The Oregonian got it wrong on ethics reform
Kari Chisholm
On Wednesday, the Oregonian editorialized about ethics at the State Legislature. But they got it wrong on two counts -- first, they overlooked the extraordinary ethics reforms that DID happen in 2007; and second, their plea for more reforms goes too far and is too fuzzy.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm a big believer in ethics reform; back in January, I called on the Lege to make some big moves. But the Oregonian's editorialists just got it wrong. In short, they've got a Red Vines problem. (See below.)
First things first. With a dismissive wave of the hand ("The 2007 Legislature did pass some excellent ethics reforms."), the Oregonian completely ignored what happened in 2007.
Let's be clear. After sixteen years of GOP control in the House, the Legislature was an ethical mess. They'd gutted the watchdog agency, members of both parties were taking exorbitant gifts from lobbyists, and the revolving door was spinning fast. (Remember when Speaker Mark Simmons took a job as a lobbyist, before the session was over?)
Immediately upon taking control, the House Democrats moved to ban gifts right away. Over on the Senate side, the Democratic leaders proposed a broader ethics law for legislators.
The bill, carried on the floor by Speaker Jeff Merkley (that's rare), included the following provisions (quoting from an earlier BlueOregon post.)
A dedicated funding source for the Government Ethics Commission, so it won't get shorted by future legislatures.Online quarterly filing of lobbying expenditures and a requirement that lobbyists tell public officials when they're spent money on their behalf.
Boosts conflict-of-interest and expense-reimbursement reporting requirements on public officials and candidates.
An aggregate $50 limit on gifts of food, lodging and items of value to a public official from any one source in a year, if the person giving the gift has business before the public official’s board or agency.
The max penalty goes from $1000 to $5000, and candidates can't use campaign funds to pay the fines or their legal expenses.
Allows the creation of legal defense funds, but public officials can't fundraise for their own legal defense - nor can they use the funds for personal use.
An outright ban on gifts of entertainment, like sporting events or concerts.
A “revolving door” provision that prevents officials from leaving public service and immediately going to work for corporations with whom they previously negotiated contracts and business deals.
Prohibits legislators from being paid lobbyists for one full session after they leave office.
That all looks pretty good to me. Senate Bill 10, which is now state law, is tough, clear, and enforceable. But apparently not good enough for the Oregonian.
So, what is the O upset about? The "non-campaign" use of campaign funds. Which brings me to those Red Vines. Quoting the O:
Meanwhile, public records show that during this year's six-month session legislators spent more than $575,000 in campaign funds on such noncampaign items as airline tickets, housing, donations to other legislators, even boxes of See's Candies. This may be legal, but it's wrong.
I'll agree that legislators shouldn't be using campaign funds for personal purposes. But the examples the Oregonian cites are silly.
An airline ticket can certainly be a campaign expense. Let's say, for example, that you spent ten years working on Wall Street, now live in Oregon, and can do a fundraiser in New York. That airline ticket is a campaign expense. More prosaically, there are plenty of instances where it might be important (albeit expensive) to jump on a plane from Portland to Medford for a campaign event.
OK, but what about candy? This is just plain dumb. Just about every campaign office I've ever been in sports that Costco-sized tub of "Red Vines" licorice. It's cheap, it's fat-free, and it makes the volunteers happy. Yeah, it's not as sexy a campaign expense as, say, newspaper advertising - but it's still a legitimate campaign expense. Same for donuts, soda pop, pizza, even beer.
And meals? Same story: If you're asking someone for a $5000 contribution, it might be perfectly reasonable to make that ask over a $12 sandwich (or, even, a $50 steak.) That might seem a little shady to some purists, but it's not really any less ethical than 500 people in a hotel ballroom eating rubber chicken and listening to a pitch for campaign funds.
Here's my point: Yeah, legislators shouldn't spend campaign money for personal purposes. But not all meals, candy, donuts, and airline tickets are for purely personal purposes. There can be plenty of legitimate campaign (i.e. business) reasons to make those expenditures.
Not only that, but any reform that you do implement needs to be a bright-line rule. Some meals are OK, but some aren't? Sure -- but unless you're planning IRS-style investigative audits, that won't get you very far.
The Oregonian suggests that the Legislature should raise its own salaries to $40,000 and then ban these kinds of expenditures. While I'm certainly in favor of raising legislative salaries, this solution doesn't fit the problem. After all, we're talking about CAMPAIGN money. If we're going to ask candidates (not legislators) to personally pay for every campaign airline ticket, every campaign meal, and every bucket of Red Vines, we've got to have a better plan than "Oh, and a year from now, if you win, you'll get a few more bucks in salary." (And nevermind the discriminatory effect between high-income candidates and low-income candidates.)
