You are here
Ethics Advice and the Importance of Being a Daddy's Boy
Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Update: June 30, 2011 (see below)
One thing you can say for James Bopp, Jr. (an attorney who has taken many campaign finance cases to the Supreme Court for organizations that oppose certain campaign finance regulations) is that he doesn't beat around the bush. He's a straight shooter. The problem is the "shooter" part. Shooting is not what people should do when it comes to ethics advice.
According to an NPR feature that ran today, Bopp scoffed at Democrats who are waiting for a response from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) before setting up a Super PAC for which candidates may solicit contributions. A Super PAC is a political committee with no contribution limits that spends its money independently to support candidates and attack their opponents. It is problematic for a candidate to solicit funds for an organization that is supposedly independent of his campaign. If nothing else, it sends a confusing message to contributors and to the public.
The feature quotes Bopp as scoffing, "[The Democrats] want to get the FEC's permission as if you go to Daddy and ask for permission."
That, unfortunately, is the attitude of too many arrogant politicians, and their attorneys. They act as if it was childish to ask for advice from those whose job it is to provide the advice. Better to just go ahead, and if someone wants to sue you, then fine (at least if you have lots of rich friends or your government will pick up the tab). It might cost government thousands of times what the advice would have cost, but it's clear that these politicians and attorneys couldn't care less about government waste. After all, if you've got the bull-ahead attitude, it's only waste when they sue you and a court says it's waste. Otherwise, it's doing what you can get away with.
It's true that, later on, Bopp put it different: "You have to hire a big-time Washington lawyer, or a big-time Terre Haute lawyer [which is what he is], and spend a whole bunch of money to find out whether or not the government's going to give you permission to talk about the government."
How is having candidates use their power and position to raise money for what are supposedly independent organizations "talking about the government"? This is equally arrogant, because he's already decided that he's right.
I administer a public campaign financing program in New Haven, CT, and I emphasize in my training sessions with campaign committees that the most important thing to do is ask me if you have any questions. If you ask, the answer may be No, but if the answer is Yes, which it usually is, you're protected. If you don't ask about something that seems problematic, you're asking for trouble.
And trouble is exactly what people like Bopp and his clients want. They don't want to act responsibly, they want to cause trouble. And they want to do it now, when they have so many like-minded individuals sitting on courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bopp and his clients should not be role models for government officials. Unlike Bopp, government officials have obligations to something and someone other than self-interest and ideology. Among other things, they have an obligation to try to follow the law as it stands, not dare law enforcers to come after them.
And yet there are many government officials who share the Bopp attitude. They do what they want to do, and then if they're caught, they do what they can to evade enforcement, even to the point of suing the law enforcers themselves.
Bopp is the one who's childish, or at least teenaged. He's the one who thinks he's right and the parental government is wrong to even require him to seek approval. He's the one who takes the car keys and dares Dad to ground him, all the time shouting what a dictator Daddy is.
There is nothing more important in government ethics than asking for ethics advice from an ethics officer or commission or staff member assigned to the task. If I was told I could only have one ethics provision, that's the one I would choose. Call me a Daddy's boy.
Update: June 30, 2011
According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, the FEC made a decision today on the Democrats' request to "Daddy." The FEC unanimously said that candidates, elected officials, and party committees can solicit money for Super PACs only up to the $5,000 contribution limit for ordinary PACs, and not from unions or corporations.
This was considered a victory for the soft money restrictions in the McCain-Finegold Act, but Bopp saw it different. According to the article, "Bopp said any promotion of the PAC by a candidate or officeholder would have a disclaimer that the request was only for up to $5,000 for individuals. 'But donors are free to contribute all they want,' he said. 'This disclaimer is completely meaningless.'"
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
One thing you can say for James Bopp, Jr. (an attorney who has taken many campaign finance cases to the Supreme Court for organizations that oppose certain campaign finance regulations) is that he doesn't beat around the bush. He's a straight shooter. The problem is the "shooter" part. Shooting is not what people should do when it comes to ethics advice.
According to an NPR feature that ran today, Bopp scoffed at Democrats who are waiting for a response from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) before setting up a Super PAC for which candidates may solicit contributions. A Super PAC is a political committee with no contribution limits that spends its money independently to support candidates and attack their opponents. It is problematic for a candidate to solicit funds for an organization that is supposedly independent of his campaign. If nothing else, it sends a confusing message to contributors and to the public.
The feature quotes Bopp as scoffing, "[The Democrats] want to get the FEC's permission as if you go to Daddy and ask for permission."
That, unfortunately, is the attitude of too many arrogant politicians, and their attorneys. They act as if it was childish to ask for advice from those whose job it is to provide the advice. Better to just go ahead, and if someone wants to sue you, then fine (at least if you have lots of rich friends or your government will pick up the tab). It might cost government thousands of times what the advice would have cost, but it's clear that these politicians and attorneys couldn't care less about government waste. After all, if you've got the bull-ahead attitude, it's only waste when they sue you and a court says it's waste. Otherwise, it's doing what you can get away with.
It's true that, later on, Bopp put it different: "You have to hire a big-time Washington lawyer, or a big-time Terre Haute lawyer [which is what he is], and spend a whole bunch of money to find out whether or not the government's going to give you permission to talk about the government."
How is having candidates use their power and position to raise money for what are supposedly independent organizations "talking about the government"? This is equally arrogant, because he's already decided that he's right.
I administer a public campaign financing program in New Haven, CT, and I emphasize in my training sessions with campaign committees that the most important thing to do is ask me if you have any questions. If you ask, the answer may be No, but if the answer is Yes, which it usually is, you're protected. If you don't ask about something that seems problematic, you're asking for trouble.
And trouble is exactly what people like Bopp and his clients want. They don't want to act responsibly, they want to cause trouble. And they want to do it now, when they have so many like-minded individuals sitting on courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bopp and his clients should not be role models for government officials. Unlike Bopp, government officials have obligations to something and someone other than self-interest and ideology. Among other things, they have an obligation to try to follow the law as it stands, not dare law enforcers to come after them.
And yet there are many government officials who share the Bopp attitude. They do what they want to do, and then if they're caught, they do what they can to evade enforcement, even to the point of suing the law enforcers themselves.
Bopp is the one who's childish, or at least teenaged. He's the one who thinks he's right and the parental government is wrong to even require him to seek approval. He's the one who takes the car keys and dares Dad to ground him, all the time shouting what a dictator Daddy is.
There is nothing more important in government ethics than asking for ethics advice from an ethics officer or commission or staff member assigned to the task. If I was told I could only have one ethics provision, that's the one I would choose. Call me a Daddy's boy.
Update: June 30, 2011
According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, the FEC made a decision today on the Democrats' request to "Daddy." The FEC unanimously said that candidates, elected officials, and party committees can solicit money for Super PACs only up to the $5,000 contribution limit for ordinary PACs, and not from unions or corporations.
This was considered a victory for the soft money restrictions in the McCain-Finegold Act, but Bopp saw it different. According to the article, "Bopp said any promotion of the PAC by a candidate or officeholder would have a disclaimer that the request was only for up to $5,000 for individuals. 'But donors are free to contribute all they want,' he said. 'This disclaimer is completely meaningless.'"
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
