Lott Leaves for Lobbying

So there's a reason Trent Lott unexpectedly announced his resignation from the Senate yesterday. He wants to become a lobbyist. ASAP.

The Senate's new ethics and lobbying reform bill mandates that former members of Congress must wait two years (it was previously one) before entering the lucrative world of lobbying. The bill takes effect at the end of this year--hence Lott's decision to jump ship now.

Lott was one of only 14 Republicans to vote against the Senate's lobbying bill, passed in August. His likely entre into K Street shouldn't come a surprise. His son, Chet, is a lobbyist in DC and Lott frequently shuttled around the country in private corporate jets while in Congress. Throughout his career, he was always a loyal and powerful advocate for the many industries that curry favor with the Republican Party.

The entire GOP Mississippi delegation, it seems, is deeply connected to K Street. Writes the Politico's Jeanne Cummings, "A U.S. senator resigns to become a lobbyist, a former lobbyist (Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour) is in charge of naming his replacement, and a lead candidate to fill the slot (Mississippi Rep. Chip Pickering) finds himself in a complicated spot, since he recently put in motion his own plan to cash out from the U.S. House."

Little wonder why Washington is such a screwed up place.

Comments (30)

1. but he's just getting out for the same reason he got in - money. when the new campaign finance rules kick in he would have to wait 2 years before gettin' in on the k street rich man's influence peddling dole.

   mammon out...mammon in!

   Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/26/2007 @ 1:42pm

   like i said...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/27/2007 @ 11:18am

2. Yep, heard this. Lott has to bail NOW, before the rule goes into effect in 2008.

   What's interesting is that he (and his lobbyist employers) are so certain it's going to be WORTH IT to have Lott as a lobbyist...

   with a likely majority-strong Democratic Congress in 2009!

   Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 11:20am

3. Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 11:20am

   That's because the party differences are practically nil.

   Posted by bjkron at 11/27/2007 @ 11:36am

4. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The revolving door between the house / senate and lobby groups has been destroying our country for some time.

   Until lobbying is completely banned in Washington, we will continue to get the same corrupt government we have today. Public campaign finance reform won't stop the problem by itself because the lobbyists are still bribing our elected officials in one form or the other.

   Until we stop the special interest groups from bypassing the American people via lobbyists, we will continue to have a government controlled by those special interest groups and we can all say goodbye to democracy.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/27/2007 @ 11:42am

5. Until lobbying is completely banned in Washington, we will continue to get the same corrupt government we have today.---Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/27/2007 @ 11:42am

   Curious, WOLF, how you get around this nasty little roadblock?---

   "the right of the people ... to petition the Government for redress of grievances."---First Amendment to the US Constitution

   Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 11:55am

6. Just another money-grubbing Repug trying to get his snout in the trough before the gravy train runs out.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/27/2007 @ 12:12pm

7. the right of the people - Mask

   Easy. Corporations aren't people.

   Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/27/2007 @ 12:13pm

8. "the right of the people ... to petition the Government for redress of grievances."---First Amendment to the US Constitution

   Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 11:55am

   Easy Mask. Does it not say, "the right of the PEOPLE". Where does it say "the right of tax exempt special interest groups", or the "right of corporations and businesses"? The groups I just mentioned are not "people".

   Here's an idea. How about people write to their elected officials to get bills put forward. Wasn't that the intended purpose of our elected officials (reprentatives), or are they just there to turn in legistlation written by lobby groups.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/27/2007 @ 12:21pm

9. Trent Lott has nothing to be proud of in his career - he will live out the rest of his pathetic right-wing life in shame, knowing what he has done. A racist, Strom Thurmond for President support, a George Bush enabler, a man who didn't want any young children to get medical care because they didn't earn it. Trent Lott will unfortunately live out his racist life in luxury, not having to worry about medical bills or insurance payments like hard-working Americans. The man helped Bush send Americans to DIE, in Iraq, based on lies. If there is a Hell then Trent Lott will be going there. Americans hate you - you may have some cracker racist supporters Trent Lott - but the overwhelming majority of Americans hate you - you will be remembered in history foremost as a Bush-enabler, as a racist, and you have justly earned a legacy of disgrace for you and those who unfortunately bear the name of Lott.

