The Buzz: What ‘Revolving Door’ Laws Really Accomplish
May 2025
You’ve heard of the “revolving door,” right, whereby politicians leave their offices to cash in by taking high-paying jobs as lobbyists?
Well-intentioned reformers eager to outlaw this allegedly nefarious practice might want to acquaint themselves with the results of a new study out of Boston University, posted in March by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It is, the researchers say, the first study of its kind, examining “the impact of revolving door rules and election-related outcomes.” The first such law was passed in 1962 by Massachusetts. Today, only 11 states have no restrictions in place.
And, yes, there might be some benefits to laws barring former elected officials from working for interest groups eager to influence public policy, or at least to laws imposing a “cooling-off period” before they can accept such employment. But these restrictions can also bring unintended consequences.
The ostensible goal of revolving-door restrictions is to reduce “the ex-official’s ability to exploit ties to former colleagues in [state] government,” the study’s authors write. Such laws are also designed to discourage ambitious but supposedly cynical people from seeking office just to sweeten their résumés. That’s so they can reap the monetary rewards once they have done public service and boosted their name recognition.
Fewer Moderates
But there are downsides to these laws, the researchers found. Among other effects, such restrictions make it less likely that incumbents leave office, meaning fewer opportunities for newcomers and the fresh thinking they can bring. Those long stays in office also lead to more uncontested elections. There is less turnover in legislatures. Fewer independent and more moderate candidates seek election, “which may increase polarization.” And polarization, by almost all accounts, has become a concern.
There are also fewer financial incentives to seek office in the first place, because there’s less opportunity for politicians to make money as lobbyists once they leave the legislature. That means that people “with stronger non-pecuniary” reasons to run for office, meaning ideologues, rather than pragmatists and moderates, are more likely to run.
Then there’s this: Elected officials who become lobbyists are “are more likely to have a higher-level degree, and to have graduated from a higher-ranked college.” Whether that is a plus or a minus, of course, is for voters to decide. Some want better-educated representatives. Others see them as “elites.”
“
And, yes, there might be some benefits to laws barring former elected officials from working for interest groups eager to influence public policy, or at least to laws imposing a “cooling-off period” before they can accept such employment. But these restrictions can also bring unintended consequences.
More News & Resources
Communicate across divides. Expert-led sessions on capturing attention and rapid response strategies.