When Public Service Leads to Private Profit, Does Democracy Suffer?

In 1953, Harry Truman left office with no source of income but his Army pension of $112.56 a month.  Nevertheless, he turned down lucrative private sector offers: “I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency," he said.

Seventy years later, that seems quaint.  Former presidents and other government figures accept lucrative book deals and often leverage their public service to garner large speaking fees and move into highly paid private sector jobs, both here and abroad.   

The nation didn’t start this way. Instead of selling his story when George Washington left office, he spent time correcting misspellings in his papers to protect his reputation.  John Adams never turned his presidency into a profit machine.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison died in serious debt. James Monroe was so poor that he moved in with his daughter after leaving office.  

Not until the Former Presidents Act of 1958 did Congress authorize financial support for them.  Its provisions include an annual pension equal to the pay for a Cabinet Secretary (over $220,000 today), funding for an official office and up to $1mllion annually for travel.

Yet former presidents have not followed Truman’s example.  According to figures compiled by American University, every president since Gerald Ford has seen their post-presidency net worth grow dramatically from pre-presidency levels.  As just one example, Barack and Michelle Obama garnered $65 million for a joint book deal in 2017.

This is all legal.  Former presidents and other officials may write, speak, sit on paid corporate boards and accept business employment.  What they write, say and do for pay may educate, entertain and otherwise benefit American society – but not necessarily always.  Yet Truman’s question lingers: is turning public service into private profit good for the dignity of public service and for American democracy? 

While some laws and rules apply, the more significant questions for former presidents, members of Congress, cabinet secretaries and high-level career civil servants involve ethics:

·       Does the prospect of future profit compromise their actions in office?

·       Does taking government-gained information into post-government opportunities give those organizations an unfair advantage over competitors – or access to information that could potentially harm U.S. interests – or the appearance of either?

·       Do their contacts within government enable easier and unfair access for their post-service employers to government decision makers?

·       Does post-government work that directly benefits from government service – and the appearance of trading on such service - lower Americans’ respect for government officials?  Sense of fairness?  Trust in government?

·       What happens to the appearance of impartiality in government decision making when the door keeps revolving – government workers moving back into government jobs after a stint in the private sector?

These questions also apply for those who served in uniform. Upon retirement in 1945, General George C. Marshall turned down million dollar offers to write his memoirs as well as lucrative private sector jobs. As Truman, he didn’t believe it right to profit from public service.

Recent reports from the Project on Government Oversight and the Washington Post reveal a different story today. Military veterans have worked for more than 50 foreign governments.  Since most can be called back into service, this raises questions about who they’re helping and how.  Formal waivers from government are required for such post-service positions, but almost all are routinely granted.  Sometimes former officers don’t even bother requesting them and, the Post noted, some officers “negotiated jobs with foreign government while they were still on active duty.”

Legislation alone can’t solve this problem.  Existing barriers are weak and even a proposed one, the Fighting Foreign Influence Act, would only prohibit lobbying for a foreign principal.

Yet if we value public servants who never compromise the public’s interest in their search for private profit – and the public’s faith that they will not do so - we must find ways to strengthen legal protections and remind them of their ethical obligations to the nation they served and still might in the future.

At the founding, upholding the honor associated with public service was an ethical imperative.  That’s why Alexander Hamilton chose to have his extra-marital affair disclosed rather than the public think he had mismanaged government funds.  Today, elected officials and civil servants are advised of their legal obligations on post-government employment but receive almost no education on the history and values of public service,  Nor are they presented with public service exemplars that serve as models of how to comport themselves after leaving government.  

Making former officials’ post-government work – and its connection to their government employment – more public and transparent would also help. The Project on Government Oversight/Washington Post reporting required lawsuits to get the information they were then able to report. 

America needs leaders driven by the desire not for wealth but an unblemished record of always putting the nation first.  We need officials who want to be honorable.  As Cicero said, “Honor is the reward of virtue.”  Those in public service should use that standard to guide their post-government lives.

Photo Credit: hcr-llc.com