   Posted by conshame at 11/27/2007 @ 12:24pm

10. (reprentatives), legistlation... Sorry about the spelling. Can play the piano, but can't type worth a damn.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/27/2007 @ 12:31pm

11. you will be remembered in history foremost as a Bush-enabler, as a racist, and you have justly earned a legacy of disgrace for you and those who unfortunately bear the name of Lott.

    Posted by CONSHAME 11/27/2007 @ 12:24pm

    Hey now, Ronnie Lott was a great football player, and something tells me he's not related to Trent nor would he share Trent's racial views.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/27/2007 @ 12:33pm

12. "the right of the people ... to petition the Government for redress of grievances."---First Amendment to the US Constitution

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

    Yeah right. Let's just say that your average John Q. Mask shows up for an appointment at his senator's office to communicate some specific grievance. He is then followed by a corporate lawyer also expressing his personal grievance; complimenting and punctuating the heartfelt appeal, Mr. Lobbyman then proceeds to flash a check for a hundred grand.

    Are you making the claim that all methods of "petitioning" are equal?

    Posted by Oustbush at 11/27/2007 @ 12:35pm

13. Here's some food for thought. My mom works on a city board that is kind of a watch dog group for the cities expenditures.

    She was telling me that it's quite a common practice for city managers to take suggestions from the established business community on how to proceed in matters of legislation and governing due to the fact that the business people have been in positions of power for a long time versus a city counsel member with maybe a few years of experience.

    So, the people of one of the larger towns in Montana have less say about where their tax dollars should go and what goes on in their town than a few members of the local chamber of commerce and wealthy businessmen. Do you think there might be a chance that some of those businessmen might give advice to those city counsel members that could be skewed in their favor?

    If this takes place on the small town level, just imagine how bad it is at the national level. And we wonder why K street controls our government.

    Like I said, lobbying should be abolished.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/27/2007 @ 12:50pm

14. Those who grease palms should be required by law to use real grease.

    Posted by conshame at 11/27/2007 @ 1:01pm

15. "Now look here, Senator, your consituent isn't going to keep sending me over to shove millions of dollars in your pocket unless you do the wrong thing here"

    Posted by conshame at 11/27/2007 @ 1:09pm

16. Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/27/2007 @ 12:21pm

    Okay, so no "groups" can petition the government for redress of grievances?

    We all have to INDIVIDUALLY call or write the Congressman or Senator.

    Okay, here's an example for the LEFT side's perspective on that....suppose most of the folks in a district or State don't know anything about some coal-fired plant going up in their district if HR-000 gets passed by Congress. A few do (maybe 25-30) and they write letters/e-mails and call Congressman Huffnagle's office and tell him that they don't want a big polluting coal-burning power plant in their area.

    But COALCo has FIVE HUNDRED of its employees, upon "suggestion" from the Corporate HQ, to write to Congressman Huffnagle and tell him they DO want it there. And Huffnagle and his staff, flooded with calls and letters, don't have time to "back-trace" them all and confirm they are actually constituents.

    Now...with NO...."Sierra Club"...or "National Resources Defense Council"...or "The Nature Conservancy" GROUPS....the plant goes up.

    You think that with "no groups" things will improve, as far as Washington goes?

    Fine...you see the reaction of the above groups (Or NOW, NARAL, Urban League, Rainbow/PUSH, etc.) to being thrown out with Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma.

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 1:22pm

17. I AM IN CONTROL

    "Posted by KSTREET KREW 11/26/2007 @ 11:23am"

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/26/2007 @ 12:06pm

    like i said...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/27/2007 @ 2:12pm

18. Unfortunately, dr. decibles, corporations are legal "people" so the Supreme Court would have to overturn their own precident to begin to restore the govt. of, by and for the people (citizens).

    Posted by GoCards1978 at 11/27/2007 @ 2:21pm

19. Posted by GOCARDS1978 11/27/2007 @ 2:21pm

    CARDS, "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company" happened in 1886....SOMEHOW we survived for 120 years with corporations having "juristic personhood" and both Roosevelts and Eisenhower and others were able to build a middle class that didn't exist in 1886, despite that.

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 2:49pm

20. Posted by GOCARDS1978 11/27/2007 @ 2:21pm

    well,

    if you can flip a pancake........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/27/2007 @ 2:56pm

21. Why is it that we, as a nation, allow lobbying to exist? This may seem like an ignorant question, but historically, how did this practice come to fruition and how does it manage to stay alive today?

