The spoils system in the US & NL: political patronage with rules

The American spoils system refers to the practice of awarding political appointments to individuals loyal to the ruling party or representing specific interests. As a patronage system, the spoils system dates back to the early 19th century. The term was introduced in 1832, reflecting a practice established in 1801 where government positions were filled by members of the winning party after elections. However, the Pendleton Act of 1883 largely abolished the system due to its apparent facilitation of corruption at the time. From then on, suitability became a key consideration.

Still, approximately 4,000 positions in the US federal government are estimated to be filled through political appointments. These range from cabinet posts and ambassadorships to high-level agency roles. Even the Federal Reserve could be affected, though experts argue that legislative changes would be necessary for that to happen. Proposals from the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 suggest significantly increasing the number of political appointments. In contrast, the system stands in opposition to countries like the Netherlands, where government positions are typically filled by career professionals from within the civil service.

The transition from the private sector to government

It is not uncommon in the US for CEOs, lawyers, or lobbyists to be invited to hold key positions within the government. The idea is that they bring expertise from the private sector to tackle complex economic and societal challenges. Ideally, candidates meet several requirements:

1. Disclosure of interests: candidates must disclose their financial interests and lobbying activities before assuming a government role, aiming to prevent conflicts of interest.
2. Lobbying restrictions: in some cases, candidates are required to halt lobbying activities or sever ties with companies they are associated with, as mandated by the Ethics in Government Act.
3. Confirmation process: many appointments require Senate approval, during which the candidate’s background, interests, and ethical conduct are scrutinized.

Conflict of interest

The close ties between business and government through the spoils system have long been a subject of debate. Many politically appointed experts previously worked as advocates for sectors they later oversee in policymaking. This brings the concept of the “revolving door” into focus: individuals frequently transition between the private and public sectors, amplifying both the actual and perceived influence of business on policy. That said, politically appointed experts may also come from other backgrounds, such as the judiciary, federal states, or NGOs.

In all cases, these close relationships can lead to conflicts of interest. US lobbying laws aim to mitigate this through measures like cooling-off periods and transparency requirements, such as lobbyist registration and disclosure of lobbying expenditures.

However, these rules are often seen as vulnerable, given loopholes and exceptions, along with individuals who believe they are exempt from the rules.

Advantages and disadvantages

The spoils system offers several advantages:

1. Expertise: external appointees bring practical experience and networks that can be useful for addressing complex issues, such as economic crises or technological innovation.
2. Policy implementation: political appointees often align with the incoming administration’s vision, facilitating the swift implementation of policy goals.
3. Flexibility: the system allows the sitting president to fill key roles with individuals actively supporting the administration’s priorities.

But the system also has drawbacks:

1. Conflict of interest: close ties between external appointees and their sectors can lead to policies that favor specific interests rather than the public good.
2. Lack of continuity: frequent personnel changes with new administrations can erode institutional knowledge within government organizations.
3. Erosion of meritocracy: the system encourages appointments based on loyalty or connections rather than qualifications and experience.

How does this work in the Netherlands?

In the Netherlands, mechanisms and rules regulate transitions into government. While political appointments and career shifts are much less common than in the US, formal and informal rules exist.

A) Members of Parliament (MPs)

MPs in the House of Representatives and the Senate may hold other roles alongside their parliamentary duties, but clear rules prevent conflicts of interest:

• Disclosure of secondary roles: MPs must publicly disclose secondary roles and financial interests (e.g., shares) in a register.
• Integrity rules: MPs may not make decisions or lobby on issues where they have a personal financial stake.
• No mandatory cooling-off period: unlike some US roles, MPs are not required to observe a “cooling-off period” when transitioning to or from lobbying positions.

B) Ministers and state secretaries

Ministers and state secretaries are subject to stricter rules:

• Severing business interests: during their term, they may not hold financial interests in sectors they regulate. They are typically required to sell shares or place their interests in a blind trust.
• Lobby ban after office: ministers and state secretaries are advised not to lobby their former ministries for at least two years after leaving office. However, this guideline is not yet legally binding, nor are there material sanctions.

C) Civil servants

Standard rules apply to civil servants transitioning to government:

• Integrity declaration: civil servants must adhere to a declaration of integrity and act in accordance with the Civil Service Code of Conduct.
• Avoiding conflicts of interest: civil servants may not draft policies or make decisions that result in direct personal gain.
• Cooling-off period: while not standard, certain high-ranking positions may require a cooling-off period before engaging in work for former employers.

Former politicians and senior civil servants transitioning to lobbying roles are closely monitored by the media and regulators, but binding regulations are limited. Public scrutiny often serves as a deterrent to rapid transitions.

Differences between the Netherlands and the US

• Number of political appointments: the US has approximately 4,000 political appointments, while the Netherlands limits political appointments to ministers, state secretaries, and political advisors/assistants.
• Cooling-off periods: the US often enforces strict cooling-off periods for former officials and lobbyists, while in the Netherlands, these are less formal and vary by case.
• Transparency: the US has an extensive system of lobby activity disclosure and oversight, while the Dutch system is less developed, though there are efforts to improve it.
• Conflict of interest: both countries have rules to prevent conflicts of interest, but the Netherlands relies more on trust and self-regulation, whereas the US employs explicit legal frameworks and ethics committees.

Conclusion

The American spoils system illustrates the delicate balance between leveraging external expertise and safeguarding government integrity. While political appointments offer benefits, they also pose risks related to potential conflicts of interest.

To strengthen public trust in government, it is crucial to critically evaluate the spoils system and, where necessary, enhance ethical guidelines and regulations. This is especially relevant if former President Trump’s proposal to substantially increase the number of political appointments becomes a reality. Only by maintaining transparency and accountability can the system contribute to balanced and effective decision-making that serves the public interest. Even a tech billionaire would recognize this from a mile away.