Ethics in government sounds oxymoronic, but it's a start...
from the Daily Camera
Cleaner government
Not just a good idea; it should be the law
October 18, 2006
If the new statewide government-ethics law wins in November, the story
goes, deserving children of University of Colorado employees will be
unable to accept scholarships. Injured firefighters won't be eligible
for charitable assistance.
That sounds incredible. And it is. Amendment 41 would not impose
outlandish standards on public officials. It would, however, obstruct
the mutual backscratching that now permeates politics.
Last year, Colorado's 35 state senators received $41,102 in gifts, or
more than $1,170 apiece, reports Coloradans for Clean Government,
which backs 41. Also in 2005, the state's 65 state representatives
accepted $102,333 in gifts, or more than $1,570 apiece. Gov. Bill
Owens, the most lavishly showered public servant, accepted $57,102 in
gifts.
The gifts include tickets to college and professional sporting events,
tickets to entertainment events ranging from Elton John to "The
Phantom of the Opera," ski-lift tickets and resort lodging, whitewater
rafting trips and even an IBM Pocket PC.
Then there was travel: more than $35,000 in travel was given to
lawmakers in junkets to Israel, Prague, China, Vancouver and Ottawa,
Canada. Recall that the recipients are state legislators.
Such gifts are not for any old Shmoe. They are bestowed on public
officials for a specific purpose: influence. Lobbyists and their
employers make strategic investments (gifts) in hopes of a favorable
outcome (legislation).
Lobbying is big business, bigger in Colorado than elsewhere. Lobbyists
in Colorado have been paid $170 million in the last decade to
influence state legislation. The pharmaceutical industry alone spent
$475,000 on Colorado lobbyists in 2003-04.
Colorado has the fourth-highest ratio of lobbyists per legislator . 11
per legislator, compared with 5 per pol in the average state. As
Coloradans for Clean Government notes, Colorado has more registered
lobbyists than does California, whose population is almost eight times
larger.
This concentration of lobbyists might reflect the scarcity of rules
here. Colorado places no limits on lobbyists' gifts to public
officials. Twenty six other states, including California, limit or
completely ban gifts from lobbyists.
Amendment 41 would also prohibit those holding statewide elected
office from becoming paid lobbyists in Colorado within two years of
leaving office. This "revolving door" provision would shield lawmakers
from undue influence from prospective employers. That would help to
ensure that legislative votes are based, as much as possible, on the
interests of constituents.
It is true, as detractors note, that Amendment 41 does not confine
itself to legislative rectitude. It also applies to a host of
rank-and-file government officials. This fact opens the door to the
spooky rhetoric about illegal scholarships and banned aid to injured
firefighters.
But Amendment 41 explicitly excludes such fantastical results. The
measure would ban only "an effort to realize personal financial gain
through public office." If your kid wins a scholarship based on her
brains or need, fine. If a charity supports an injured firefighter,
terrific.
But what about a restaurateur who sends theater tickets to the local
health inspector? That would be banned, as it should be. An
independent, bipartisan ethics commission would consider complaints
and could dismiss frivolous complaints (about, say, scholarships)
without a hearing.
The opponents of Amendment 41 talk a scary line. But ethics laws and
ordinances are usually preceded by such sky-is-falling piffle. We can
only guess what motivates the opponents. But we can examine the facts
behind the screen of their words.
Amendment 41 should alarm only those who find cleaner government
frightening. For the rest of us, it's a good idea.
