• A core tenet of government ethics is that a government official must serve only “the public interest” (whatever that may mean), rather than self-interest.The "Two Masters" problem focuses on this basic rule.
• The term derives from Scripture: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6: 24 (KJV)
• Different systems address the Two Masters Problem differently. For example, in Classic Greece, we are told that the problem was solved by isolating public officials from the marketplace: “Plato provides an example in his work on Ancient Greece, The Republic [of] . . . the lives of the governing officials and rulers. The government gave them homes, food, and a living allowance. However, they were not given any salary and were forbidden from participating in any activities outside of government.” Jeff Green, “History of Conflicts Law,” 26 Hamline L. Rev. 555 (2003) (see Chapter 4)
• For lawyers, the Two Masters Problem is addressed in the Code of Professional Responsibility:

  [A] lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

• The Story of Government Ethics is the History of Reactions: Scandal & Reform Dynamic 
  • Evolution directly traceable to prior scandals in peace and war
  • Are ethics rules a one-way ratchet?
• Can we reverse ethics regulation if we determine a regulation does not work? (had thought no, at least legally)
• Legacy Issues -- Ethics rules enacted to deal with a particular scandal in the past can create unexpected problems or issues going forward
  • Why can’t we anticipate all ethics problems (scandals)?
• Problem of “weaponized ethics”
  • Does risk of “politicization” of ethics affect how ethics laws are enforced?  Should it? 

• Former WH Counsel: Government ethics “has really nothing to do with ethics or morality as one might learn it in church. It is more like math.”

      AB Culvahouse, in Mackenzie, “Scandal Proof” p. 68.

• In truth, government ethics regulation has elements of both “church” and “math”
  • Violation of ethical “norms” has moral connotations
• For example, the charge “that’s unethical” is not a purely legal judgment for most

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated." ― Martin Luther King Jr.

• Scandals that involve financial conflicts of interest are the dominant focus of government ethics regulation
  • Why are these “conflict of interest” scandals seen as more damaging to public trust in government than other types? Why focus on money?
  • What about ideological or “principled” conflicts of interest?
  • What about other conflicts (e.g., “deep state”)?
• The “Franchise” – a defining concept in many scandals
  • Teapot Dome Scandal
• Military Procurement Scandals
  • Boeing Tanker Scandal, Operation Ill Wind
• Form-driven process (ineveitable when the focus is on financial conflicts)

Even if one does not accept all aspects of current interpretations of Executive Branch authority, the requirement that the bureaucracy be responsive to elected officials is important to the legitimacy of the administrative state. Yet recent events suggest that this responsiveness is often attenuated, regardless of party in power. Political appointees are selected through opaque processes that many regard as inadequate to assure alignment with policy goals and inefficient in recruiting the best talent. If doctrine assumes a unitary executive, or something close to that, but practice reflects factionalism and capture, where does constitutional responsibility reside? A system of staffing the government must address these concerns.

In addition, various forces, including disparities in financial rewards, changing status, and generational differences in views on public service, challenge the ability of the government to staff important roles in the Executive Branch. The “war for talent” is not limited to the legal industry! The “Fifth Risk,” examined in the best-seller by Michael Lewis, identified dangers that may not be clear to the general public until there is a crisis. Any system of government ethics that prevents the government from recruiting “The Best and the Brightest” must be examined against the need for talent.