[whimsicalism]

They're not really teethed though. I grew up in DC and new plenty of parents who were ex-chief of staffs or whatever and they literally would tell me that they were working for a lobbying firm as a "consultant" because that was a loophole for getting around the "can't join a lobbying firm rules."

[dnautics]

Nah, you just shut out good people who want to do good things but can't figure out rules or feel like the burden to doing good things or the potential penalty on technicality or slipup isn't worth it, and select for sociopaths who are adept at figuring out how to use rules (especially draconian ones) to their own advantage, spirit of the rule notwithstanding, because they WILL put up with the burden and the risk.

[whimsicalism]

> you just shut out good people who want to do good things but can't figure out rules

It's not really that complicated to not work for a lobbying firm for 2 years after leaving a chief of staff position for a Senator.

Nor do I particularly want people too dull to figure out those rules to be making laws for our entire country?

[dnautics]

> Nor do I particularly want people too dull to figure out those rules to be making laws for our entire country?

You make it sound like there's only like 3 or 4 rules to follow.

> not work for a lobbying firm

it's not really clear ultimately how you're going to enforce that. Laws against lobbying are already treading close to violations of the freedom of speech and right to petition the government; if there are structural problems with how laws are getting enacted, I would suggest thinking about the structural problems in how we are governed more than trying to patch over the system with rules.

[whimsicalism]

> I would suggest thinking about the structural problems in how we are governed more than trying to patch over the system with rules.

I agree with that, I disagree with the idea that lobbying regulations somehow select for unscrupulous individuals - nor was your argument for that idea particularly well-reasoned.