So many potential conflicts, so little time

Today's NYT traces the "tangle of ties" between several transition members and lobbyists.  Although this isn't the main point of the piece, it raises the question why one would draw the line at lobbyists.  What about a corporate lawyer who has spent years advocating on behalf of corporate clients?  There's little reason to think someone in that position is less likely than a lobbyist to continue advancing the same pro-corporate positions.  And what about a corporate executive?  Why should a telecom lobbyist be prohibiting from working on Obama's FCC policy or appointments, but not an executive of one of the lobbyist's telecom clients?

Rules like "no lobbyists" or "no lobbyists working on the issues on which the lobbied" aren't sufficient.  The problem we've heard about the most is that, like most rules, the Obama policy is overinclusive -- barring the service of some knowledgeable, smart, uncompromised individuals.  That's unfortunate, but it's a price most of us are willing to pay for a government far less compromised by special interests.  And surely there are other good candidates to take the places of individuals who can't serve, so the price really falls only on these few unlucky individuals -- not on the nation at large.

The greater problem is that, like most rules, the policy is underinclusive.  That's why it's important for all of us to keep an eye on Obama's transition and appointments.