A Loss to the Cause of Nonpartisan Good Government Oversight

The last thing the U.S. needs is another partisan good government group. Unfortunately, according to an article in Politico last week, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an important ethics watchdog at the federal level, has named David Brock as the chair of its board, and Brock has announced that the organization will be coordinated with his Democratic Party-oriented organizations, including Media Matters, American Bridge, and the American Independent Institute.

CREW will also be supplemented by an "overtly partisan watchdog group" called the American Democracy Legal Fund, which will bring complaints.

Good government is not a partisan cause and should not be treated as if it were partisan. I have found absolutely no difference in conduct based on party affiliation, except that I can't recall writing about much misconduct by non-affiliated and minor party officials, mostly because few non-affiliated and minor party officials are able to get into a position to engage in serious misconduct. That may be the biggest bipartisan ethics problem there is, although it is usually treated as an election law issue (it is much more, because partisanship affects the appointment of government officials and employees, as well as aspects of a government's ethics environment.

Good government should not be partisan. There have been more and more fake good government groups popping up lately, especially on the right. Being an ethics watchdog increasingly involves partisan attacks.

Paul Singer of USA Today wrote on Saturday that it's a good thing CREW has announced it's going partisan, since it has always leaned Democrat and been critical of a higher percentage of Republicans. It is certainly better to be honest, but even better to be truly nonpartisan. When I was on the board of Connecticut Common Cause several years ago, I opposed the national organization getting involved in policies beyond good government. I do not feel that a good government organization should have any goal other than better government. Ethics doesn't mix well with other issues, unless those other issues are also nonpartisan. However, I can't think of many nonpartisan issues. Taking a partisan position on issues creates the appearance of bias toward the party that takes the same positions. This undermines the public's trust in a watchdog's words and actions.

Singer says this turn of events creates an opportunity for a new organization to be founded that is truly nonpartisan. City Ethics is truly nonpartisan. I criticize officials and ethics programs purely on the basis of what they do and say, and try not to even give the party affiliations of individuals I write about. Because a lot of the most interesting events occur in larger cities, and they tend to be controlled by Democrats, there is most likely more criticism of Democrats in my blog. But no Democrat has accused me of bias.

But City Ethics is not about to try to move into CREW's space nor, do I think, will anyone use City Ethics as a model for a new organization focused on the federal government. City Ethics has a totally different approach. It does not attack individuals, or file complaints or suits. It does nothing sexy enough to attract money. It is focused on providing information and advice that is useful to the improvement of local government ethics programs. Fortunately, this requires few people, no fundraising, and no offices. Nothing is better for true independence than asceticism.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---