Congress often leads to lucrative jobs, but few members disclose their prospects

WASHINGTON — It's not against the rules for members of Congress to look for a new job.

But when nibbles become serious negotiations on employment and compensation, rules are supposed to kick in that require lawmakers to step aside from votes and other official actions where conflicts might arise — and to file a public notice about any job talks that prompt them to recuse themselves.

That usually doesn't happen, critics say, even as members often end up as lobbyists or in other roles with clear potential for conflicts of interest.

"The lack of disclosure by lawmakers of job negotiations is a major problem, allowing for potentially serious conflicts of interest to go unaddressed," said Craig Holman, a legislative representative for the watchdog group Public Citizen.

So far this congressional session, 56 sitting House members have announced they are not seeking reelection — nearing the all-time high of 65 retirements in 1992. Additional lawmakers are likely considering whether to quit or could face retirement if they lose a primary election. 

Only half of those planning to leave their seats are running for senator, governor or other public offices.

And of the other 28, none has filed any disclosures of post-congressional jobs they are pursuing — or have been approached to consider — and any potential conflicts with their ongoing official duties.

Attempted reform

History shows that a congressional seat is a great spot from which to fish for one’s next paid gig, given how many prospective employers are trying to get lawmakers’ attention.

But the 2007 Hon­est Lead­er­ship and Open Gov­ern­ment Act was written to make sure there are timely public disclosures and recusals, so that retiring lawmakers can’t quietly trade their last months of shaping legislation for future compensation.

The act requires lawmakers to notify the House Committee on Ethics within three days of starting negotiations for future employment — and to give the public notice when any potential conflicts arise that cause them to recuse themselves as they negotiate those new jobs.

The law was passed after former Rep. Billy Tauzin bolted the House in 2003 to take a post with PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry trade group, at an estimated annual salary of $2 million.

Tauzin’s move came just months after he played a lead role in drafting legislation to introduce a Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Among other things, that bill prevented the government from negotiating lower drug prices and was seen as a boon to drugmakers.

Lucrative opportunities

In the 19 years since the disclosure law took effect there have been more than 300 U.S. House retirements, either by choice or primary defeats.

Many of those former members ultimately landed very public jobs seeking influence over Congress such as lobbyists, lawyers, trade association or college officials — some even leaving the House before their terms were up.

Yet, over the years, there have been fewer than 20 publicly filed disclosures that retiring representatives have recused themselves on any legislative matters amid negotiations for future employment that could pose a conflict of interest.

One notable departing member who did not file any disclosures was former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican. He accepted a job as a managing director with an investment banking firm two weeks after leaving Congress early in August 2014 after a stunning primary defeat.

Cantor aides at the time said he followed House Committee on Ethics Committee guidance.

One of the few who in recent years filed a public notice was former Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), who left Congress in January 2025 after six terms to join the Washington, D.C.-based Rockefeller Foundation as senior vice president focused on policies such as economic opportunity and climate issues.

"As someone who chaired the committee focused on making Congress work better, following the rules seemed like a pretty low bar," Kilmer said in a statement to Newsday about why he provided such a public disclosure when others haven’t.

Following the rules

In June, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) announced that he would not seek reelection to his seat this fall after five terms. His telephone, he says, has since been ringing from potential post-congressional employers.

“I have been getting calls,” Bacon said. But there’s been no discussions beyond that, he says, because both he and those potential employers know the rules — or at least know that he will abide by them. “They’ve told me let’s get together when the time is more appropriate,” Bacon says.

Bacon says lawmakers are made well-aware of the rules of what they can do, and what they must report, and he believes most of his colleagues abide by those.

He says he will likely talk to these multiple potential employers, maybe in November or December, because he is going to be looking for post-congressional work. But he says he isn’t going to leave Congress early, because he owes his constituents a full term, and that more than $25 million was spent by both sides in the 2024 election for his seat.

Narrow interpretation

Government reformers, such as Holman, complain that the ethics panel has interpreted the law so narrowly as to render it ineffective. Simply talking to a potential employer doesn’t trigger the public-disclosure requirement.

Rather, members are advised that the requirement applies only when they have an actual job offer and discuss compensation. Ethics officials have declined to comment.

But in the most recent general advisory opinion from the committee, House members and staffers are advised that they can file the notice of negotiation form but not publicly disclose it if they have never actually chosen to recuse themselves from any matter.

The advisory also detailed that the committee received a total of 211 notice of negotiation forms during the last two-year Congress that ended in January 2025 — but those are not made public. Of the 86 recusal forms that were later made public through the House clerk’s office, only two were from lawmakers.

Legal 'gray zone'

The upshot is most members believe they don’t have to file until they actually get an offer and start negotiating a salary. The use of a job headhunter or other third party in negotiations also muddies things.

The intent of the law is good, and it aims to prevent conflicts and favoritism, said Blake Chisam, a former staff director and chief counsel for the House Ethics Committee. But in terms of enforcement, "it is highly technical" and leaves wiggle room on when negotiations should trigger a public filing.

"The harder legal problem," Chisam said, "is how to police conflicts and influence in a gray zone" where members may be merely exploring work with interested parties before talking specifically about salary — yet still participating in legislative matters that might impact those prospective employers.

Public Citizen’s Holman suggests the issue is more simple: "Disclosure of job negotiations," he said, "provides the public and press the opportunity to intervene before scandal occurs."