Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revolving Door topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated debate as committee considers repeal of Montana's two-year revolving-door ban
Summary
Sponsors argued SB222 to repeal Montana's two-year ban on former officials becoming registered lobbyists is necessary to avoid constitutional limits on speech and employment; opponents defended the initiative-enacted restriction (I‑153, 2006) as necessary to prevent undue influence and protect public trust.
Senate Bill 222, which proposes repealing Montana Code section 5‑73‑10 (the two‑year ban on revolving‑door lobbying by certain former public officials), drew sharply divided testimony in the House State Administration committee.
Sponsor Senator Greg Hertz argued the statutory restriction is unconstitutional, citing federal decisions and contending the ban imposes an unjustified penalty on citizens' economic liberty and political speech. He and proponents including former public officials and current lobbyists urged repeal on the grounds that transparent disclosure and ethics enforcement provide alternative protections.
Opponents, led by former Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Mogul and longtime advocates for good government, argued SB222 would overturn a law enacted by ballot initiative (Initiative 153 in 2006, passed by roughly 75% of voters) and pointed to 43 states that have cooling‑off periods for former officials. Opponents said the two‑year restriction protects public confidence and prevents conflicts of interest created by immediate transitions from policymaker to paid advocate.
Committee questioning explored constitutional arguments, the scope of the statute's coverage (which named high‑level appointed officials and certain staff), and whether the statute restricts speech or professional licensure. Shelly Hendrickson Scott (COPP) was available to answer questions. The transcript records robust debate but no vote on SB222 in this excerpt.
