>> the transition team. and the difference. >> let me distinguish very thickly. the transition team is one thing , the campaign is a different thing. in my judgment, there ought to be a lot of continuity between the transition team in the white house but not so much with the campaign and the white house. that is what i had in mind. coordinationome that happens at this point what you want to minimize distractions for the campaign. there will be weekly calls with the campaign teams and right after the election, there is an interesting exercise which is the merger. this has not happened really ever has to work late where you have had a large scale pre-election transition effort with very large in some cases campaign staff moving into that. this will be the first time and

both teams are focused on that. how to integrate the positions they have and how to begin to staff the white house during transition. >> one more question. a number of departments and agencies -- do you foresee a situation where certain positions go unfilled because he does not agree with them if he were to be elected? >> there are a lot of positions that are unfilled now even though the president may agree with the position of the agencies underscoring how difficult it is to get people through the vetting process. put on much attention is those positions. thatill be the head of team. this is not the first time we have heard a candidate say they want to take down the department of education -- the reality is

that is really hard to do. how much emphasis that agency or its mission may have, how much attention it may get by the president -- that is a whole other question. but this is not a new problem we have -- billing positions at these -- filling positions at these departments. >> most cabinet departments are established by congress through statue. and so they are not simply creatures of the president. they are established by law. there are laws that they are charged with administrating. and so there is a lot of ongoing business that will and must proceed regardless of the stance that the incoming president takes to the work of that department or agency. i would not pay too much attention. ronald reagan, people listening

to him in 1980 were sure that the department of education was a goner but instead it got stronger and he appointed a couple of really good secretaries of education. >> both teams have recognized that they have to engage with the career workforce. both teams recognize it and they have both done this before. they understand this process. they view it as a career workforce as being an enabler for their processes. need toith that, we draw this to a close. the press contact or the contact information directly for all three at beakers are on the handouts in the bio package. they would all welcome contact from you and follow-up questions. i want to ink you all very much. thank you for this time. [applause] and so, we are going to make a big transition to the reporter''

panel. we will add one chair. i am the transition team. [laughter] >> we are going to start with our third and final panel this morning. it is the go to place for all sorts of campaign finance data. but there are all sorts of other kinds of information that it is a repository for including lobbyist disclosure information and office holders financial information and they are going to talk about the revolving door that they also monitor and what happens to the people in the administration now, where they will end up and

under what restrictions they will be when they do so. we begin with viveca novak and then dan auble who is the revolving door researcher over there. they will talk between the two of them about 20 minutes and then we will have time for q and a. this session will go until noon. ? if you could be a fly on the wall or a drone on the any of those walls of congressional or administrative offices, in this moment, you would be seeing a lot of people hearing and thinking about their future and putting out feelers and receiving feelers from the outside about what their next job move is. who might want to hire them.

and you would see and hear a lot of people in the private sector as well at lobbying shops and beltway bandits and law firms and political consulting firms -- scheming about how to get into the new administration or into a good congressional office or about who the best people are too higher coming out. sort of like the nfl draft. who are the most desirable draft picks? to some degree this happens every two years. but every eight years, since most presidents recently have served two terms is when it really happens in spades. this is one of those witching years. and you will be seeing -- i mean hillary clinton has a universe of people around her. they have been in politics for more than 40 years. they will be either angling to get in, to stay in, or may be

plotting their futures in the private sector and being able to cash in on their intimate knowledge of clinton world. people il be some think who will want to step outside and be in the private sector. they will not want to go into the administration. and there will be a lot of people that will not get the desired jobs in the administration and they will decide to step out and make money. and make no mistake, these people are highly prized on the outside. there was a study a couple of years ago where they looked at the salaries of people who came out who had been very well-connected in congress compared to other lobbyists for instant and the people with connections made a good bit more money. another study showed that there is a shelf life to that money which is if you are a member of congress, -- if your member of

congress that you used to work for retired or was defeated, your salary may not go up and may even diminish. the valuation -- there is a direct cause and effect there. now, one of the best examples i think of revolving door action was described in a story by eric lipton in early 2013 in the new york times. and ate about amgen's provision they got put into the 2012 fiscal cliff legislation. really wantedly, a two-year extension, an additional two-year extension, of a provision that essentially medicare was going to put price controls on some medication.

they wanted an exemption for a very lucrative kidney dialysis drug that they made. and they had an army of 74 lobbyists including the former chief of staff of max baucus who is former chairman of the senate finance world. and the former chief of staff of mitch mcconnell. not only that though but they had someone who used to be and amgen in-house lobbyist who had managed to get a job as orrin hatch's chief health policy person. and he was the person in charge of meeting with all of the lobbyists who were lobbying on this provision including amgen. low and behold, they got the provision they wanted and nobody even knew it was in their until eric lipton wrote about it.

