The chasm that exists between the Democratic and Republican parties makes bipartisan cooperation fairly rare, especially on contentious issues. The more prominent members develop reputations as ideologues, the less likely they are to forge legislative partnerships.
With this in mind, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) might seem like the kind of lawmakers who’d struggle to find common ground. And yet, something interesting happened on Twitter yesterday, after the New York congresswoman highlighted a Public Citizen article on the former federal lawmakers who’ve become lobbyists or taken on related policy-influencing jobs.
“If you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn’t be allowed to turn right around&leverage your service for a lobbyist check,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “At minimum there should be a long wait period.”
A short time later, former Republican presidential candidate Cruz tweeted, “Here’s something I don’t say often: on this point, I AGREE with @AOC Indeed, I have long called for a LIFETIME BAN on former Members of Congress becoming lobbyists. The Swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation?”
The freshman Democrat replied “if you’re serious about a clean bill, then I’m down. Let’s make a deal.” She said if they can agree to legislation “with no partisan snuck-in clauses” then “I’ll co-lead the bill with you.”
“You’re on,” Cruz replied.
Soon after, their lobbying-reform proposal gained co-sponsors: Sen. Brian Schatz, a progressive Democrat from Hawaii, announced he’d partner with Cruz to make the bill bipartisan in the upper chamber, while Rep. Chip Roy, a conservative Republican from Texas, said he’d do the same with Ocasio-Cortez in the House.
For reform advocates, this all seemed quite encouraging. Indeed, it almost seemed theatrical — the sort of developments we might see in a “West Wing”-like television show.
But as the back-and-forth unfolded, seven words lurked overhead like a storm cloud:
Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader.
To be sure, there are other reasons for some skepticism. For one thing, the bill would need the support of politicians who may not be eager to rule out lucrative future employment opportunities. It’d be a tough lift.









