Following up on this morning’s item, there are a variety of official and unofficial reasons for Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), just one year after asking voters in Mississippi to give him another six-year term, giving up his seat before the end of the calendar year. Some are more plausible than others.
* Explanation #1: “Spend more time with the family.” Roll Call reports that Lott’s “shocking move sources said was precipitated by a desire to spend more time with his family.” The article added that Lott “wants to spend more time with his grandchildren.” Plausibility rating: On a scale of one to 10, I’d give this one a two. His family hasn’t changed much this year, and yet, he just sought re-election and just maneuvered his way into a leadership post.
* Explanation #2: He’s “fed up” with Washington.” The WaPo reports that Lott “grew tired of the political infighting in the Senate as Republicans have been forced into a position of merely blocking a Democratic agenda.” Plausibility rating: Maybe a three. In April, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … and so far it’s working for us.”
* Explanation #3: He’s cashing in. MSNBC reports, “While the exactly reason Lott is stepping down before he finishes his term is unknown, the general speculation is that a quick departure immunizes Lott against tougher restrictions in a new lobbying law that takes effect at the end of the year. That law would require Senators to wait two-years before entering the lucrative world of lobbying Congress.” Plausibility rating: An easy 10.
As Republican senators go, Lott isn’t exactly independently wealthy. It was only a matter of time before he cashed in and went from being a politician on corporate interests’ payroll to being a lobbyist on corporate interests’ payroll. A Lott confidant conceded to the Politico that the lobbying law, passed earlier this year, was “a factor in the timing” of Lott’s departure.
In fact, it appears Lott has been laying the groundwork for this for quite a while.
Lott, who opposed the Dems’ sweeping lobbying reform measure, has been looking out for the interests of lobbyists for years. Matt Corley explains:
* In Jan. 2006, Lott praised “the practice of secretly inserting special projects into spending bills at the behest of lobbyists,” calling it “an effective way for Congress to address a problem or need back home.”
* In Feb. 2006, Lott derided the effort to fix lobbying loopholes after the Jack Abramoff scandal as “the usual over reaction that we see happen quite often in Washington.”
* In March 2006, Lott voted against establishing a Senate Office of Public Integrity.
* In March 2006, when Congress sought to ban free meals from lobbyists, Lott defended the free meals, saying a ban would imply “that we can be had for the price of a lunch or dinner.”
One quickly gets the sense that the two big differences between 2007 Lott and 2008 Lott are that he’ll no longer have a vote in the Senate, and corporate interests will no longer have a limit on how much they can pay him.