Some congressional staffers leave public service to make small fortunes lobbying their old institution. Most lobby in a professional manner, but a few view their former colleagues as pawns in their own enrichment schemes. A reasonable cooling-off period before direct lobbying can begin is warranted, if for no other reason than to indicate that there is a boundary between working for Congress and trying to influence it from the outside.

But setting the barrier too high will drive dedicated, seasoned people out of government, keep knowledgeable private-sector people from ever entering public service, and leave policymaking in the hands of the young and the sycophantic.

Members of Congress value personal loyalty, often above all other qualities. To get elected, you have to go through a war — a campaign. Your compatriots in battle are young loyalists who come from your district, work long hours, and were with you even when no one else believed in you. These people come to Washington after the campaign and work in Congress, as well they should. But the challenge of any new congressional office is to integrate the young campaign staff with people who have Washington experience.

The campaign and Congress are very different animals. The campaign is rapid-fire and surface-deep, and treats public-policy issues as sound bites. Congressional work, especially committee work, is complex and specialized.

Some new offices never really get it and hope that on-the-job training will bring their staffs up to snuff. Or offices are run like a campaign, with lots of press releases and letters, but little serious policy work.

Most offices, however, eventually find ways to bring in people with congressional experience, often former staffers now in the private sector who want to return to the Hill.

The Abramoff scandal exposed examples of former staffers getting favors from old bosses. But it also revealed a 23-year-old chief of staff who looked the other way when his boss was putting poker chips in the safe. A young and inexperienced staff is often more easily pressured, eager to please, or completely clueless about ethics regulations. It is often incapable of standing up to an unscrupulous boss or pushy lobbyist.

We need staffers in Congress with experience, staffers who — despite kids, a mortgage and other responsibilities — are willing to take a pay cut to come back to senior positions on the Hill. These people will never come back to Congress if they know that at the end of their service there are very stringent restrictions on their ability to lobby.

And don’t forget how fragile congressional employment is. Staffers have found themselves suddenly out of a job because their member dies, is caught up in scandal, or switches parties. Chairmanships and congressional majorities switch and jobs are lost. With that kind of job insecurity, an experienced person has to think twice about working for Congress; some quirk of fate could end his job, after all, and he would be prevented from going back to his old line of work.

Current law requires a reasonable one-year cooling-off period for senior staff.  Early in the 110th, some proposed a two-year period — and that had experienced staffers looking to get out before the law took effect.

The revolving door is a handy metaphor for those who worry about private-sector interests becoming too cozy with members of Congress. But a Congress that attracts experienced people is one better able to carry out the people’s will and withstand the pressures from the outside.

Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.