[maxerickson]

That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs.

One thing that would probably help but will never happen would be to figure out how to make committee chairs service positions that had less influence over the output of the committee than the other members.

[protomyth]

> That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs.

Good. I think the people using these government jobs in this manner are the people we don't need overseeing those contracts.

[maxerickson]

I don't think you can make enough rules to stop the wrong sort of people. I guess I would prefer amending the overall process to make it less interesting to even try to exploit (rather than enumerating and banning a bunch of different ways of collecting the reward).

Also, a 10 year ban is worth negative hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sort of person that is competent and understands the field they are working in. That's a pretty big disincentive, never mind that 'government job' already sort of has a negative association for lots of motivated people.

[protomyth]

I think two simple bans will have a huge effect on the corruption. I just don't see it as good for society that a competent person goes to work for the government in a management position then leaves for the private sector to work at a company they were managing contracts. I would rather the motivated people stay in the private sector in the first place and not see government as a stepping stone.