The bill makes several targeted changes to federal revolving‑door rules. It amends 18 U.S.C. §207 to bar former Senators and Representatives from, for life, communicating with Congress with the intent to influence on behalf of others; it lengthens multiple staff cooling‑off periods from one year to six years; and it bars Members or committees from hiring registered lobbyists or foreign agents for six years if those lobbyists had “substantial lobbying contact” with that Member or committee.
Separately the bill requires a joint, searchable lobbyist disclosure website (lobbyists.gov) with an API, compels annual public filings by “substantial lobbying entities” about former lawmakers and senior staff they employ or retain, routes those filings to the U.S. Attorney in D.C. for enforcement review, and raises maximum civil penalties under the Lobbying Disclosure Act to $500,000. Together these changes reshape compliance obligations for firms, change post‑Congressional career paths, and create new enforcement and transparency tools for investigators and the public.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends criminal conflict‑of‑interest law to prohibit former Members from lobbying Congress for life, lengthens staff cooling‑off rules to six years, and blocks Members/committees from hiring recent registered lobbyists or foreign agents with whom they had substantial lobbying contact for six years. It also requires a joint lobbyist disclosure website with an API, mandates annual reporting by large lobbying entities about former congressional personnel they employ or contract with, and raises civil penalties under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
Who It Affects
Directly affects former Members of Congress, senior congressional staff, registered lobbyists and foreign agents, lobbying and law firms that hire former officials, congressional committees and ethics offices, and compliance teams at substantial lobbying entities (incorporated entities employing more than three registered lobbyists).
Why It Matters
The bill converts customary cooling‑off practices into longer, enforceable restrictions while expanding public disclosure and investigative access to who firms employ from Capitol Hill. For compliance officers and counsel it creates new hiring constraints, reporting burdens, and potential criminal/civil exposure; for investigators it supplies a searchable dataset and a statutory referral to the U.S. Attorney in D.C.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Close the Revolving Door Act makes three categories of change: prohibitions, disclosure, and enforcement. On prohibitions, it rewrites 18 U.S.C. §207(e)(1) so that any former Senator or Representative who, after leaving office, knowingly communicates with the intent to influence Members, officers, or employees of either House on behalf of another person (other than the United States) can be criminally punished under the referenced penalty provision.
The bill also expands the cooling‑off period for several staff categories from one year to six years and separately bars Members or committees from hiring registered lobbyists or agents of foreign principals for six years if those lobbyists had substantial lobbying contact with the hiring Member or committee.
On disclosure, the bill amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to require the Senate Secretary and House Clerk to operate a single, user‑friendly, searchable website (lobbyists.gov) with an API and adds a modest appropriation for its development. It inserts a new reporting obligation for “substantial lobbying entities” — defined as incorporated entities employing more than three registered lobbyists — to file annually a list of any employees, contractors, or paid consultants who are former Senators, Representatives, or covered legislative branch officials meeting specific thresholds (salary, tenure, or senior job title).
Those filings must include job descriptions and the stated basis for inclusion.On enforcement, the bill requires that those annual filings be provided to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia so federal prosecutors can assess underreporting, and it raises the maximum civil penalty under the Lobbying Disclosure Act from $200,000 to $500,000. The bill also permits the Senate Select Committee on Ethics or the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to waive the hiring prohibition for Members/committees when there is a “compelling national need.” Finally, it tightens several statutory cross‑references and removes certain elected‑officer exceptions in the criminal provision so the prohibitions apply to Members and specified staff more broadly.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a lifetime ban on former Senators and Representatives communicating with the intent to influence Congress on behalf of anyone other than the United States (amends 18 U.S.C. §207(e)(1)).
Several staff cooling‑off categories in 18 U.S.C. §207(e) change from a 1‑year to a 6‑year restriction for specified staff positions.
A Member or committee may not hire a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal within 6 years if that lobbyist had "substantial lobbying contact" with that Member or committee; the bill lists factors for what counts as substantial contact and excludes mere social contacts.
The bill requires a joint, searchable lobbyist disclosure website (lobbyists.gov) with an API and authorizes $100,000 for fiscal year 2026 to build/maintain it, and it creates an annual filing requirement for "substantial lobbying entities" (incorporated entities employing >3 registered lobbyists) listing former lawmakers and senior staff they employ or contract with.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act’s maximum civil penalty increases from $200,000 to $500,000, and annual entity filings are copied to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for potential enforcement review.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Lifetime ban for former Members from lobbying Congress
This section replaces the existing text for Members with a provision that makes any post‑service communication to influence Members, officers, or employees of either House, on behalf of someone else (not the United States), punishable under the statutory penalty cited in the bill. Practically, it removes any residual ability for former Members to engage in direct lobbying of Congress; the draft ties the violation to an existing criminal penalty provision rather than creating a brand‑new penalty schedule.
Staff cooling‑off periods extended to six years
The bill amends multiple enumerated staff paragraphs to replace every instance of a 1‑year restriction with a 6‑year restriction for the listed categories of staff. It also streamlines language by removing certain elected‑officer references and narrows a heading change (striking an "officers and staff" heading to "staff"). For offices that routinely rotate personnel, the six‑year window substantially lengthens the period during which former staff cannot engage in certain lobbying activities.
