Two Perspectives on Gift-Giving

I'm back from the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL)
conference, and I will be sharing some valuable information from the
talks and panels I attended.<br>
<br>
In a panel on gifts provisions in ethics codes, the panel consisted not
only of the usual government ethics professionals, but also a lawyer
who advises and defends lobbyists and those who do business with
governments. One difference in their perspectives stood out.<br>
<br>

Ethics professionals, and the gift provisions they write, generally
look at gifts in terms of persons trying to influence officials.
Typical language includes the phrase "tends to influence an official."
The assumption is that officials are good people being tempted by those
who have something to gain by influencing government officials.<br>
<br>
Lobbyists and those who do business with local governments look at
gifts in terms of pay-to-play. Their view is that officials explicitly
or implicitly require gifts — whether directly to the officials and
their families, or indirectly though PACs, favorite charities, and
contributions to candidate and party committees. The assumption is that
businesspeople are good people being tempted by officials seeking to
use their power and position to help themselves and those who matter to
them.<br>
<br>
One side sees such transactions primarily in terms of temptation, while
the other side sees such transactions in terms of the cost of doing
business.<br>
<br>
What is so strange is that, although those who write ethics codes are
most concerned about companies trying to influence officials, most
ethics codes don't place any responsibility on those doing business
with local governments. This makes no sense. If businesspeople are the
bad guys, then they should at least share the responsibility for
disclosure and for keeping to the limits.<br>
<br>
These requirements are sometimes placed on lobbyists, and sometimes the
word "lobbyist" includes the companies lobbyists represent. But
generally, such companies get in trouble only where gifts can be proved
to be bribes.<br>
<br>
Not only is it difficult to prove this, but it still leaves open gifts
to favorite charities as well as contributions to campaigns, PACs, and
party committees.<br>
<br>
Similarly, pay-to-play laws, which are usually criminal, tend to
require a showing that officials favor companies that give them what
they ask for. These laws don't see officials as innocents being
tempted, but as individuals abusing their positions and power. But
these laws don't generally appear in ethics codes.<br>
<br>
What is needed in writing ethics codes and regulations is a double
perspective. Both parties to any transaction should share the blame and
the responsibility. Both parties should know that, if they're caught,
there will be serious consequences:  large fines, voided
contracts, loss of position, a suspension of doing business.<br>
<br>
What is also needed is an ethics environment where such gifts are not
only illegal, but unacceptable. An environment where companies and
officials can safely say No, and report companies and officials who offer or demand something they know is illegal.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---