    Posted by mattjlarson at 11/27/2007 @ 3:25pm

22. Unfortunately, dr. decibles, corporations are legal "people" so the Supreme Court would have to overturn their own precident to begin to restore the govt. of, by and for the people (citizens).

    Posted by GOCARDS1978 11/27/2007 @ 2:21pm

    Then it's past high time that be corrected. Corporations are polluting American politics.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/27/2007 @ 3:37pm

23. Fine...you see the reaction of the above groups (Or NOW, NARAL, Urban League, Rainbow/PUSH, etc.) to being thrown out with Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma.

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 1:22pm

    If an idea is brought forward, it should be voted on by the area. In short, we will say your CoalCo company pulls this manuever off. But, for this to pass, the people of the city, state or county have to approve of the measure by voting on it. If people can read (in common language) bills or measures that they are to vote on, they can decide for themselves.

    The lawyers working for the state or the fed are the ones deciding if the laws passed by the people are in conflict with the constitution or conflict with other laws already on the books.

    There's a very popular conservative in the state of Washington. This guy has managed to get a lot of his ideas voted on. I don't really like the guy, but I do respect the energy he puts into it.

    He really takes his citizenship to the task. Most of us don't. But it shows that one guy can take on the system without an army of lobbyists. If he has good ideas, others will go along with him.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/27/2007 @ 5:37pm

24. Fine...you see the reaction of the above groups (Or NOW, NARAL, Urban League, Rainbow/PUSH, etc.) to being thrown out with Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma.

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 1:22pm

    MASK, I would rather see AARP go into the toilet to watch big oil, the pharmaceutical assholes, AIPAC and the rest of the ilk go down the drain with them

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/27/2007 @ 5:39pm

25. It seems to me that the question of how to curtail the influence of 'lobbying groups' is only confusing if one is incapable of seeing the difference between The Sierra Club and Enron. Or the difference between AARP and PHRMA. Or the difference between The Nutrition Council and Nestle.

    The differences seem intuitively obvious, don't they? So why isn't it possible to curtail the influence of the big, special interest, corporate lobbies without the public service groups getting hurt?

    Posted by Lillian at 11/27/2007 @ 6:55pm

26. And why would we want to give up that fight without even trying?

    Posted by Lillian at 11/27/2007 @ 6:57pm

27. So why isn't it possible to curtail the influence of the big, special interest, corporate lobbies without the public service groups getting hurt?----Posted by LILLIAN 11/27/2007 @ 6:55pm

    Because you can't discriminate against a form of speech, just because it's a business and you don't like it, LIL.

    And even if you could do that.... all Big Oil has to do is form a "public service" group called "Americans for Energy Indepedence" with a mirror-image political view from "The Sierra Club". All "Big Pharma" has to do is form a "public service" group called "United for American Advancement". All Big Tobacco has to do is form "People for Free Choice".

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 9:00pm

28. Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 9:00pm | ignore this person

    Mask, after Enron, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, etc., most rational people have come to understand the corrosive effect that unchecked big money has had on our government and political process and consider it a 'bad' thing. You however, appear to be taking a different view.

    So tell us Mask, do you LIKE having our government bought and paid for by big, powerful corporations?

    Posted by Lillian at 11/28/2007 @ 02:21am

29. Or Mask, are you just trying to say it would be too hard to take action? Because I don't buy it. Our government 'discriminates' all the time. Ever hear of 'tax exempt' status for non-profit groups? No 'tax exempt' status, no lobbying. Simple huh?

    Oh, and the notion that corporations can just create public interest groups to do their bidding?...I don't buy that one either. Tighten the rules...big corporations fund your 'public service' groups...no lobbying. Any group deriving funds from 'for profit' corporations...no tax exempt...no lobbying. Again...simple, huh?

    Maybe some groups slip by. So tighten the rules on politicians and public disclosure of campaign funds. Simple, simple, simple.

    Posted by Lillian at 11/28/2007 @ 02:34am

30. So tell us Mask...are you arguing against lobbying reform because you support the 'free speech' of Mitch Wade purchasing our government from under our noses with plush houses in Rancho Santa Fe and yachts called 'Duke-stir'?...

    ...or are you arguing against lobbying reform because you don't think it can be done effectively and want everyone to take the same cynical view...and just stay with the status quo?

    Posted by Lillian at 11/28/2007 @ 02:43am