No Revolving Door (piece-by-piece-Constitution)

General
1

(This is my ongoing series presenting pieces that I am formulating into my own constitution for any future country [including LL]. The wording is not set and is open to changes/additions/subtractions. Posting about it is just to stimulate debate, as should any good creator of a constitution.)

No Revolving Door (Pre Govt Work)

Any person who works for the govt (elected, employee, or contractor) and is involved in regulation of an industry or specific business, cannot have previously worked for any industries or businesses they will be involved in regulating for 10 years previous to assuming their position involved in regulation.

Searching through the backgrounds of all persons involved in regulation will be one of the tasks assigned to an elected official called the Corruption Preventer. A different elected official must search the 10 previous years of work history of the person elected as Corruption Preventer.

Intentionally hiding work history that would negate someone from a position in regulation is a crime , and the punishment shall be equivalent to fraud. The punishment shall not include financial fines, to prevent a cost/benefit analysis mindset, but the punishment can include any other method of punishment.

Hopefully this will end the stranglehold grip large corporations have held on the govt institutions meant to regulate them. (Italics = Explanatory)

No Revolving Door (Post Govt Work)

Any person who works for the govt (elected, employee, or contractor) and is involved in regulation of an industry or specific business, cannot work for any industries or businesses they have been a part of regulating for 10 years after leaving their position involved in regulation. (Bold = Legal)

There will be an ongoing list of industries and companies that each govt worker is banned from for 10 years, so it will not be a surprise to the individual that they are banned from working for an industry. If they break this ban, they are guilty of a crime, and the punishment shall be equivalent to fraud. The punishment shall not include financial fines, to prevent a cost/benefit analysis mindset, but the punishment can include any other method of punishment.

The creation and maintenance of the lists shall be one of the tasks of the elected position called Corruption Preventer. A different elected position must maintain a “10 year cannot work” list for the Corruption Preventer.

All “10 year cannot work” lists will be publicly posted to the govts website.

It would probably work best if the Corruption Preventer is retired because they will have very few industries available to them to work after they leave their position. This is because they will be regulating the regulators of many different industries, and so their “10 year cannot work” list will be quite extensive. (Italics = Explanatory)

2

It makes sense of why this is needed but how would you define what an “industry” is?

3

Good question. I think this is why there needs to be a human decider of the “cannot work” lists because these things need human interpretation (until AI can be trusted with this type of task). If citizens disagree with the interpretations, they can vote out the Corruption Preventer and vote in a new one.

Tho, now you are making me think I need to re-write this to make it more specific and easily understandable what businesses will be on each “cannot work” list.

In the model you and I have been working toward (most regulation being from laws and very little active regulation), “no revolving door” seems like it would mostly affect Congressmen who make a new law. I can’t recall an instance where we have decided on “active” regulation of any industry, but maybe I’m just not remembering…

So if Congress passes a law that affects healthcare businesses, then all Congressmen in that Congress are banned from working for any healthcare business for ten years after that (prob should have an expiration date in regards to each instance of law passed). But this example brings up more questions in my mind: should only the Congressmen that vote in favor of a law that benefits the healthcare industry be banned? Can it accurately be decided on if the law is beneficial or not beneficial?

And also you can’t know beforehand what Congress will have to vote on, so will some Congressmen have to be denied voting on a healthcare issue if they previously worked in healthcare within the previous 10 years? Should the Corruption Preventer be able to make exceptions as he sees fit? Like the case of Ron Paul, it seems better if a Congressman worked in the industry he is then trying to regulate.

Maybe we need to look at some specific people that went on to do shady things in govt positions; what type of position did they work in before? And what types of positions did they get after?

4

I think this is why the voter approved referendum is so important because Congress cannot unilaterally pass laws, before they go into force the people must actively approve of it first. I would say then Congress people are exempt from this law. Now to the next question what about those labeled “uber cop” or “citizen defender” etc. Should they be excluded from the law too or is there another workaround we need to consider?

5

Yeah I made a mistake with this one; I thought I knew the problem well enough to write the piece without researching. But once I finally did the research it showed I didn’t understand the particulars of the problem. I think the most important points are the final 3 points in my research thread.

So now I feel the only utility of this Constitution piece is to lay in wait if the new country has to create an arm of active regulation in some area. I will re-write it to apply only to such a regulatory agency. I don’t think it should apply to Congress or cops, because in these instances, insider knowledge is often a strength.