reverselving door, the revolving door can be extremely valuable to corporations. this is why you see a lot of companies when their people go to work or the administration or go to the hill, they are often paying exit bonuses when their people leave which they would not admit was connected to government service but there are many suspicions. days, one thing besides people who have worked in government and go out to the private sector or people who go from the private sector into government, don't forget to look for people who have worked for super pac's. or for political nonprofits. some of these dark money groups that are much like super pac's but do not have to disclose their donors. or charitable foundations that .re connect did to lawmakers

and there are a number of those. probably -- the have probably heard already today of this revolving door is kind of obvious. you have people, you have a high degree of closeness between the private sector and government officials who are supposed to be watching over and regulating the private sector. if you have continual flow of people going back and forth, that is not always bad. it is good to have the expertise. but the danger is something that we call regulatory capture where the overseers are not really doing much overseeing. accept what the industry wants. you have seen that over and over again in agriculture and other areas what is really in the public interest is subsumed by

presence at's agencies or at congress in one way or another. there is also a danger to play devil's advocate that assuming that it is always bad when people from industry go into the government and assuming that the public interest will not be served. tumblr, they be chairman of the fcc home everyone criticized at the beginning because he had been at the head of a telecom trade booth. he had lobbied on the hill. he wound up being a pretty good chairman. neutrality and a bunch of other policies that people would not have predicted that he would favor. i guess i am going to hand it off to datn and we will answer questions after. dan will get into more of the

rules and regulations. mr. auble: the rules and restrictions on where you can work in you leave the government and incoming from the private sector are relatively straightforward for congress. senators have a two-year cooling congressd for lobbying . house members have a one year. and staff has a one year as well with some restrictions on them contacting their own offices that they work for. -- that they worked for a. the situation with the executive branch however is a little more fluid. recent history, basically revolves around executive orders. in, theyesident comes decide how restrictive they want to be.

for instance, l clinton using executive order barred former officials from lobbying the people they worked with for five years which is pretty targeted and was not a blanket restriction across the whole executive branch. george bush did not have a similar policy. and when obama came in, transparency and good government was something he had not made an important part of his campaign and on his first full day in office he signed a couple of executive orders that said -- people who leave my administration and become ledges stirred -- registered lobbyists cannot lobby the executive branch. rules thatnderlying were most recently updated in

2008 with the honest and open government act. and that sets a baseline two-year cooling off period in the executive branch as well. but obama's restrictions are notly regarded as pretty, kryptonian but they are -- not draconian but they were pretty restrictive. it was applied-- to registered lobbyists. they are lobbyists for a specific definition. in terms of how much money you are making from a client. you have to have more than 20% spent on that client. and that 20% number is a big

opening as a loophole for people to unregistered. one of the reactions to obama's restrictions was a drop in the number of registered lobbyists. it went from around 14,000 to 12,000 during his first term. the number of registered lobbyists. there is not much reason to believe that those people totally left the influence industry. a lot of them, the people who left the registration rolls were still working at the same firms under a similar title and were clearly still involved in government affairs. methad just technically not the registration requirements. past, there was almost a pride about being a lobbyist and people would register out of an

abundance of caution. so as not to go afoul of the rules. that changed around 2008 after the scandal. if you could get around registering, a lot of people would not register so they would not have to face these restrictions. applied to incoming officials into the administration. prettyy were restricted heavily on what they could work on. basically, it made it very hard to work in the obama administration if you had recently been a registered lobbyist. future, whate hillary clinton or a president trump would do is kind of a big question. the president has a lot of sway over what the policy is.

reported that hillary clinton's transition team has a ban on lobbyists working in the transition team. a, we may be could see similar policy to obama that she might have. whethers not clear obama's policies will carry over . at the end of bill clinton's administration, he actually rescinded the restrictions he had and it was even after the election, the 2000 election. but basically, that is something . that obama potentially could over thee of course last year, i am sure, people who work in the white house have been looking for jobs in the --vate sector and they would

that process would be easier for them if there were not such limited restrictions on them. that is kind of the landscape of the rules. i want to talk about what we do with regard to the revolving door. and show you a little bit of what is on our website that you can mine. there is not a central government database that has everyone who has been through the revolving door so one of the things we do is we track the news obviously and law firms, press releases, and twitter accounts and we sometimes it tips from people as to who is moving. including staff

directories from the hill and whether they then show up in the lobbying registration to propagate our revolving door section. opensecrets.org. when you land in this section, this one is a little out of featured revolver, someone in the news or who we think is important and we write up a little bio. we talk about the possible implications of their move run the government into the private sector or vice a versa. -- or visa bursar. look at whether they made

