You are here
The Irresponsible Actions of a New Government Ethics Group
Friday, May 23rd, 2014
Robert Wechsler
Government ethics groups come in all shapes and sizes. City Ethics,
an ordinary nonprofit, has a website with huge amounts of
information about government ethics, and no financial resources. The
American Dream Initiative, a social welfare organization founded
last year, apparently has large financial resources, but no website
and no information about government ethics.
I say "apparently" because, according to an article that went up yesterday afternoon on the Austin American-Statesman website, the American Dream Initiative recently funded ads that cost about half-a-million dollars criticizing a Texas attorney general candidate. The ads, during the week before a run-off election, say that the candidate, a state senator, was reprimanded by a securities regulator for having taken kickbacks. They also ask viewers to contact the candidate and tell him "to support ethics reform legislation to make government honest."
The Initative's chair, Dan Backer, who represented Shaun McCutcheon in his eponymous campaign finance case, told the paper that the Initiative is intended to champion “traditionally conservative ideals,” particularly "government ethics reform. ... We’re taking an opportunity, when people are paying attention, to push the issue of government ethics reform.” However, the ads made no mention of any government ethics reform bill or even subject. The candidate's violation was not of a government ethics provision, but of securities-related provisions.
Disclosure and Denial
Backer will not disclose whose money he is spending against this Texan candidate. This is interesting, because it appears that the principal ethics issue involving the candidate was not accepting kickbacks, but disclosure: failing to disclose management fees or registering as an investment adviser representative. It's hard to believe he would have been fined only $1,000 if he had been found to have received kickbacks.
Backer also insists that the ads were not an attempt to sway voters in the upcoming election. This is just the sort of denial — contradicting how the situation appears to everyone else — by which politicians make a mockery of government ethics.
In addition, according to the criticized candidate's campaign manager, there was illegal coordination of the Initiative with the candidate's opponent. In seven cities, he said, the opponent "abruptly slashed advertising purchases just as the American Dream Initiative launched its ad campaign in those cities." The opponent's campaign denies any coordination.
However, the opponent, a state representative, did vote last year against a bill requiring the disclose of "dark money" spent on independent advertising relating to candidates, according to an article on the mysanantonio.com website yesterday.
Government Ethics Is About More Than Laws
Backer is a knowledgeable election lawyer, but he has a lot to learn about government ethics. First of all, that transparency is an important element of government ethics. Refusing to disclose is putting your personal interests above the public interest. Second, that government ethics laws are minimum requirements. Just because you don't have to disclose something doesn't mean it's best for the public trust to keep it secret. Someone who has founded a government ethics organization should never say that what they did was legal. That's what government officials who don't understand government ethics say.
As a government ethics proponent, Backer should (1) acknowledge that the timing of the ads makes it appear that he is trying to affect the election; (2) go out of his way to disclose any communications his group had with the opponent of a candidate the organization attacks, and (3) disclose the identity of his organization's contributors (the identity of the contributors will likely provide evidence that Backer's backers had no ties to the candidates or even to Texas, or were individuals interested or involved in the election). He has a right not to, but he should recognize that this is the responsible thing to do. He should be thinking of the public he is trying to sway and whose interests are at the core of government ethics policies.
By not making these disclosures, Backer either (1) allows an unsuspecting candidate to be caught up in a scandal that was not of his doing, or (2) he hides a conspiracy to help defeat the other candidate. Only by disclosing what occurred will the public know. Without that knowledge, the public cannot vote in an informed, responsible manner. As a government ethics proponent, Backer should take full responsibility for the situation in which he has placed both the Texas public and the two candidates.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
I say "apparently" because, according to an article that went up yesterday afternoon on the Austin American-Statesman website, the American Dream Initiative recently funded ads that cost about half-a-million dollars criticizing a Texas attorney general candidate. The ads, during the week before a run-off election, say that the candidate, a state senator, was reprimanded by a securities regulator for having taken kickbacks. They also ask viewers to contact the candidate and tell him "to support ethics reform legislation to make government honest."
The Initative's chair, Dan Backer, who represented Shaun McCutcheon in his eponymous campaign finance case, told the paper that the Initiative is intended to champion “traditionally conservative ideals,” particularly "government ethics reform. ... We’re taking an opportunity, when people are paying attention, to push the issue of government ethics reform.” However, the ads made no mention of any government ethics reform bill or even subject. The candidate's violation was not of a government ethics provision, but of securities-related provisions.
Disclosure and Denial
Backer will not disclose whose money he is spending against this Texan candidate. This is interesting, because it appears that the principal ethics issue involving the candidate was not accepting kickbacks, but disclosure: failing to disclose management fees or registering as an investment adviser representative. It's hard to believe he would have been fined only $1,000 if he had been found to have received kickbacks.
Backer also insists that the ads were not an attempt to sway voters in the upcoming election. This is just the sort of denial — contradicting how the situation appears to everyone else — by which politicians make a mockery of government ethics.
In addition, according to the criticized candidate's campaign manager, there was illegal coordination of the Initiative with the candidate's opponent. In seven cities, he said, the opponent "abruptly slashed advertising purchases just as the American Dream Initiative launched its ad campaign in those cities." The opponent's campaign denies any coordination.
However, the opponent, a state representative, did vote last year against a bill requiring the disclose of "dark money" spent on independent advertising relating to candidates, according to an article on the mysanantonio.com website yesterday.
Government Ethics Is About More Than Laws
Backer is a knowledgeable election lawyer, but he has a lot to learn about government ethics. First of all, that transparency is an important element of government ethics. Refusing to disclose is putting your personal interests above the public interest. Second, that government ethics laws are minimum requirements. Just because you don't have to disclose something doesn't mean it's best for the public trust to keep it secret. Someone who has founded a government ethics organization should never say that what they did was legal. That's what government officials who don't understand government ethics say.
As a government ethics proponent, Backer should (1) acknowledge that the timing of the ads makes it appear that he is trying to affect the election; (2) go out of his way to disclose any communications his group had with the opponent of a candidate the organization attacks, and (3) disclose the identity of his organization's contributors (the identity of the contributors will likely provide evidence that Backer's backers had no ties to the candidates or even to Texas, or were individuals interested or involved in the election). He has a right not to, but he should recognize that this is the responsible thing to do. He should be thinking of the public he is trying to sway and whose interests are at the core of government ethics policies.
By not making these disclosures, Backer either (1) allows an unsuspecting candidate to be caught up in a scandal that was not of his doing, or (2) he hides a conspiracy to help defeat the other candidate. Only by disclosing what occurred will the public know. Without that knowledge, the public cannot vote in an informed, responsible manner. As a government ethics proponent, Backer should take full responsibility for the situation in which he has placed both the Texas public and the two candidates.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
