No Corrupt Lobbyists in Government Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 15, 2026
Bottom line
The 'No Corrupt Lobbyists in Government Act' aims to enhance federal executive branch integrity by barring individuals with certain corruption-related convictions from service for a decade, backed by new screening and enforcement powers for OPM.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits any individual with a final conviction for bribery, a broadly defined 'ethics violation,' or a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) violation from holding an executive branch position for 10 years following such conviction. It mandates a certification process for all appointees, establishes a range of enforcement actions including removal, fines, and civil penalties, and tasks the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with screening candidates and reporting annually to Congress.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step towards restoring public trust in government by ensuring that individuals with a history of corruption, ethics breaches, or undisclosed foreign influence are barred from positions of public trust. They contend it will reduce the risk of conflicts of interest, improve ethical standards, and promote accountability within the executive branch, thereby safeguarding democratic institutions from undue influence.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent is laudable, the bill's broad definitions, particularly for 'ethics violation,' could lead to unintended consequences, potentially barring individuals for offenses that are not directly related to public corruption or who have already served their time. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burden on OPM and other agencies for screening and enforcement, as well as the potential for political weaponization of such prohibitions.
The bill text is short and relatively easy to read, making it accessible for a quick review. However, understanding the full implications of its broad definitions requires careful consideration beyond a cursory read.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Executive Branch Service
This provision establishes a 10-year ban on individuals holding any executive branch position if they have a final conviction for a bribery offense, an ethics violation, or a FARA violation. The ban applies from the date of the final conviction. This is a core element of the bill, directly addressing its stated purpose of preventing individuals with certain legal histories from serving in government.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend this prohibition is essential to uphold the integrity of the executive branch, preventing those who have demonstrated a disregard for public trust or legal ethics from influencing government operations. They argue it sends a clear message about the standards expected of public servants.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a blanket 10-year ban, especially given the broad definitions of 'ethics violation,' could be overly punitive, potentially preventing individuals who have reformed or whose offenses were less severe from contributing to public service. They may also raise concerns about the practical implications for staffing certain roles.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for government integrity and public trust against concerns about individual rehabilitation and the potential for overly broad restrictions on employment. It aims to prevent corruption but could be seen as limiting opportunities for individuals who have served their sentences.
Section 2(b)
Certification Requirement for Executive Branch Positions
This section mandates that every individual assuming an executive branch position must certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, that they are not prohibited from service under the new rules. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is tasked with prescribing a standard form for this certification and retaining these records for at least 10 years. This creates a self-attestation mechanism to enforce the prohibition.
Section 3
Enforcement Mechanisms for Violations
This section outlines the consequences for violating the service prohibition. It mandates removal from an executive branch position within 30 days of a determination of non-compliance. It also allows OPM to assess a $50,000 fine, which can be avoided if the individual resigns within 90 days. Furthermore, it requires referral to relevant Inspectors General, the Office of Special Counsel, and the Department of Justice for civil action, with potential civil penalties up to $100,000 for each day of illegal service. These provisions establish a robust framework for addressing non-compliance.
Section 4
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Responsibilities
This section assigns several key responsibilities to OPM. It directs OPM to establish procedures for screening candidates for executive branch positions to identify prohibitive convictions, requiring coordination with the FBI and Department of Justice. OPM must also issue guidance to federal agencies within 90 days of enactment and submit annual reports to Congress detailing the number of individuals screened, those found prohibited, and any enforcement actions taken. This centralizes the administrative and oversight functions of the bill within OPM.
The definition of 'ethics violation' is exceptionally broad, encompassing not only specific ethics statutes (like the STOCK Act, Lobbying Disclosure Act, FARA, and Chapter 131 of Title 5) but also a wide array of willful, intentional, or purposeful violations under Title 18, the False Claims Act, and any 'substantially similar Federal or State statute relating to public corruption or the abuse of a public trust.' Furthermore, it explicitly includes offenses like embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification of records, false statements, fraud related to procurement or federal programs, tax evasion, federal criminal tax law violations, and receipt of stolen property.
Section 5(2)
Why it matters:While definitions sections are standard legislative practice, the extensive list of offenses under 'ethics violation' significantly broadens the bill's reach beyond what its short title implies. This could be seen as a deliberate strategy to include a wide range of undesirable conduct under a politically palatable 'ethics' umbrella.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a comprehensive definition of 'ethics violation' is necessary to truly safeguard public trust, as many forms of criminal conduct, even if not directly related to lobbying, demonstrate a lack of integrity unsuitable for executive branch service. Including state-level offenses ensures a consistent standard regardless of jurisdiction.
Case against: Critics might argue that this broad definition is overly inclusive, potentially barring individuals for offenses that, while serious, are not directly related to public corruption or abuse of public trust in a governmental capacity. The inclusion of 'substantially similar' state laws also introduces ambiguity and potential for inconsistent application, making it difficult for individuals to know if they are disqualified.
Estimated impact: This broad definition significantly expands the pool of individuals who could be prohibited from executive branch service, impacting a much larger segment of the population than if the definition were limited to direct lobbying or bribery offenses. It also increases the complexity of OPM's screening process.