Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill, Close the Revolving Door Act of 2025, imposes stricter post-employment restrictions and transparency requirements on former Members of Congress, congressional staff, and lobbyists. Key changes include a lifetime ban on Members lobbying Congress, a six-year cooling-off for staff, a joint searchable lobbyist database (lobbyists.gov), hiring bans for lobbyists and foreign agents when they had substantial contacts, annual disclosure by large lobbying firms of former congressional employees, and increased civil penalties for Lobbying Disclosure Act violations.
Duration and breadth of bans: lifetime for Members versus shorter cooling-off.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory package that specifies new prohibitions and reporting obligations and integrates amendments into existing statutes.
The bill, Close the Revolving Door Act of 2025, imposes stricter post-employment restrictions and transparency requirements on former Members of Congress, congressional staff, and lobbyists.
Key changes include a lifetime ban on Members lobbying Congress, a six-year cooling-off for staff, a joint searchable lobbyist database (lobbyists.gov), hiring bans for lobbyists and foreign agents when they had substantial contacts, annual disclosure by large lobbying firms of former congressional employees, and increased civil penalties for Lobbying Disclosure Act violations.
Substantive curbs on Members and staff increase political resistance; modest fiscal cost helps but Senate hurdles and stakeholder opposition lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory package that specifies new prohibitions and reporting obligations and integrates amendments into existing statutes. It includes several concrete mechanisms (textual amendments, waiver authority, a joint disclosure website, and increased penalties) but leaves gaps in enforcement mechanics, comprehensive resourcing, and some compliance details.
Duration and breadth of bans: lifetime for Members versus shorter cooling-off.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Duration and breadth of bans: lifetime for Members versus shorter cooling-off.
Likely broadly supportive.
The lifetime ban for Members and extended staff cooling-off periods align with anti-corruption and democratic integrity priorities.
Enhanced transparency and higher penalties are seen as necessary to limit special-interest influence.
Generally favorable to stronger cooling-off periods and transparency but cautious about scope, constitutionality, and implementation.
Would favor clarifying definitions and ensuring sufficient funding and narrow tailoring to avoid unnecessary burdens.
Likely opposed.
Views the lifetime ban and extended staff restrictions as excessive government overreach that infringes on employment freedom and First Amendment petitioning rights.
Concerned about added bureaucracy and higher penalties.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive curbs on Members and staff increase political resistance; modest fiscal cost helps but Senate hurdles and stakeholder opposition lower chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Duration and breadth of bans: lifetime for Members versus shorter cooling-off.
Substantive curbs on Members and staff increase political resistance; modest fiscal cost helps but Senate hurdles and stakeholder oppositio…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory package that specifies new prohibitions and reporting obligations and integrates amendments into existing statutes. It includes several con…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.