3. Eliminate Private Benefits to Public Servants

When I first read the header for this, I had no idea what it was about. Are public employees receiving health care from WalMart? Are their pensions paid by Goldman Sachs? After reading, I discovered what was actually meant.

From http://www.the99declaration.org/eliminate_private_benefits_to_public_servances

The 99% of the American People demand the immediate prohibition of private benefits to all federal elected officials, staffers, public employees, officers, public servants, officials or their immediate family members. This prohibition includes an end to the corrupt “revolving door” in and out of our government. Elected and unelected public officials and their immediate families shall be banned from ever being employed by any corporation, lobbying firm, individual or business that the public official specifically regulated while in office.  No public employee, officer, official or their immediate family members shall own or hold any stock or shares in any corporation or other entity that the elected or unelected public official specifically regulated while in office until a full 5 years after their term or employment is completed. There shall be a complete lifetime ban on the acceptance of all gifts, services, money or thing of value, directly or indirectly, by any elected or appointed public official or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or any other entity that the public official was charged tospecifically regulate while he or she was in office.

What this seems to be saying is that I can't regulate the oil industry, then take a job with Exxon-Mobile. I can't oversee the banking regulations, then go work on Wall Street. I can't write a comprehensive law overwhelmingly benefiting the retail industry, then go be CFO of Macy's.
It also seems to be saying that I can't work in government, make all kinds of contacts and friends, and then come back as a lobbyist, using those contacts and friends to benefit my new company (and consequently, myself).
In general, I can get behind that.
The thing is, there is already a department in place to deal with these sorts of problems. The Office of Government Ethics (http://www.oge.gov/) oversees all ethics rules in the executive branch. They don't actually investigate allegations of violations, though you can report potential violations to them. They also don't cover the legislative or judicial branches. The Senate has the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House has the House Committee on Ethics. For some reason, complaints against Justices seem to be reported to the Clerk of whichever Circuit the judge belongs to.
So, we have an entire office that deals with the executive branch. Each branch has ethics laws already in place. Why don't we just strengthen and broaden the Office of Government Ethics? Make it all-inclusive. It seems a little strange to me that we're leaving ethics enforcement up to the individual branches. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, why aren't we letting it in this case?
I would support strengthening the OGE, reviewing current ethics law and guidelines to make sure that they make a good faith effort to eliminate the type of cronyism and "revolving door" politics that are alluded to above, and start holding government officials more accountable for ethics violations.