The Oregonian got it wrong. It would seem that the editorial writers have never actually seen the working end of a campaign office. Or tried to use pizza to motivate a few volunteers to stay three more hours.
I'm all for tough ethics reform -- but I'm much more interested in shutting down the revolving door to the lobby, ending lavish gifts and trips to Maui, better and more transparent reporting, and tough but fair enforcement.
The Democrats in the Legislature deserve a lot of credit for making ethics reform a major priority in 2007. And the Oregonian should leave my Red Vines alone.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Aug 10, '07
What about this approach?
http://blog.onwardoregon.org/time-for-a-revolt-of-the-contributors/
Aug 10, '07
When Big Print throws ethics stones, it's from a Big Glass House. Remember Tom Hallman bribing his biggest-pension-criminal-in-the-nation source? What about the continuous advertiser favoritism? And the out-of-state billionaire owners from NY with their mob-Teamsters legacy?
Please. We need ethical conduct from Oregon public officials, but not the daily fish wrap's standard of conduct.
Not to worry. This stuff is made less important by the GOP pull-out from Oregon politics. Huh? Read it here, in The Oregonion.
Aug 10, '07
These are all excellent points - it would appear that like many journalists the oregonian writers have never been involve with the working end of a campaign. The FEC regulations invovling personal use ("conversion") of campaign funds are particularly effective and may serve as a model for Oregon - a model somewhat more informed than the position taken by the paper. Of course even those regs would be much more effective if they had a stronger enforcement body behind them.
It would appear that the Oregonian wanted to add it's voice to the national republican refrain of, "see, the democrats are as corrupt as we were" and slighting the real ethics work of the legislature while suggesting "reforms" so divorced from reality that they are certain never to be implement complements that message nicely.
Aug 10, '07
If the Oregonian's pathetic coverage of this issue offends you don't just post here send them a letter we can't just let them print whatever they want without accountability. that article was just a shameful attack on Dems, it was not journalism.
Aug 10, '07
Both the Oregonian editorial board and the 2007 Legislature got it wrong. Although recent ethics reforms are better than nothing, and personal use of campaign funds can be abused, nothing substantial will channge until we do serious campaign finance reform.
The issue that put ethics in the limelight was the booze lobby's Hawaiin junkets for legislators.
As Dan Meek pointed out in Willamette Week, there is nothing to stop elected officials from using campaign funds to go on junkets that will yield campaign contributions. In other words, ethics reforms do little while special interests can continue to hand out big bribes, er, contributions.
For the record, I support Red Vines for campaign workers, although fresh fruit would be preferable.
Aug 10, '07
Eric Hoffer offers keen insight into the characteristics of the Gold Over People party in his chapter titled "The Inordinately Selfish" from The True Believer.
"The inordinately selfish are particularly susceptible to frustration. The more selfish a person, the more poignant his disappointments. It is the inordinately selfish, therefore, who are likely to be the most persuasive champions of selflessness. The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it the service of some holy cause. And though it be a faith of love and humility they adopt, they can be neither loving or humble."
Because the GOP views selfishness as a personal virtue second only to the "service" of family values; its no wonder the Minnisses and Scotts are walking away from a new, more ethical government. Let's hope that Oregon Democrats won't become the things they condemn and facilitate the selfish Republican propensity to crucify well meaning, sometimes bumbling Progressives in a style reminiscent of Speaker of the House Jim Wright...
Aug 10, '07
Tom C: Yes, but if you look at the proposal I made to condition contributions on a candidate's promise to spend them for the current election race (and to return any excess) then the candidates would have to make the contribution seeking junkets during the campaign, not afterwards. Seems like a far different thing.
See http://blog.onwardoregon.org/time-for-a-revolt-of-the-contributors/ for a description
Aug 10, '07
George,
Tying campaign contributions to a specific election cycle could limit some of the present campaign abuses, but it does not break the connection between money contributed and policy enacted. Regardless of the protestations of elected officials, our government at all levels is bought and paid for. Requiring that it be bought one cycle at a time would make things somewhat less convenient for special interests, and it would limit the ability of party leaders to become power brokers, but I don't think it would weaken the influence of money to a great extent.
Also, especially as it applies to Oregon legislators, we don't need to make running and serving any more a strain on personal finances than it is already. We need to recapture democracy while allowing elected officials to "put food on their family." I don't want to punish politicians, I just want to free them from the undue influence of moneyed interests. However, legislators don't seem very interested in this, as substantive campaign finance reform never goes very far in Salem. I think this is what psychologists refer to as co-dependency.
