The first line of the Boston Herald ’s story about Elizabeth Warren’s introduction of the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act begins, “Warren will announce an ‘anti-corruption’ initiative tomorrow at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. – a move political operatives say looks like another blatant push toward a 2020 run.” (That would be a run for president.)

The Nation ’s opening sentence is, “Elizabeth Warren’s proposed sweeping anti-corruption legislation—which would, among other things, ban members of Congress and White House aides from owning individual stocks—has generated speculation about her plans for 2020.”

The Washington Post doesn’t mention such speculation until the fourth paragraph: “The speech also emphasized Warren’s clout at a time when Democratic bills have little chance of passage but media attention is beginning is beginning to turn to the 2020 presidential race. Reporters sprawled from chairs to the walls of a midsize room, including next to TV cameras that were capturing a six-part government reform agenda.”

Will she run or won’t she? Who knows. What’s clear is that Elizabeth Warren has long been a passionate advocate for shifting the power balance from corporations to consumers, from the abundantly wealthy to folks who work for a living, from richly paid lobbyists to voters stretching to make ends meet. This is a woman who has never forgotten her working-class roots.

The Anti-Corruption and Integrity Act isn’t a campaign ploy; it’s a timely expression of an enduring commitment.

The bill, as Senator Warren describes it, would:

• Padlock the Revolving Door and Increase Public Integrity by eliminating both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest; banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock; locking the government-to-lobbying revolving door; and eliminating “golden parachutes”.
• End Lobbying as We Know It by exposing all influence-peddling in Washington; banning foreign lobbying; banning lobbyists from donating to candidates and Members of Congress; strengthening congressional independence from lobbyists; and instituting a lifetime ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress, Presidents, and agency heads.
• End Corporate Capture of Public Interest Rules by requiring disclosure of funding or editorial conflicts of interest in rulemaking comments and studies; closing loopholes corporations exploit to tilt the rules in their favor and against the public interest; protecting agencies from corporate capture; establishing a new Office of Public Advocate to advocate for the public interest in the rulemaking process; and giving agencies the tools to implement strong rules that protect the public.
• Improve Judicial Integrity and Defend Access to Justice for All Americans by enhancing the integrity of the judicial branch; requiring the Supreme Court follow the ethics rules for all other federal judges; boosting the transparency of federal appellate courts through livestreaming audio of proceedings; and encouraging diversity on the federal bench.
• Strengthen Enforcement of Anti-Corruption, Ethics, and Public Integrity Laws by creating a new, independent anti-corruption agency dedicated to enforcing federal ethics laws and by expanding an independent and empowered Congressional ethics office insulated from Congressional politics.
• Boost Transparency in Government and Fix Federal Open Records Laws by requiring elected officials and candidates for federal office to disclose more financial and tax information; increasing disclosure of corporate money behind Washington lobbying; closing loopholes in federal open records laws; making federal contractors – including private prisons and immigration detention centers – comply with federal open records laws; and making Congress more transparent.

The sweep of these proposals is breathtaking. One is tempted to argue that they may go too far. Here are three reasons to push back on that notion.

First, there is a strong presumptive case for the proposals.

Consider one of the most far-reaching ideas: “banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock.” What if, for instance, a corporate titan decided to run for Congress? I am highly unlikely to be enamored of any such candidates, but my fellow citizens might beg to differ. If, say, Mark Zuckerberg decided he wanted to represent the Silicon Valley in Congress, or California in the U.S. Senate – should we insist that he give up his stock in Facebook in order to serve?

It only takes a moment’s thought to decide: Why, yes! This makes perfect sense if we want to root out corruption, self-dealing, and the failure to represent voters who can’t afford to contribute enough money to ensure ‘access’ and a respectful hearing from their Member of Congress. If the man’s ego or fortune is so closely tied to a corporate stock that divesting himself of it, and settling for investing in mutual funds (or another sound alternative), represents an obstacle to serving in Congress – then he should dismiss the idea of running for public office. He could never be expected to put aside his financial self-interest, or his pride of ownership, to focus on doing his job. The conflicts of interest would virtually ensure that he would forever be doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

And Zuckerberg isn’t the exception; he’s the rule.  Conflicts of interest – between the public good and individual self-interest – are at the heart of corruption in government. Money infects the process. We need tough rules to change this.

Getting rid of these conflicts is essential for responsive representation and meaningful democracy.

Second, the ‘goes too far’ argument looks much shakier when we look at where we are today.

The system is corrupt. Warren’s unforgiving vision is far and away better than the ugly situation we find ourselves in now.  Donald Trump was never serious about “Drain the swamp” (as he acknowledges in this video). He didn’t like the expression, had no interest in what it conveyed, but consistently got huge cheers whenever he said it. So he said it again and again. His voters – and not just fans of an outspoken woman representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate – recognized the endemic corruption in Washington.  With all our tribal divisions, with Red America on one side and Blue America on the other, this is something that Americans have in common: disdain for a corrupt political system.

Once in office Trump, of course, turned to crooks and grifters to staff the White House and fill his cabinet. That’s the ugly situation we find ourselves in. Deeper in the swamp than any time in memory.

In Warren’s words:

There’s no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. But they are not the cause of the rot — they’re just the biggest, stinkiest example of it.

Corruption is a form of public cancer, and Washington’s got it bad. It’s time for treatment, time to isolate and quarantine the ability of big money to infect the decisions made every day by every branch of our government.

This problem is enormous – but we’ve dealt with enormous problems before. We just need some big reform ideas and a willingness to fight for real change.

Finally, Warren’s proposals are a good place to begin the discussion. In an up or down vote in Congress today, this legislation wouldn’t come close to passing in either House (or getting a presidential signature). But – if there are Democratic majorities in the future (won with pledges to usher in reform), and a Democrat in the White House – then we can begin a discussion. That’s the first step. Whatever is deemed to ‘go too far’ can be trimmed back, if that’s what it takes to get something done.

There is general agreement – outside of Washington – that something needs to be done. There is little political will – inside Washington – to do anything. Elizabeth Warren just picked a fight on behalf of the folks on the outside.