The ethics rules of the Minnesota State Senate limit conflicts of interest to instances where a bill would provide a financial benefit to a senator or his or her employer that is not shared by other similarly situated individuals or firms. This is a common standard. According to an article in today's Star Tribune, a Minnesota senator brought to the ethics committee two bills she had sponsored that some argued involved a conflict of interest. She works for a county sheriff’s office on the side, and the bills would help the office. But since they would help all sheriffs’ offices, the ethics committee found that there was no conflict. But is there any difference in the perception here? Does it seem any less questionable for someone to help out the industry she works for than to help the company she works for? Isn’t the special consideration to one’s employer the same either way? Click here to read the rest of this blog entry. And the senator wasn’t just voting for someone’s bill. She was sponsoring it. She was taking the initiative to help her employer. The fact that she was employed by a local government agency doesn’t make a difference. It would be the same if she worked for a realty office or a store. Either way, it helps the employer, and this is not only favoritism, it is also helping oneself. Because any reasonable employer will favor someone who gets them legislative help. Who needs a lobbyist when you’ve got a real live senator working for you! Whatever the ethics law may state, it is more appropriate for someone who does not work for a sheriff's office to sponsor bills dealing with issues that directly affect sheriffs. Robert Wechsler Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics ---