[oliwarner]

Zero substance? The point is that these are experts in their niche of law. That is a highly sought after skill. What is your argument that these people should not be able to use their knowledge of the law? Are they automatically corrupt or something?

[smolder]

They are not automatically corrupt, but they are absolutely and automatically worthy of suspicion of corruption, as doing this revolving door thing is indistinguishable from corruption on the surface.

Experts who aren't the authors are the only ones who can safely be assumed not to be corrupt and are therefore the only people who you can allow to be hired if you hope to prevent corruption.

[oliwarner]

I think we need to separate elected power and knowledge.

If you're taking goods, services, favours, even future employment, as a politician (or for your friends, family), you're corrupt.

If you're hiring a politician after they've left office to buy their influence (they do know people) or their oratory skill, or —as I started this— what they know about the law, I think that's fair game.

If you try to clamp down on the latter, nobody with any existing influence or industry (or F&F with same) will want anything to do with that area of government. I would rather have slightly corrupt but competent politicians than pure-hearted idiots.

Just to remember, there are shades of grey. A senator may have financial interest in the biggest industry in their state, but pushing for laws that further that industry isn't necessarily corrupt.

The only way you sort this out is getting rid of the middle-man and holding referendums on everything. And even that is vulnerable to corrupt influence.

[smolder]

I'm skeptical there is a shortage of competent people to necessitate hiring idiots because you can't hire those with potential conflicts of interest. Finding and recruiting (and in some cases possibly grooming) competent people is hard, which makes it seem like they're extremely rare if you don't have success at it, but that's a different issue.

Corruption is a huge problem with huge costs to society, however hard they are to quantify. It's like a cancer that grows exponentially and kills institutions, and the fallout is messy and difficult. So while everything you said has some sense behind it, I don't believe the cost of eliminating those potential conflicts of interest (which I see as small) approaches the value of reduced corruption (which I see as large.)

[oliwarner]

Nads, missed the edit deadline. I meant to say "the promise of future employment". I think just being employed for having written some law is okay, as long as there was no arrangement, or understanding that they'd be employed because they wrote that law.

It's tricky stuff to detect and enforce but it seems to infringe considerable freedoms to lock it down too.