campaign contributions as well and add that for your information. the most important thing you these personalis profiles of revolvers. you will find a graphical timeline of where they have worked. and then the table below lays out exactly where they were and when and provides links if they are registered lobbyists or if they work for a lobbying firm, you can look at the activity of the lobbying firm. what members they worked for and what not. stories,e looking for you will probably want to check out a bunch of these kinds of top lists that we have including what members have had the most revolvers, what agencies do you find a lot of revolvers in,

where the people who worked for the committees have moved? where they are? .nd you can look at industries if you are interested in a particular state to for instance, you might want to go your stay -- your and whatelegation firms or companies they have gone to work for. and then you can tied together some of the other pieces you will find on here including lobbying, the company they work for now, how does that industry type into your members. -- how does that industry tie into your members. we cover a lot of ground including camping contributions, super pac's, extensive lobbying profiles.

all of that are things you will find on open secrets. and i think that is my overview. so, if we are ready for questions? mr. adams: we have time for questions. if i could ask one deferential thing. the definition of a defined lobbyists. it one lobbyist has five clients all at 20% they would be registered under all five. but if they had six clients all at 60%, they are not registered as a lobbyist for any of them? mr. auble: that is true. this is a basic rule. define what 20% is has

never really been tested. bigger?0% strictly for a lobbying clients. that is correct. mr. adams: questions out here. >> this is a narrow question. areou know what the rules regarding someone who has been become --military and i am thinking about mike flynn in particular. i do not know anything specific about that. [indiscernible]

ok, thanks. mr. adams: james in the back. >> you mentioned the obama it makes -- administration rule. was that circumvented in any way? you talked about a loophole. mr. auble: there are also waivers that the president can grant. and there have been a few dozen of those. but there widespread are certainly examples of that. how are they defined? ms. novak: registered as a federal lobbyist. mr. auble: if they wanted to bring you in, you could get a waiver which is something that becomes public of course. ms. novak: there were some.

clearlythat pretty there were not as many lobbyists that went into the obama as has goneon s -- into other administrations but there were exceptions made. mr. adams: ok. let us go back there and then over to there. >> could you give us a sense of where lobbying and influence laws are strong and where they are weak and the ramifications environments. are they strong at the sec for example an week elsewhere -- and weak elsewhere? what comes to mind? mr. auble: in general, the disclosure laws are relatively strong and in many cases, they are self reporting.

the registration loopholes we talked about and those kinds of definitions where things very, i am not with therly familiar agencies that have much stronger rules or any that are really lacking. ms. novak: the rules are the rules and they are up -- and they apply across the board. you do not have strong rules in one agency and not in another. as far as i know, right? there are certainly agencies that look more favorably i think on people who has been lobbyists depending on who is leading the agency. is a lot of there

revolving door activity, there has been in the past at the fcc. othersre are a bunch of but the rules are the rules across the board. >> a variation of that question. can you talk about the revolving door to between wall street, fcc, and the department? ms. novak: one name springs to mind which is goldman sachs font ofs been quite a both jobs for people coming out and providing people who come into the administration. verystreet has been important for both agencies. >> do you have that on your website? ms. novak: do you want to show goldman sachs? mr. auble: sure.

as you saw, there is also a more extensive search page you can go to but you can search by a company you are interested in and you will get a list of all of the people who either currently work there or previously worked there and have been through the revolving door. and so if you are taking a look at a company, this is a good place to go and explore.

each of these names will take you to one of those profiles with more information and more extensively lays out when they were there, or they worked at the finance committee or sec or wherever. -- fcc or wherever. that would be a good entry point if you are looking at a company. you can also look at it by agencies. as well. if you wanted to come in through the other way and look at the fcc and kind of -- you will get a similar list of people who have been through the revolving door and work there. -- and worked there. >> can you give a sense of where and -- of when you started building this database? 2006 and: we began in

we began with a database of influence people that we purchased and we have been building on it since then. whoe are people in here worked for the ford administration but definitely the last 10-15 years will be more complete than the older years. more questions? james again. >> lobbying through washington -- where are we now? great as it has ever been or has there been any rollback? the obama administration effort would signal that. what historically, how would you look at that? think it is part of

the fabric of washington and as you say, has been for a long time. it is very hard to measure. said, you have a lot fewer people registering as lobbyists but that does not mean that they are not strategic advisors or providing some other theyces that in the past may have registered as lobbyists because of that up lobbying has become more of a wordy word, is a surely under the obama administration, they are not doing that. it does not mean that they are not out there. there are a lot of people making a living doing this and it is very hard to get any metrics on it. but the end of your marks on capitol hill -- the end of your ks on capitolar

