Campaign Finance

Once again, an elected official in the national eye took an opportunity to teach the public about government ethics and used it solely to distort government ethics and defend himself.

A very lengthy article in yesterday's News Journal looks at the history of relations between Delaware legislators and Christopher Tigani, formerly the top executive with Delaware's top liquor distributor. The article provides an instructive look at corporate and personal influence.

It is sometimes hard to see what campaign finance has to do with government ethics, that is, conflicts of interest. Campaign finance involves candidates getting elected, while conflicts of interest have to do with decisions made by elected officials. What they have in common is that both areas are intended to help officials act for the public interest rather than their own.

Monday evening, I learned about the serious consequences that can result from not giving ethics commission members a clear understanding of what government ethics is, and what it is not.

The occasion was the consideration by the Democracy Fund board, which oversees the public campaign financing program in New Haven, of a possible violation of the program's ordinance and regulations.

Sometimes, conflicts are built right into ethics laws, partly because it is in the political interest of those with conflicts, and partly because they don't even view those laws as ethics laws.

Reading the Supreme Court majority and dissent opinions in McComish v. Bennett (attached, see below; actually Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett at the Supreme Court level) is a very jarring experience that I highly recommend to anyone interested in government ethics. One opinion presents the world as we know it. The other opinion exists in a different world, a world without action and inaction on the part of legislative officials that can be tied directly to contributions in support of their campaigns.

As a postscript to the Jersey Sting, on Wednesday, according to a Justice Department press release, the former CFO and CEO of a company that reconditioned and sold athletic equipment to schools and universities were in

Last month, the Obama administration drafted an executive order that would require those seeking federal government contracts to disclose their political contributions, and those of their directors, officers, affiliates, and subsidiaries, made in the two years before they bid for a contract. This draft executive order has been the subject of a great and unusual controversy.

According to an article in the Billings Gazette last week, the Montana Political Practices Commissioner will have to step down from her position, because her nomination by the governor was not approved by the state legislature. Her office, which handles ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying matters, has jurisdiction over local elected officials.

This is a very serious blog post, but I want to start it with a game. Here are the headlines of stories that are said to be "related" to an article on the WLTX website yesterday relating to local government ethics in South Carolina:

• Naked Woman Creates Ruckus on Delta Flight
  
• Latest Forecast Update on Storm Potential