think what sort of healthcare policies a bunch of career politicians with little experience in the field, no angel on their shoulder telling them what to do, and the only voices of reason being people called into committee would come up with. It's probably worse, in fact, to have two separate systems that rely on smoke signals and press releases to communicate, with companies having profits and policies wrecked because of new laws or any other of a whole host of issues. I think the system as is is fine.