By: Randy Evans
Comprehensive ethics reform is never an easy process, and Georgia is certainly no exception. Yet, House Speaker David Ralston has promised it; Sen. Josh McKoon has pushed it; and Gov. Nathan Deal supports it. Ethics reform will come again to Georgia in 2013.
With that said, ethics reform is a tricky business. On the one hand, to be effective, ethics rules must leave little room for manipulation by unscrupulous politicians intent on profiteering from their position of trust. On the other hand, overly legalistic rules can serve as traps for unwary honest elected officials travelling through partisan political minefields closely monitored by political operatives eager to capitalize on any technical “ethical” misstep.
Typically, ethics reform comes on the heels of scandals that rock institutional power and overthrow political majorities. Two cases in point occurred in 1994 and 2006, when ethics scandals provided the catalysts for historic losses for Democrats and Republicans in the U. S. House of Representatives, respectively.
Yet, while there have been some intermittent ethical miscues by some state legislators, there have not been scandals of such stature as to make ethics reform unavoidable or the necessary consequence of a system out of control. Instead, ethics reform in the Georgia General Assembly appears to be the product of the growth of a majority party intent on avoiding the mistakes of the past while protecting the process for the future.
Having participated in drafting and redrafting comprehensive ethics packages from the lowest levels of government to the U.S. Congress, one thing is clear: legislated ethics can become little more than a lawyer full-employment bill with little positive impact on ethics and significant negative consequences on public service. Hyper-technical rules aimed at defining every prohibited behavior are little more than lawyers’ best friends.
Gift bans are a good example. Banning every gift will be about as effective as posting a 55 mph speed limit on I-285. Everyone knows it is the law, but no one takes it seriously. Inevitably, the exceptions (for families, friends, long-standing acquaintances, etc.) end up swallowing the rule. This is largely what has happened in Washington, D.C.On the other hand, gift disclosures are quite effective. There is no more effective tool for assuring honesty and integrity than full disclosure for every voter (and political opponent) to see. Full transparency eliminates the need for fine distinctions among gift-givers while permitting every voter to serve as private inspectors-general holding politicians accountable for the gifts they receive.
Of course, elected officials are not the only ones who must be held accountable. Gift-givers must also face consequences. Politicians can face the wrath of voters. Lobbyists must face penalties of a different sort. These can include fines, penalties and privileges.
While gifts are headline-grabbers, conflicts of interest are a far more serious issue. Elected officials participating in decisions in which they have a personal or financial interest present a far greater threat to the electoral process. Georgia already has a direct prohibition against regulated entities donating to those who regulate them. When conflicts exist, disclosure alone is not enough. Tougher rules are required with significant penalties to deter violations, and severe penalties to deal with repeat offenders.
Finally, to be effective, there must be a mechanism for enforcing the rules. This means an entity with sufficient resources, authority and jurisdiction to detect, investigate and sanction violations of the rules. All bark and no bite does not do the trick.
As the Congress and other states have learned, ineffective ethics enforcement creates a vacuum which criminal law enforcement agencies like the Department of Justice are left to fill. Unfortunately, the tendency by some law enforcement agencies is to fill the vacuum through relaxed interpretations of bribery statutes to cast a broader net to police unregulated problems through extraordinary measures.
Public scrutiny, when based on accurate and timely information, is and remains the most effective deterrent and policing mechanism for would-be abusers of the system. But that is not enough.
Effective ethics reform requires simple and easy reporting of violations; enhanced disclosure requirements for gifts and conflicts of interest; better transparency through the use of technology and the Internet; and meaningful oversight jurisdiction with sufficient resources to enforce the rules against those who refuse to follow the rules.
Anything less is just cosmetics.