March 3, 2008
Posted in Uncategorized on March 4th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment
Last Wednesday, the Utah State Senate passed two new laws intended to instill a sense of ethics in a legislature rated by national observers as one of the most loosely regulated in the nation. While many applaud this gesture by the Senate, it takes only a glance at the proposed legislation to see these actions for what they really are: hollow gestures.
SB156 would require that legislators now report gifts received if the value is greater than $25, moving that threshold down from the previous $50 mark. It does, however, exempt reporting requirements for events “to which the entire Legislature or even members of a committee, task force or party caucus are invited.” SB162 prohibits legislators from using campaign funds for personal expenses after they leave office.
In reality, what do these two pieces of legislation accomplish? Absolutely nothing. The bottom line on this matter is that you can’t force people to behave in an ethical manner. You can only expose them for unethical behavior and implement consequences.
True ethics reform in the Legislature should take the form of one very simple requirement: Every gift or campaign contribution is reported and the donor is listed, regardless of the value of the gift or contribution. Every campaign expense, likewise, should also be reported. The Legislature’s Web site should be updated every month with a report from every member as to what was contributed and what was spent. This should also apply to candidates seeking public office in Utah. No need for detailed campaign finance reports — simply submit the donations, the expenses and the bank statement. If the candidate or official uses cash for campaign-related purchases, submit the receipt. Cash contributions should be prohibited, as their source can’t be verified.
There shouldn’t be any restrictions on the source or amounts of contributions since all of that information becomes public. If a candidate or legislator is receiving huge sums of money from a source that has some sort of vested interest in a particular bit of legislation, the voters can determine whether or not they believe that candidate has behaved in an ethical manner. Being able to complete a report properly doesn’t make a person ethical, nor does the ability to find ways around the report.
Every law that we enact that adds to the unethical foundations currently in place only serves to further enhance that unethical base. Restrictions don’t create ethics, they create loopholes and legal technicalities. Ethics come from inside the person, and can only be judged by those to whom that candidate answers: the people.
If we scrap all of the outdated rules and operate in an environment of full and total disclosure, these types of issues can be completely avoided. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me if a corporation or special interest group gives legislators and candidates thousands or even millions of dollars, as long as I know who is donating that money and what their position is. I can make the decision for myself if I think that candidate or official has been “bought” — and will then take appropriate action at the ballot box.
We live in the Information Age, yet the old saying still holds true: knowledge is power. As long as the people know the source of the gifts, the amount doesn’t really matter.
Bob Henline is a Tooele resident and political activist. He can be reached at bob@nonpart.org.
