The halls of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly have seen a significant shift in recent years, with at least 48 former members now registered as lobbyists. These individuals, ranging from former rank-and-file lawmakers to once-powerful legislative leaders, are now influencing policies they helped shape during their time in office.
This transition from lawmaker to lobbyist has sparked a debate about the ethics and implications of such a revolving door. While some argue that it’s a natural progression and a form of protected speech, others raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the erosion of public trust.
The Lobbying Landscape in Pennsylvania
The clients of these former lawmakers span a wide range of prominent industries, often those they were involved in legislating. For instance, Aaron Kaufer, a former Republican representative from Luzerne County, sponsored legislation to create an adult-use marijuana program. Shortly after leaving office, he registered as a lobbyist for Cresco Labs, a cannabis company.
Similarly, Jim Gregory, a Republican from Blair County, sat on the state House’s Gaming Oversight Committee and co-sponsored a bill to regulate skill games. After his tenure, he began representing Pace-O-Matic, a skill games manufacturer, to his former colleagues.
The Perspectives of Former Lawmakers
Roy Afflerbach, a former Democratic legislator, defends the practice, arguing that lobbying is more about relationships and communication than the stereotypical image of backroom deals. He believes the greater concern lies with industrialists funding their own elected officials rather than lawmakers becoming lobbyists.
Stan Saylor, a Republican and former legislator, argues that the lobbying profession can self-regulate. He suggests that lobbyists who are rude or unprofessional are unlikely to be successful, implying a form of peer accountability within the industry.
The Critics’ Viewpoint
Andrea Beaty, assistant director of the Revolving Door Project in Washington, D.C., contends that hiring former lawmakers gives industries and corporations an extra edge in influencing government decisions. She highlights the insider knowledge and close ties to government that these former officials bring to their new roles.
Allen Kukovich, a former Democratic lawmaker, successfully passed a House rule in 1979 that bars representatives who are also attorneys from being paid to represent any person or group before state departments. He received offers to become a lobbyist but never followed up, stating that he was never tempted by the prospect.
The Legal Framework and Ethical Concerns
Pennsylvania law allows lawmakers to become lobbyists after a one-year cooling-off period. The State Ethics Commission is responsible for investigating potential violations, but enforcement is reactive, relying on formal complaints. Last year, the commission reported only two violations of the revolving-door provision.
David Mayernik, a former Democratic representative, argues that banning lawmakers from lobbying on issues they have history with is impractical. He suggests extending the cooling-off period to at least five years to reduce the number of lawmakers representing industries they were involved with while in office.
The practice of lawmakers becoming lobbyists is not limited to rank-and-file members. Powerful legislators like Jake Corman, Stan Saylor, and Joe Scarnati have also transitioned into lobbying roles. Their firms represent high-profile clients such as CVS Health, PPL Electric Utilities, Uber, Amazon, UPMC, General Motors, and Comcast.
High-Profile Examples
Bill DeWeese, a former Democratic speaker of the state House, joined the lobbying ranks after serving time in prison on corruption charges. He firmly denies any conflict of interest, emphasizing the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the ability to make a living.
DeWeese also argues that modern legislators have access to vast amounts of information, making the role of lobbyists more about providing extra context rather than exerting undue influence.
Efforts to Reform the System
Despite bipartisan interest in tightening the reins on lawmakers becoming lobbyists, efforts to reform the system have largely failed. Five years ago, leaders from both legislative chambers weighed a broad lobbying reform package, but none of the resulting legislation reached a committee vote.
In 2023, a key state Senate committee unanimously approved legislation to extend Pennsylvania’s wait period to two years, similar to several other states. However, the effort stalled without a vote on the Senate floor.
Majority Caucus Chair Kristin Phillips-Hill led the charge on the more recent legislation, arguing that an ex-lawmaker’s relationships with their former colleagues can be used for biased access. She believes this creates problems in terms of public trust.
State Rep. Joe Webster wants to extend the wait period to five years, which would give Pennsylvania the second-longest moratorium in the country, behind Florida’s six years. He argues that the revolving door creates a de facto corruption risk that must be addressed.
Harrisburg leadership has offered few specifics on what reforms they support or think are needed. Spokespeople for Senate Republicans and Gov. Josh Shapiro did not reply to requests for comment, while state House Democrats are reviewing Webster’s proposal.
