CA Gov. Brown Points to 50-Year-Old Essay To Defend His Veto of Ethics Reforms
This week, California governor Jerry Brown had to go back fifty
years to find someone who agreed with his view of government ethics
reform. According to <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26635094/california-becomes-fi…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the San Diego <i>Mercury-News</i></a><i>,</i> in
vetoing ethics reforms that "sought to limit the types of gifts
politicians can accept and force lawmakers to disclose the names of
groups that bankroll their travel junkets," Brown "referred
lawmakers to an article written by one of his former law professors
[Bayless Manning] that was published by the <i>Federal Bar Journal</i>
in 1964: "The Purity Potlatch: An Essay on Conflicts of Interest,
American Government and Moral Escalation." According to the article,
the essay "argued that there was no evidence that new ethics rules
imposed at the time were having any effect on public officials'
conduct."<br>
<br>
I could not find Manning's essay online, or the book based on it,
but I did discover that it has been cited primarily by those opposed
to conflicts of interest laws and programs. It is difficult to show
the effects of ethics laws on officials' conduct, and American
academics have made little effort to investigate this question. In
any event, ethics laws in the 1960s were minimal, and their
enforcement was even less. How effective they may or may not have
been has little to do with the reforms that Brown vetoed.<br>
<br>
From the quotes from and references to Manning's essay that I have
found online, the principal problem with the essay appears to be that it seeks
to condemn government ethics laws and programs rather than to call for
educating people about how ethics programs can be most fairly and
effectively administered. For example, he wrote, "In the public
mind, to receive a gift or have a conflict of interest has by now
been equated with venality; a government official in a position of
conflicting interests is a kind of crook." This says nothing about
ethics laws or programs, except to the extent some laws wrongly make it
illegal to have a conflict of interest or have gift provisions that
apply beyond restricted sources. What it does say is that ethics
laws need to be drafted with input by those who understand government ethics
and that they need to be administered by independent professionals
who can gain the public's trust.<br>
<br>
As for gifts (Brown vetoed a reduction in the limit on gifts
that could be accepted by Californa officials), it is impossible to
expect any ordinary citizen to find the acceptance of gifts from
those seeking special benefits from government as anything less than
venal. This has nothing to do with poor laws or media-created
scandals. <br>
<br>
It's interesting that Manning uses the term "potlatch" in the title
of his book. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch" target="”_blank”">According to Wikipedia</a>, this gift-giving feast among
certain native American tribes was, like politics, mostly about
power, face, and the reciprocity of giving. And like politics in
recent years, after the coming of the white man the gift giving in
potlatches became inflated and, therefore, harmful. Like political
gift giving, the potlatch was made illegal, but for different reasons: because it was
considered wasteful, uncivilized, and unChristian. Laws against the
acceptance of gifts by government officials go back even further in
time, to the founding of the U.S. Restrictions and prosecutions
relating to gifts have expanded over the last few decades, as
government potlatches have been increasingly seen as inappropriate
and unethical, because they go against the idea of government
officials as fiduciaries who are supposed to consider only the
public good.<br>
<br>
The problem with this increase of restrictions and enforcement is
that the focus is on individuals, whereas the potlatch in many
governments is, like the original, a group thing, part of the
organizational culture. Where this is the case, it seems unfair to
go after certain individuals, often for partisan reasons or via
sting operations.<br>
<br>
But this does not mean that there should be no enforcement. It only means that the emphasis needs to be
on the creation of professional and independent ethics programs,
without partisan goals and sting operations, and with the authority
to train, advise, and initiate investigations into group conduct
that undermines public trust in a government.<br>
<br>
What we need is an open discussion of how Americans feel about
restricted sources making sizeable gifts to government officials,
and a study of how much citizens actually differentiate between campaign contributions,
contributions to parties, independent spending, indirect gifts to
family members and businesses, and gifts made directly to officials.
Brown's veto of ethics reforms might be a good occasion for
such a discussion. Anyone who wants to take part in it may feel free
to comment on this blog post.<br>
<br>
Also see the following blog posts and section of my book <i>Local
Government Ethics Programs</i>:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Gif…; target="”_blank”">Gifts Section</a>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/569" target="”_blank”">The Gift</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/two-perspectives-gift-giving" target="”_blank”">Two
Perspectives on Gift-Giving</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/philadelphia-ethics-boards-proposed-g…; target="”_blank”">The
Philadelphia Ethics Board's Proposed Gift Regulation</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/do-gifts-establish-subordination" target="”_blank”">Do
Gifts Establish Subordination?</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---