Joint public website (lobbyists.gov) and modest appropriation
This inserts a requirement that the Senate Secretary and House Clerk operate a single, easy‑to‑search public database of lobbyist disclosures called lobbyists.gov, with a stated design goal of simplicity and an API capability added later in the bill. It authorizes $100,000 for FY2026 to support the site. Because the site centralizes disclosure, it shifts how compliance teams should report and how investigators and the public access lobbying records.
Ban on hiring registered lobbyists/foreign agents with recent contacts
Section 5 defines key terms (foreign principal, lobbyist, lobbying contact) and then bars any registered lobbyist or foreign agent from being hired by a Member or committee within six years if that lobbyist had "substantial lobbying contact" with the hiring Member or committee. The bill provides a non‑exhaustive set of factors (pending legislative business, earmark solicitations, meeting coordination, presentations, fundraising beyond mere contributions) to determine "substantial" contact and excludes mere social interactions. The Member/committee ethics panels can waive the ban for "compelling national need," creating an internal exception mechanism.
Annual reporting by 'substantial lobbying entities' and enforcement access
This new section requires incorporated entities that employ more than three registered lobbyists to file annually with the House Clerk and Senate Secretary a list of any former Senators, Representatives, or covered legislative branch officials they employ, contract with, or retain for paid consulting, subject to thresholds (annual pay ≥ $100,000, total service ≥ 4 years, or senior titles like Chief of Staff). Filings must include brief job descriptions and why the individual meets the filing criteria. The bill mandates that these filings be routed to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to permit enforcement review.
Higher civil penalties for Lobbying Disclosure Act violations
This section raises the maximum civil penalty available under the Lobbying Disclosure Act from $200,000 to $500,000. That increase applies to the penalty provision specified in the statute’s enforcement section and makes underreporting or other disclosure failures more costly to firms and registrants.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters and public‑interest watchdogs — gain clearer, centralized disclosure (lobbyists.gov and API) and statutory filings routed to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., improving the ability to detect post‑service influence and underreporting.
- Ethics committees and investigative bodies — receive statutory access to entity filings and a single searchable database, which reduces investigative friction and improves evidence collection for potential enforcement.
- Competitive lobbying firms that do not rely on hiring former Members or foreign agents — may see a leveling effect as the bill restricts the premium placed on hiring ex‑Members for access and reduces an advantage held by firms that buy access through hires.
- In‑house compliance and legal teams — receive clearer thresholds and recordkeeping requirements (annual entity filings, job‑title and salary thresholds), enabling more structured compliance programs and automated monitoring if they leverage the new API.
Who Bears the Cost
- Former Members of Congress — face a lifetime restriction on lobbying Congress, eliminating a common post‑service career path and exposing them to criminal liability if they violate the new ban.
- Lobbying firms and law firms that hire former Members or foreign agents — incur hiring constraints, potential litigation or enforcement risk, and increased compliance costs to track the six‑year restrictions and annual entity filings.
- Substantial lobbying entities (incorporated firms with >3 registered lobbyists) — must produce annual disclosures about former officials they employ or contract with and face higher civil penalties for underreporting, increasing administrative and legal expenses.
- Members’ offices and committees — acquire a new compliance burden when hiring or contracting, including vetting candidate histories for "substantial lobbying contact," and must rely on ethics committees for waivers in exceptional cases.
- Clerk of the House, Secretary of the Senate, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. — face new operational work: building/maintaining lobbyists.gov, processing filings, and using limited prosecutorial resources to assess underreporting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill prioritizes insulating legislative decisionmakers from post‑service influence by sharply restricting who can lobby or be hired, but it does so at the cost of restricting the post‑public‑service labor market and potentially depriving Congress of experienced policy talent; ensuring consistent, non‑political enforcement and workable exemptions (for genuine national needs or technical cooperation) will be the hard balancing act for ethics committees and prosecutors.
The bill erects a number of bright‑line rules that raise practical questions during implementation. First, proving that a former Member ‘‘knowingly makes … any communication … with the intent to influence’’ invites evidentiary disputes—intent is hard to prove and will likely turn on internal communications, timing, and context.
Similarly, the bill’s operational test for a "substantial lobbying contact" relies on qualitative factors (presentation, meeting coordination, earmark solicitation, fundraising beyond contributions) that will require guidance to ensure consistent application across offices and firms. Absent regulatory or ethics‑committee guidance, those determinations could become ad hoc or politicized.
Second, the new annual reporting obligations for "substantial lobbying entities" hinge on thresholds that can be gamed by contractual arrangements (labeling work as advisory rather than lobbying, splitting roles across affiliates, or keeping compensation below the $100,000 trigger). The bill attempts to capture seniority through job titles and tenure, but firms can restructure engagements to fall outside the thresholds.
Data protection and privacy issues also arise once the filings are made public via an API: the bill requires disclosure of job descriptions and personnel lists, but it does not specify redaction rules, data retention, or security standards for lobbyists.gov beyond a one‑time $100,000 authorization, which may be insufficient for a secure, API‑driven system.
Finally, the waiver for "compelling national need" vests significant discretion in the House and Senate ethics panels; that discretion addresses some flexibility concerns but also creates a potential loophole that could be invoked irregularly or under political pressure. Enforcement is further complicated because the bill centralizes filings to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. but does not provide additional prosecutorial resources, so referrals may outpace investigatory capacity and produce uneven enforcement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.