The BLAST Act would amend federal ethics and lobbying laws to bar former Senators, Representatives, and elected officers of the House or Senate from lobbying Congress after leaving office. It does this by revising 18 U.S.C. § 207 to make it a criminal offense for covered former officials to register as lobbyists or to make lobbying communications or appearances before Congress on behalf of another person, except the United States, in connection with matters seeking congressional action.
The bill also amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to include former Members of Congress within the definition of “lobbyist” when they are retained for compensation to perform lobbying-related services. Technical and conforming changes are made to related post-employment restrictions, and the new rules would apply only to individuals who leave office on or after the date of enactment.
If enacted, the bill would significantly tighten post-employment restrictions for former federal legislators and certain congressional officers by creating a lifetime ban on lobbying Congress, rather than the current time-limited revolving-door restrictions. It would affect the criminal code, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and the conduct of former Members, congressional officers, lobbying firms, and clients who hire former lawmakers for advocacy before Congress.
Based on the bill text and available procedural history, the measure appears to be framed as an ethics and trust reform proposal with a clear anti-corruption rationale. The bipartisan sponsorship by Senator Scott and Senator Warren suggests support across party lines for restricting the revolving door, and there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials indicating organized opposition or amendment activity.
The main likely point of contention is the breadth of the prohibition: the bill would impose a permanent ban on lobbying Congress by former Members and elected officers, which critics could view as overly restrictive or as limiting post-service employment opportunities. Supporters would likely argue that former lawmakers’ access and influence create a heightened risk of undue influence and public distrust. Another possible issue is the bill’s expansion of the lobbyist definition to capture former Members performing lobbying-related services even when they do not make direct lobbying contacts.