Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

New, Strict “Reverse” Revolving Door Restrictions in Pennsylvania?

By Kevin Glandon on October 16, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On October 15, Pennsylvania’s legislature sent House Bill 201 to Governor Tom Corbett for signature.  The legislation would prohibit a government employee from evaluating bids for state contracts submitted by his or her former employer for two years.

This legislation is interesting for a few reasons.  First, it is a twist on what are commonly known as “revolving door” restrictions.  Typically, revolving door restrictions limit the activities of former governmental officials.  For example, former government officials often may not advocate on behalf of their new employer in front of their former agencies or regarding matters in which they participated as a government official.  Many jurisdictions also impose restrictions based on financial interests.

Pennsylvania’s legislation is different in that it applies to new government employees who left the private sector, because it focuses specifically on state contracts, and because it is a straightforward ban on participation in evaluating proposals regardless of financial interest.

The restriction would also be harsher and would last twice as long as similar restrictions at the federal level that may require the recusal of a government employee from a matter involving a company at which the employee worked within the prior year.

Employers should keep an eye out for “reverse revolving door” rules of this kind, which are likely to sprout up in other states and localities.  When a company official leaves for public service, the company often seeks to determine whether the former employee’s new government position will impact operations.  Sometimes, compensation packages can be reconfigured or declined in order to avoid conflicts of interest down the road (for example, the federal executive branch has complex restrictions regarding government employees who have continuing financial interests in their former employers).  Pennsylvania’s law would effectively make that impossible.  The mere fact that an employee-employer relationship used to exist would be enough to mandate recusal.

Photo of Kevin Glandon Kevin Glandon

Kevin Glandon is an associate in the firm’s government affairs, litigation, and white collar defense and investigations practice groups.  Glandon advises a wide range of clients regarding the Federal Election Campaign Act and FEC regulations; state and SEC pay-to-play restrictions; federal and state…

Kevin Glandon is an associate in the firm’s government affairs, litigation, and white collar defense and investigations practice groups.  Glandon advises a wide range of clients regarding the Federal Election Campaign Act and FEC regulations; state and SEC pay-to-play restrictions; federal and state campaign finance, gift, and lobbying laws; and U.S. House and Senate ethics rules.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    Inside Political Law
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo