Q: As an activist for ethical government, I am watching closely the
reports that Democrats in Congress are pressuring K Street employers to hire
more Democrats. In several Roll Call articles, I have read that they are
frustrated about the shortage of Democrats hired by trade associations, lobbying
firms and corporate government relations departments, and that they may take
action to correct this perceived shortage. Doesn’t last year’s ethics reform
prohibit Members from pressuring employers regarding hiring decisions?
A: In the nine months since Congress enacted the Honest Leadership and
Open Government Act, much of the discussion among Members, staffers and ethics
lawyers has focused on the new restrictions on gifts and lobbying. Your question
concerns a provision that has received comparatively little attention — the
provision aimed at “Ending the K Street Project,” which makes it a crime for
Members and staffers to exert certain types of influence upon the employment
decisions of private entities. Violations can result in heavy fines and up to 15
years in jail.
The law came in the aftermath of the “K Street Project,” which loosely
described efforts by Republicans in Congress to pressure lobbying firms and
other private employers to hire Republicans. Upon its passage, Members issued
press releases declaring that the provision “ends the pay-to-play scheme known
as the K Street Project,” puts “an end to the influence peddling K-Street
Project,” and “prohibits private entities from hiring and firing based on
politics.” Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said on the Senate floor that the legislation
was aimed at “anyone who would engage in the practice of wrongfully influencing
a private entity’s employment decisions and/or practices ... in exchange for
political access or favors.”
In light of this rhetoric, I can see why you might think that Democrats’
recent efforts to ramp up pressure on K Street employers could violate the new
law. For example, you probably wondered about Roll Call’s report that senior
Democratic aides recently met with key lobbyists to push them to abandon their
allegiance to the GOP. It’s this pressure that many government ethics advocates
like you seek to end.
Yet, a closer look at the language of the new statute reveals that it does
not target all types of pressure on lobbyists’ hiring decisions and that merely
demanding that employers hire Democrats does not alone violate the statute.
Rather, other circumstances must be present as well. For one, the statute
applies only where the Member or staffer exerting the pressure offers to take or
withhold an official act for purposes of influencing the hiring decision.
Moreover, a last-minute change just before passage narrowed the new law’s
scope even further. As initially drafted, the law would have made it a crime for
a Member or staffer to offer to take or withhold an official act “with the
intent to influence, on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an
employment decision or employment practice of any private entity.” The version
that actually passed is identical except that it inserts the word “solely”
before “on the basis of partisan political affiliation.”
This change is not insignificant. It means that a Member or staffer who
offers to take an official act with the intent to influence a private entity’s
employment decision cannot be found guilty unless a prosecutor can show beyond a
reasonable doubt that partisan political affiliation was the only reason for
influencing the employment decision. Thus, a defendant who has some other,
additional reason for influencing the employment decision — such as competence,
personal friendship or committee experience — is not guilty under the statute.
However, the narrow scope of the new law does not mean that Members and
staffers should feel free to pressure employment decisions. First, the
difficulty prosecutors might face in obtaining a conviction under the statute
would not necessarily deter investigations of potential violations. Given the
substantial burden, expense and bad publicity that such investigations involve,
Members and staffers have good reason to avoid conduct that might give rise to
Second, the ethics rules of both chambers now contain the same restrictions
as those in the new statute. Unlike criminal sanctions, penalties for violations
of Congressional ethics rules do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thus, Members and staffers who improperly influence private entities’ employment
decisions may be more vulnerable to an ethics violation than a criminal
Third, the language in the House ethics rule omits the word “solely.”
Therefore, in the House, a Member or staffer commits an ethics violation
whenever he offers to take or withhold an official act with the intent to
influence an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity on
the basis of partisan political affiliation. This may be true regardless of
whether political affiliation was the sole basis.
Finally, even where improperly influencing the hiring decision of a private
employer does not violate the new statute or new ethics rules, the ethics
committees might still conclude that such activity violates some other ethics
rule. For example, both chambers generally forbid conduct that does not reflect
creditably on Congress. The House and Senate ethics committees have exercised
broad jurisdiction in applying these general prohibitions to all kinds of
improper conduct, even where the conduct does not violate a specific rule.
So, to return to your question, last fall’s ethics reform does increase the
potential for liability to arise from pressuring employers about their hiring
decisions. However, the narrow language of the new statute and ethics rules —
particularly the insertion of the word “solely” — means that the new
restrictions do not apply every time a Member or staffer exerts such pressure.
In fact, it leaves many types of pressure untouched.
© Copyright 2008, Roll Call Inc. Reprinted with permission. Widely regarded
as the leading publication for Congressional news and information, Roll Call has
been the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955. For more information, visit