BLAST Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to permanently close the 'revolving door' by banning former Members and elected officers of Congress from ever lobbying Congress after leaving office.
What it actually does
H.R. 9130 amends federal law to impose a lifetime prohibition on former Members and elected officers of Congress from lobbying Congress. It achieves this by striking and replacing existing language in 18 U.S.C. 207(e) and by explicitly expanding the definition of 'lobbyist' in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to include former Members engaged in lobbying activities for compensation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for restoring public trust in government by preventing former lawmakers from leveraging their insider knowledge and relationships for personal gain. They contend it will reduce perceived corruption and undue influence in the legislative process, ensuring that public service is not seen as a stepping stone to a lucrative lobbying career.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that a lifetime ban is overly restrictive, infringing on individuals' rights to pursue a profession and potentially depriving Congress of valuable expertise from former members who understand legislative processes. They might also argue it could disincentivize qualified individuals from seeking public service.
The bill is very short and clearly written, allowing for quick and complete comprehension by any informed reader.
Section 2(a) and 2(b)
Lifetime Prohibition on Lobbying Congress for Former Members and Elected Officers
This provision amends federal law to permanently bar former Senators, Representatives, and elected officers of Congress from engaging in lobbying activities directed at Congress. This includes both registering as a lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and making any communication or appearance with the intent to influence legislative action on behalf of any entity other than the U.S. government. It also explicitly expands the definition of 'lobbyist' in the Lobbying Disclosure Act to include former Members of Congress who are compensated for making lobbying contacts or engaging in lobbying activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the 'revolving door' phenomenon, where former lawmakers immediately transition to lobbying, leveraging their relationships and knowledge gained in public service for private gain. They believe it will enhance public trust, reduce undue influence, and ensure that public service is not seen as a stepping stone to a lucrative lobbying career.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this permanent ban is an overreach, unfairly restricting the post-public service employment options of individuals who have dedicated years to public service. They may also contend that it removes valuable expertise from the lobbying sphere, potentially making the legislative process less informed by those with practical experience. Some might also raise concerns about constitutional rights to free speech and association, though such arguments are often debated in the context of government employment restrictions.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the public's desire for integrity in government and the prevention of undue influence against the individual's right to pursue a profession after public service and the potential loss of experienced individuals in policy advocacy.
The amendments made by this Act will only apply to individuals who leave office on or after the date of its enactment. This means current former Members and elected officers are not subject to the lifetime ban.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for specifying effective dates and scope, rather than an attempt to hide it.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures fairness by not retroactively applying the ban to individuals who made career decisions based on existing law, thereby avoiding legal challenges related to ex post facto laws or impairment of contracts.
Case against: Critics might argue that this limits the immediate impact of the bill, allowing many currently active former Members to continue lobbying. They might prefer a broader application to address the perceived problem more comprehensively.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of the ban to future departures from Congress, meaning a significant number of current lobbyists who are former Members would be unaffected.