You are here
The Effect of a State's Ethics Environment on Local Governments' Ethics Environments
Friday, April 17th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
One of the principal reasons I have focused my energies on local
government ethics is that most people learn their government ethics at
the local level. What they see people doing on councils and zoning
boards, they do on state legislatures and commissions, and then again
at the federal level.
But things go the other way, as well. Disdain for government ethics at the state level can affect the ethics environments of that state's local governments. This appears to be happening in Missouri.
I've written three times this year about the ethical mess in Jackson County (1 2 3). Could this mess have anything to do with the circumstances that have led the FBI to be nosing around the state capitol, Jefferson City (according to an article in yesterday's Kansas City Star)? The allegations appear to involve pay-to-play in the legislature. It also has come out that an important legislative aide to the House Speaker is running a political consulting business on the side.
The House Speaker is refreshingly frank about his interest in ethics. According to the Star, he "said Thursday he wasn’t interested in additional ethics reform. A bill passed last year removing campaign contribution limits achieved all the goals he had set. 'I’m happy with the legislation that we passed,' Richard said. 'I’m working on health care and taxes. I’m trying to get jobs in Missouri…I’m not going (back) to ethics.'"
When the House Speaker's goal is removing campaign contribution limits, you know you've got some serious ethical problems in the state house. According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, only five states (including Missouri) do not have contribution limits, and it looks as if Illinois will be making it four later this year.
When there were contribution limits in Missouri, according to a recent Star editorial (pay only), the big contributors circumvented them by giving unlimited funds to the parties, which could pass them on to candidates without disclosing the source. Instead of removing this problem, the legislature removed the contribution limits. So now there's no need for circumvention, as long as you don't mind your contributions being public.
Things are even worse in Jefferson City when it comes to lobbyists. Legislators are permitted to work for lobbyists and even work on bills of interest to them, according to the Star editorial.
With this ethics environment, it's no wonder the FBI has a lot to investigate. And it's no wonder that county and municipal officials believe that anything goes.
I'll end this blog entry with the words of Jake Zimmerman, a state rep who co-sponsored several ethics bills stalled in committee: “The best hope for real ethics reform this session is ink. Lots and lots of ink.”
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
But things go the other way, as well. Disdain for government ethics at the state level can affect the ethics environments of that state's local governments. This appears to be happening in Missouri.
I've written three times this year about the ethical mess in Jackson County (1 2 3). Could this mess have anything to do with the circumstances that have led the FBI to be nosing around the state capitol, Jefferson City (according to an article in yesterday's Kansas City Star)? The allegations appear to involve pay-to-play in the legislature. It also has come out that an important legislative aide to the House Speaker is running a political consulting business on the side.
The House Speaker is refreshingly frank about his interest in ethics. According to the Star, he "said Thursday he wasn’t interested in additional ethics reform. A bill passed last year removing campaign contribution limits achieved all the goals he had set. 'I’m happy with the legislation that we passed,' Richard said. 'I’m working on health care and taxes. I’m trying to get jobs in Missouri…I’m not going (back) to ethics.'"
When the House Speaker's goal is removing campaign contribution limits, you know you've got some serious ethical problems in the state house. According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, only five states (including Missouri) do not have contribution limits, and it looks as if Illinois will be making it four later this year.
When there were contribution limits in Missouri, according to a recent Star editorial (pay only), the big contributors circumvented them by giving unlimited funds to the parties, which could pass them on to candidates without disclosing the source. Instead of removing this problem, the legislature removed the contribution limits. So now there's no need for circumvention, as long as you don't mind your contributions being public.
Things are even worse in Jefferson City when it comes to lobbyists. Legislators are permitted to work for lobbyists and even work on bills of interest to them, according to the Star editorial.
With this ethics environment, it's no wonder the FBI has a lot to investigate. And it's no wonder that county and municipal officials believe that anything goes.
I'll end this blog entry with the words of Jake Zimmerman, a state rep who co-sponsored several ethics bills stalled in committee: “The best hope for real ethics reform this session is ink. Lots and lots of ink.”
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