hill was something that may have contributed to the drop in the number of lobbyists but probably not by a lot. that the various ways congressation or that tries to implement, to reduce the influence that the public out there sees as an onerous thing. but it is like money and politics. it is like water. there are always ways around it. we live in a capitalistic society. there will always be private interests out there trying to make their case and trying to find a way to make more money using policy. mr. adams: back there. what you have said so far, do you think obama's rules were misguided in a way? we have lost transparency

because we cannot look up the lobbyists. is that true? mr. auble: to some extent that is true. there are definitely two sides of a coin. it was not universally good but policy served a purpose. they were successful for what they wanted to do. it is not ideal but the result was driving people off the rolls and learning less about it. on the whole, i think it was a positive thing but it certainly had consequences. mr. adams: ok. over here? >> my impression is that it seems like with the revolving door, the flow going out is bigger than the flow going in.

in terms of when you hear about lawmakers, if they are out in an election, they go and register as a lobbyist. is the flow more balanced? people are going from the private sector and the lobbying sector into the administration? mr. auble: the flow out is probably more intense and of course it varies. after an election, there is a lot of activity especially with members who have lost elections were just decided to leave congress. and the change of administration on the executive side causes a lot of act pretty. causes a lot of activity. mentioned, there is a salary incentive to having these connections. and that is what the whole

system revolves around. so there is some incentive and we see this relatively frequently for people to go in and out of public service and -- and privateto sector. and if you are cynical, you can say they are renewing the currency they have of connection and influence with people currently in government and writing policy. mr. adams: we have time for a couple more questions. i have one. another definition question. you set the rules for congress, for senators there is a two-year cooling-off timeframe and for house, one year. what is the definition of cooling off? no activity? it involves being a registered lobbyist again.

there is a definition of contact . but essentially they cannot be making more than one contact with government officials on behalf of of their client. mr. adams: ok. other questions? thisll have been watching issue for a long time. tell these young journalist what is the coolest story you can remember. you talked about the eric lipton story. what is one memorable story and do you have any idea how the reporter conceptualized and reported it? help us out at your out how to execute one of the stories.

amgen one the obviously was a big one. often this is a piece of a bigger story. like tomotable people daschle is the example that is frequently given of someone who everyone knows was basically being hired to advise people as a strategic advisor and doing a lot of activity that most people would call lobbying but he was not actually calling folks on the hill so he did not have to register. he recently did register that for years, that was a big one. is --vak: a lot of this you see something money going on and you start to dig into it.

sourcing on capitol hill or the administration. in akind of provision bill. i go back to the amgen example because it was so classic. this weird little thing that came up and i do not know how eric got onto that story. it could well have been that someone on the hill, some staffer said -- look at this weird thing in the fiscal cliff bill and he started digging into it because it clearly benefited, even though amgen was not named, it clearly benefited one company. pulling threads and you see the connections. i think whenever you see to being that appears casting favors in one direction or another, you start looking. and sometimes it is a campaign-finance angle you stumble on but oftentimes it is

a lobbying connection. there are connected lobbyists to the people who made this happen. mr. adams: and with that, i think this panel will come to a close. i want to thank our two speakers. thank you very much for your time. [applause] --i said, open secrets opensecrets.org is a great resource. we now retire from here and head back to our offices. lunch will be waiting for you. our first panel talking about budget issues starts at 1:15 p.m. so debrief the wall street journal. for non-paul miller's in the audience here, thank you for coming out and joining us. i want to thank the university of maryland, c-span, and cq roll call for helping us to put on

this event today. i will see you at the national foundation office. we will see you over there in about 15-20 minutes. thank you very much. >> here on c-span, washington journal is next. at 10:00, newsmakers with indiana congressman luke messer. and later, we will show you the speeches given by president-elect donald trump and hillary clinton following the election night results. on today's washington journal, a look at what is next for progressives after the 2016 election with david corn of mother jones. mcconnell, founding editor of the american conservative magazine, talks about the future of the

republican party. and later, a look at how the international community is reacting to donald trump becoming the next u.s. president. we are joined by the ceo and editor of foreign policy magazine. host: good morning as america continues to assess the results from last tuesday's election, congress returning to work for a lame-duck session that will continue into mid-december. a number of key agenda items first and foremost, agreeing on a spending plan. meanwhile, expect the first wave of announcements mike donald trump. -- by donald trump. he will likely announce a chief of staff as early as tomorrow. it is sunday morning, november 13. our question this morning, how can america unite under president-elect donald trump?