In politics the “revolving door” refers to the constant shifting of people from public office to private companies they previously oversaw. This is a widespread practice, with nearly one quarter of lawmakers who leave Congress passing through the door. The revolving door is also the subject of intense criticism. People raise the ethical problems with a former director of an agency pushing the agenda of a company on their former employees. The practice also seems to undermine democracy in a fundamental way, placing a great deal of power in the hands of private companies. Despite all this, the revolving door is a necessary practice in the current political system. People who rail against the revolving door should focus more on making the government more transparent rather than criticizing public officials.
One of the strongest criticisms of the revolving door is that it makes regulators and those they regulate too cozy. The formal term for this is “regulatory capture.” However, this argument does not take into account the checks and balances governmental agencies are subject to. Governmental agencies have to report to Congress on their activities and progress, explaining why they deserve taxpayer dollars. Regulators can’t just make rules that favor one group too strongly; they’re held accountable for it if they do. A great recent example of how the revolving door can be beneficial is with the appointment of Thomas Wheeler as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Wheeler was a former lobbyist for the cable industry and many saw his appointment as the government giving big cable companies a free pass. Yet just this year the FCC passed new rules that strengthen net neutrality laws, making it harder for large cable companies to take advantage of their size and money.
There is also a focus on the obscene amounts of money public officials make transitioning into private companies. However, the high pay of former public officials is not actually a significant issue. Public officials are only payed a limited amount because their salaries come from taxpayer dollars. However, private businesses are willing to pay a great deal more for people who are highly skilled. The connections and relationships lobbyists must bring to the table are hard to come by, so public servants who do make the transition are highly valued. Additionally, many highly skilled individuals are only attracted to government jobs because of the promise of a good salary after they leave their position. It is delusion to believe people would work for the government for less money only out of patriotic duty. Taxpayers do not want to pay these high salaries but that does not mean companies cannot value skilled employees.
Not only is the revolving door not harmful, but it also has a positive duty. The government and its workings are intensely complicated. There are hearings, protocols, key members, subcommittees, staffers and political concerns people have to wade through when working with Congress. It truly takes an expert with a great deal of connections to get anything done in all the mess. This is partially the nature of checks and balances, but it’s also due to the government being overly complicated. Simplifying how policy is created, making government more transparent and removing money’s influence on the process could do more to lessen the effect of the revolving door than any specific legislation against it.
A government in which the regulators and regulated interact so closely is not intuitively how citizens want their government to operate. That said, that close relationship can create workable regulations and encourage skilled people to become government employees. In many ways the relationship is needed for the complexities of the process and the number of people involved. For better or worse, this is the political system we live in, with certain lawmakers having power and people who know them having influence over that power. The revolving door doesn’t cause the current systemic problems, it is merely the best solution people have been able to come up with for a complex problem. So if you hate the idea of a revolving door support simplicity and transparency in government, not cutting off a working solution.
Bobby Doyle is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.doyle@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 11 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