Aug 10, '07
Tom, great second point there. If we want to encourage people who aren't fresh off a job as CEO somewhere and are trying to enter the political arena to jump in, there's gotta be a little leniency to allow them to live. Campaigning is a full-time job and you don't get a paycheck 'til you actually win something.
Also, I think often times in these situations everyone tries to pounce on what they believe is the best side of the issue in terms of getting political brownie points, and this often leads to a lack of sensibility.
Aug 10, '07
Adrian,
Yes, disgust with the system is too often generalized to the people involved. I know many elected officials and believe most [even some of the Republicans, ha ha] are decent human beings. Unfortunately, to succeed, you must play the game, and playing the game subordinates the interests of the people to the interests of those who fund the system. Privately, many officeholders will admit this, but publicly it sounds too much like they are admitting corruption to admit it, they take the position Senator Clinton did the other night: "I take money from lobbyists, but I don't listen to them." Of course, moneyed interests don't give their money if it does not get them something.
Aug 10, '07
Well, the Red Vines issue is sort of bogus. Oregon's bottom line on all of this, until corrupted by the Republicans, has always been transparency. If we can see it, then voters can use their collective judgment to determine if it is right or wrong. Only the Republican's try to find ways to obscure what we are looking at.
I personally don't care if campaign money is used for dinners, red vines, or trips to Hawaii on principal. But my candidate better not misuse the money I donate to him/her. So, if my candidate buys dinner for Carl Rove - that person might not be my candidate the next day. But if my candidate buys dinner for a disabled steel worker who can't afford insurance for his wife, I might donate more tomorrow.
Some ethical considerations are situational, no matter how hard we try to draw lines. So, leave it up to the voters, provided the voters get a look at all actions.
5:40 p.m.
Aug 10, '07
Is that Karl Rove's cousin?
;-P
8:34 p.m.
Aug 10, '07
I guess the Oregonian needs to come into a campaign headquarters sometime for more than just a quick interview and shot of people making calls and such.
They'd see the carload full of soda, water, snacks, meals, etc. that a campaign buys regularly. When we had big canvasses come up, or when things got real busy towards November, I was making regular trips to Costco. I'd come back with a car loaded with water, soda, bags of hard and chocolate candies, red vines, popcorn, granola bars, and more.
Those items made our volunteers happy, and a happy volunteer is a return volunteer. Plus they're going to be more effective if they're in a good mood, rather than bad.
10:08 p.m.
Aug 10, '07
Some ethical considerations are situational, no matter how hard we try to draw lines. So, leave it up to the voters, provided the voters get a look at all actions.
I agree, Steve. Transparency is critical.
Of course, transparency has just made a HUGE leap forward in 2007. Starting back on January 1, here's what's happening with contribution and expenditure reporting in Oregon:
All contributions and expenditures must be reported within 30 days of the transaction (7 days near the end of the election.) There are no longer any major reporting deadlines (quarterly or otherwise). Rather, C's and E's are reported as they happen. Campaigns have direct access to an online reporting system (called ORESTAR) which will mean that most transactions will be reported as they happen...
We'll see how it works.
Aug 10, '07
Transparency is necessary but not sufficient to safeguard democratic governance. The segment of the voting population that swings elections does not pay attention to details of campaign funding as do the politijunkies who consistently support one party or another. Swing voters, however, are exposed to the blizzard of political advertising that preceded each election - advertising paid for by big special interest contributors. Unless a big contribution comes from a pornographer or a convicted felon, it is not deemed newsworthy by most of the mainstream media.
Want to check this for yourself? Ask people, about the time ballots go out, for the top five funders of some of the candidates they will soon choose among. Unless you are in a nest of politijunkies, I doubt you will get many correct answers.
Aug 11, '07
I see three categories of concerns about use of campaign funds.
1) Using campaign funds to pay for fines and legal fees related to ethics violations.
SB 10 no longer allows for campaign dollars to be used for these costs of ethics violations. In addition, SB 10 no longer allows use of campaign funds for violations and legal fees related to personal use of campaign funds. I testified and lobbied for both these inclusions for the group I run, Democracy Reform Oregon, and was pleased that the final bill included these provisions.
When asked about the use of campaign funds issue by reporters, I keep pointing out these provisions in SB 10 but haven't seen them mentioned in any news articles yet.
Oh well... but this was the use of campaign funds topic with the greatest "policy nexus" with this legislative session's ethics bills.
