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 <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/david-brock-citizens-for-responsi…; target="”_blank”">an article in <i>Politico</i> last week</a>, 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.<br>
<br>
CREW will also be supplemented by an "overtly partisan watchdog
group" called the American Democracy Legal Fund, which will bring
complaints.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul Singer of <i>USA Today</i> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/23/crew-ethics-watc…; target="”_blank”">wrote
on Saturday</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---