Glenn Reynolds in USA Today proposes six bills for the new Republican Congress to pass, including this:

6. Institute a “revolving door” surtax on those who make more in post-government employment. Leave a Treasury job making $150,000 a year to take one in private industry paying $750,000, and you’ll pay 50% surtax on the $600,000 difference. Most of the increased pay is based on knowledge and connections you got while on Uncle Sam’s dime, so why shouldn’t Uncle Sam get a share? An Obama veto would be unpopular.

To the extent that many going through the revolving door are working as lobbyists or at least in the influence industry, does this interfere with First Amendment free speech and petition rights?  I explore the question in Lobbying, Rent-Seeking, and the Constitution (Stanford Law Review). I think Reynolds’ proposal would face a serious constitutional challenge, and I am kind of surprised that Reynolds, who I believe supports the Citizens United line of cases striking down campaign finance limits on First Amendment grounds, would support this.