2) The second category of use of campaign funds is paying for official related expenses with contributed dollars.
A recent Oregonian article focused its analysis of use of campaign funds during the legislative session. As with the discussion above about candy etc being appropriate campaign expenses, some of them are also valid expenses in running a legislative office.
But what legislators really need is enough dollars to run their offices and updated per diem expenses policies to reflect the fiscal realities of being a part-time citizen legislator.
I agree that legislative pay needs to be increased. But in addition, a more targeted way to reduce the pressure of using campaign funds to pay for travel and housing expenses, is to introduce what I call "rural fairness" elements into the reimbursement procedures. Per diem expense policies need to better reflect the differences in distances legislators need to travel both within their districts and to Salem.
Once those improvements are made, then tighter rules to ensure that campaign funds are paying for campaign expenses are in order. When talking with reporters about this I often asked what they would do if their newspaper wanted them to do a story that involved extensive travel, but didn't want to pay expenses. None of them seemed like they would be too happy about that, so why do we expect anything different from legislators?
3) Use of campaign funds for pass-throughs to other campaigns.
Both the Public Commission on the Legislature and Ethics Work Group of the Oregon Law Commission recommended "truth in advertising" limits on pass-throughs so a campaign donor had greater assurance that their contribution was being used by the candidate's campaign and not going to another candidate or issue campaign.
As a stand alone reform, however, this approach could be legally vulnerable. Even if these kinds of limits weren't questionable without amending the Oregon constitution, they could still run into problem in federal court. For example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had problems with pass-through limits in California when they weren't part of a bigger reform package and needed to prevent circumventing contribution limits.
So tighter rules on this category of use of campaign funds, need to be part of contribution limits. Indeed, last fall's Measure 47 included very strict limits on pass-throughs.
That leads to a final point - ethics and campaign finance reforms are not either-or propositions. Obviously both are needed.
In a perfect world the broad package of ethics reforms adopted by the 2007 legislature would be icing on a campaign finance reform cake. We don't live in a perfect world and what we got first is a very thick and rich ethics reform "icing".
In the wake of the split vote on Measures 46 and 47 last fall as well as divided opinion on these measures on Blue Oregon and similar blogs, that won't be easy. But campaign finance reform is a needed companion to the recently adopted ethics reforms in Oregon and in Washington,D.C.
10:41 a.m.
Aug 12, '07
When talking with reporters about this I often asked what they would do if their newspaper wanted them to do a story that involved extensive travel, but didn't want to pay expenses. None of them seemed like they would be too happy about that, so why do we expect anything different from legislators?>
That's a bit of a straw man, and ignores the extensive use of "campaign funds" not for "campaign expenses" but for everyday living expenses. Meals out, parking, aol accounts, flowers...y'know, the things regular folks pay for themselves.
I've no objection to direct campaign expenses, but campaign funds shouldn't be a slush fund for daily living expenses.
12:50 p.m.
Aug 12, '07
Meals out, parking, aol accounts, flowers...y'know, the things regular folks pay for themselves. I've no objection to direct campaign expenses, but campaign funds shouldn't be a slush fund for daily living expenses.
I agree, Frank.
That said, there are restaurant meals that are legit campaign expenses. There are parking fees that are legit campaign expenses. There are AOL accounts that are used for purely campaign reasons. And there are certainly flowers that are used for campaign (fundraising) reasons.
And if we're talking about "regular folks", I'd remind you that lots of business have good business reasons for some of these sorts of expenses -- and the IRS allows 'em to be deducted as the cost of doing business.
It seems to me that the Oregonian is looking for a one-size-fits-all rule here ("No candy!", "No airfare!") when the reality is much more complex. Frankly, the FEC's or the IRS's rules would work just fine here.
And oh yeah, that's already pretty much the State of Oregon's law. You already can't use campaign funds for personal expenses -- it's just that in their zeal, they're forgetting that some things that look personal are really for business (i.e. campaign) reasons.
Aug 13, '07
Again the focus of the recent Oregonian analysis of use of campaign funds wasn't during campaign season but during the legislative session. Especially for legislators traveling from afar if per diem expenses aren't adequate should we expect them to dip into their own pockets? That was my point regarding conversations with reporters... they wouldn't like to be asked to personally cover legitimate work related expenses for overnight lodging or meal costs incurred due to being on the road for an interview. Due to inadequate per diem allowances not covering office related expenses, some legislators turn to campaign funds. And just as during campaign season, some of those expenses may look personal but could be argued aren't. But the pressure to use campaign funds would be addressed with clear guides and adequate reimbursement for office related expenses.