An interesting posting at Huffington Post addresses some of the unintended consequences of the new executive order on ethics. The main content of the article was apparently based off of interviews with "progressive" lobbyists, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity. "Lobbyists who for years have fought for workers' rights, environmental protection, human rights, pay-equity for women, consumer protection and other items on the Obama agenda have found the doors to the White House HR department slammed shut." Kelly Landis with Alliance for Justice said; "it would be unfortunate if the new landscape resulted in less advocacy from nonprofits on important issues." Some waivers have been made but, some interviewed commented that those were "high profile corporate exceptions." The rule allows for public interest waivers, which, "shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy."

The Huffington Post article asserts that the rule "ends up encouraging folks to lobby for corporate America. A corporate lobbyist often only lobbies Congress - and so wouldn't be banned from working for federal agencies - and often lobbies on very narrow pieces of legislation. Public interest advocates, by contrast, lobby much more broadly."

Perhaps those public interest advocates discussed in the article will feel better with this ethics update from the White House. "Because the rules are so stringent, it is important to have reasonable exceptions in case of exigency or when the public interest so demands." The update goes on to cite those who have praised the new ethics rules.

And recently, two more waivers have been made under the "public interest" exemption. The waivers were for Jocelyn Frye, director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, and Cecilia Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs in the executive office of the president. The update defends these waivers; "We took the rare step of granting the waivers [. . .] because of the importance of their respective positions and because of each woman's unequalled qualifications for her job."

Meanwhile, last week The Hill reported some inconsistencies; "A review by The Hill of staff announcements for the White House and other departments in the administration found about two dozen people who have registered to lobby in the past, some as late as last year, according to lobbying disclosure records."