A Miscellany of Poor Approaches
<b>A Poor Approach to Being Ethical</b><br>
It's great when candidates talk up acting ethically. But it's going too
far, and setting a bad precedent, when a candidate takes a lie-detector
test in which he says that he never engaged in unethical activities in
private- or public-sector work, <a href="http://moultrieobserver.com/local/x1671040400/Candidate-takes-lie-detec…; target="”_blank”">as
reported in the Moultrie (GA) <i>Observer</i></a>. <br>
<br>
The candidate said, “This is truly the first step in restoring the
(sense) of trust with the people. Ethics is one of the top priorities
(in) fixing the secretary of state office, which is in need of reform
in each of its divisions.”<br>
<br>
No, I'm sorry, but everyone has engaged in some unethical activity in
his or her life. When we take a lie-detector test and say otherwise, we
are only fooling ourselves, which is enough to pass. People who can
fool themselves into believing they've always acted ethically are not
people who can deal responsibly with their ethical quandaries, such as
conflicts of interest.<br>
<br>
<b>A Poor Approach to Determining Corruption</b><br>
Yesterday, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals came down with <a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/003af6f2-dfe2-48b9-a262…; target="”_blank”">its
decision in the <i>Green Party of
Connecticut </i>v. <i>Garfield</i>
case</a>. Much of the decision concerns public campaign financing
programs, but there is an interesting and upsetting aspect of the
decision that concerns contribution bans.<br>
<br>
The court finds the CT statute's ban on contributions from state
contractors constitutional, but finds the ban on contributions from
state lobbyists unconstitutional. "Although an outright ban on
contractor contributions can be justified as a means to address the
appearance of corruption caused by Connecticut’s recent corruption
scandals, those scandals did not involve lobbyists and thus do not
provide sufficient justification for an outright ban on lobbyist
contributions."<br>
<br>
In other words, preventative campaign finance laws are
unconstitutional. No matter how much corruption or perceived corruption
attaches to a certain group deeply involved in governments elsewhere
and at each level, you have to wait until there is a scandal at your level of government and place before a
government can act. This is an odd approach to campaign finance, as
well as to anything.<br>
<br>
Why couldn't the same approach be taken to specific contractors? If
they haven't been caught in a scandal, why shouldn't they be allowed to
give any amount of money they want?<br>
<br>
It's not as if the government was discriminating against lobbyists.
Lobbyists have been at the center of enormous scandals at every level
of government. I don't see any reason why, just as government officials
sacrifice some freedoms when they choose to serve, lobbyists who choose
to become deeply involved in the democratic process should also
sacrifice some freedoms in order to make it clear to the public that
their expenditures of often large amounts of money (spent on lawyers
and other staff) to get what they want from government officials is all
that they will spend on this goal.<br>
<br>
<b>A Poor Argument Against an Investigation</b><br>
Last November <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/discrimination-complaint-against-mont…; target="”_blank”">I
wrote
about
an unusual suit</a> against the Montgomery County (MD)
ethics commission on the grounds of discrimination in its investigation
against a transgendered council aide on account of her gender identity.
<a href="http://www.notmyshower.com/beyervMoCoComplaint.pdf" target="”_blank”">A new or
updated version of the complaint</a> was filed in May, and besides
seeking $1 million in economic damages and $4 million for emotional
distress, it contains a couple new twists.<br>
<br>
The aide and her council member both refused to answer interrogatories
from the EC regarding legislative activities on the basis of
"legislative privilege," and the aide refused to answer interrogatories
about her personal activities, including apparently her telling people
that they could not petition for removal of the gender identity
discrimination law (see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYqz2rffZ0w" target="”_blank”">You Tube of what she
said</a>), because the interrogatories "implicated her First Amendment
rights of free speech." (pp. 7-8 of complaint)<br>
<br>
It does appear strange that the aide was asked about the gender
identity discrimination law itself, because it doesn't seem relevant to
what happened. There appears to have been no need to prove the aide
worked on the bill in order to show that she harassed people
petitioning against it. Seeking unnecessary information about
legislative activity is a great way to cause local legislators and
their aides to use the legislative immunity defense.<br>
<br>
As for a first amendment free speech defense, that's a new one on me.
One can make this defense against the charges (although the You Tube video
shows that her words were more command than opinion), but not to an
investigation of the charges.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---