Are the costs of President Obama's restrictions on lobbyists working in his administration outweighing the benefits?

That's the question the Washington Post poses in a recent editorial, which concludes that "too many qualified candidates have been denied positions for which they are suited simply because of a lobbyist taint."

"This approach could have the perverse consequence of driving lobbying underground and reducing the openness that the Obama administration says it wants to promote," writes the Post, which applauds the new president's efforts to slow the revolving door so that those working for him cannot "cash in quickly" after leaving the administration.

Obama's new rules prevent senior officials from lobbying the executive branch for the remainder of Obama's presidency.

The White House is barring those who had been registered lobbyists during the past two years from serving in departments they lobbied.

The Post - which supported the new rules after Obama first announced them - notes that this rule has "its silly aspects (because) you want health-care experts at the Department of Health and Human Services... and some very good health-care experts have been registered lobbyists. "

While the White House made its rules somewhat flexible by introducing waivers for some administration candidates, the Post notes that Obama tightened up on waivers after using them resulted in charges of hypocrisy. As a result, the Post notes, lobbyist candidates are now excluded from consideration even for jobs in departments or agencies they've never lobbied.

Read the full editorial at http://www.washpost.com/