In the N & O today, their editorial
makes a point that the ethics problems with the legislature are not
primarily with lobbyists but with the legislators that don’t say no to
certain benefits: legislators should promise “not to accept campaign
contributions from lobbyists, not to allow lobbyists to raise money for
them, not to attend high-dollar functions sponsored by special-interest
groups.”
They then go on to discuss how legislators are “wined
and dined.” There is a big difference between lobbyists providing
contributions and legislators going to high dollar functions (which
doesn’t mean the legislators get high dollars) and being “wined
and dined.” If we are talking about gift bans, then that is
fine. Legislators however should be able to receive contributions
from lobbyists, go to high dollar functions, and be allowed to receive
money raised from lobbyists in most situations.
The real problem isn’t that the legislators can’t say no to
these goodies, as the N & O argues–the problem is that to “play
ball” the legislators demand that lobbyists provide these
goodies. This is a big difference. Again, as I have said
before, the issue is not about money, it is about power. When
power rests with so few, as it does in the state legislature, power is
so concentrated that it becomes a bidding war in a sense to get the
attention of those with power. Spread the power so that it really
is a legislature, not an oligarchy, and lobbyists have to actually win
the support of numerous legislators, not just a few.
The N
& O then criticizes Rep. Stam for doing a horrible thing:
protecting the First Amendment. The nerve of this guy! Stam had a bill amended so that lobbyists should be able to
provide contributions and raise money for a candidate. From the
editorial:
“Stam is worried about constitutional free speech protections.
Not that those protections aren’t important, but the refrain has become
all too familiar whenever any proposed limit on campaign fund-raising
comes up, even though limits on individual contributions already are in
effect.”
Yes, the refrain does come up every time because, let me
say this clearly: it violates the First Amendment! As for
contribution limits being in effect, yes, that is true, but so
what? Limits are o.k., according to the U.S. Supreme Court
(which I disagree with), but as they just made clear again this week in
Randall v. Sorrell, bans on contributions are not o.k. and neither are excessive limits on contributions.
If we want real reform and possibly legislative ethics, change the
legislative rules–let’s do that before we force taxpayers to subsidize
candidates and speech they oppose (taxpayer financing of elections),
create systems to help incumbents (again, taxpayer financing of
elections), or to violate First Amendment rights (yes, again, taxpayer
financing and some of the proposed restrictions on lobbyists).
Of course, that would mean legislators would have to give up power: I wonder which alternatives will win out?
