Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > January > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHow an ethics complaint could tip a balance of power
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Read today’s AJC piece on the ethics complaint against House Speaker Glenn Richardson very carefully.
The executive director of the State Ethics Commission says his agency has no jurisdiction into looking at whether Richardson engaged in an “inappropriate relationship” with an AGL lobbyist, as state Democratic chairman Bobby Kahn has alleged.
But Senate President pro tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) is this year’s chairman of the bipartisan joint House-Senate committee on ethics. He says his panel could very well have jurisdiction.
“We are going to take it very seriously, Johnson told AJC reporter Jeremy Redmon. “The charge on its surface is within the jurisdiction of the committee. Whether it meets the evidentiary requirements, I don’t know yet.”
From what we’ve been told, the Senate is in charge of investigating complaints against House members, and vice versa.
Think about that for a minute. These annual legislative sessions are often driven, especially in the last days, not by partisan divisions, but by institutional rivalries between the House and the Senate.
Legislative ambitions and political resumes can be dashed in a heartbeat.
Throughout this session, a high-ranking member of the Senate leadership could be dangling a sword of Damocles over the House.
No doubt, that such a tool would ever be used in the crass, manipulative fashion that we’re suggesting is completely out of the question. Ridiculous. Beyond the pale.
But it could make those closed-door negotiations awfully interesting.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Say What?
January 9, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this
The State Ethics Commission does not have the jurisdiction to investigate whether a legislator was trading legislation for “favors”? How much more unethical can you get!
By kahn-job
January 9, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this
I remember as a child reading about the Lilliputians, who lived on an island where the mighty Gulliver washed ashore. Lilliputian-brained-Kahn-Dems and the media are are doing what they do best…tieing up the Guliver-sized Republicans.
Ralph Reed went down in flames with the same Kahn-job tactics. You can name dozens of Lilliputians who stifle society…the ACLU, illegal aliens, terrorists, and the list goes on. Doom, despair, and agony…the Kahn-goes on.
By uncle jessie
January 9, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
I guess ya’ll never heard history repeats itself. Back in ’90s a young gal name Monica visited Atlanter fer Democrat convention met the right folks and got job in the White House.
By tired of it all
January 9, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
@Kahn Job….
In case you’re unclear, Ralph Reed went down because he is a bad person. Just like Cynthia McKinney.
I’m sorry that you are under the mistaken impression that Ralph is someone who does not use religion as his own personal pocket tool.
But that’s politics. It’s about what you can get people to believe.
Whether or not Richardson did anything wrong/illegal/immoral is moot. The important thing here is what he can get people (outside the capital) to believe he did.
By Jerry
January 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
“…tieing up the Guliver-sized Republicans.”… and the Republicans are giving Dems the rope and stakes to do it!
By kahn-job
January 9, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
@All Tired: It’s more about how successful Bobby’s kahn-con is. The Dems absolutely KNOW it doesn’t take proof of anything for the media frenzy to occur…and a miscreant Republican knows he will absolutely wind up in the shredder if he commits what is being ALLEGED. Most of US still believe in “innocence until proof-positive.”
By Tony
January 9, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this
Blaming Bobby Kahn for Ralphie going down in flames? Don’t give the man credit where none is due. Ralph is responsible for Ralph going down in flames.
Speaking of which, where are all of the nuts who claimed Cagle couldn’t win because he didn’t play nice with the nutjobs? I figured with all of that pull and all that Ralph would have had all of his people boycott the election and Martin would be Guv lite. Calling all nuts…what happened? Do you fall into the “Flaggers with no pull” category?
By kahn-job
January 10, 2007 12:10 AM | Link to this
@Tony: Sorry, I keep forgetting not everyone understands the subtleties of an analogy. Kahn, perhaps, was not the originator of the “job” performed on R.R., but it was the SAME TYPE of smear being directed at Speaker Richardson…throwing out the mud in all directions, inviting other liberal sharks to join in the feasting frenzy. Hence… “Kahn-job” simply has a new slanderous meaning.
By Tony
January 10, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
Subtleties? Sure. And smear against Ralph? I guess not everyone is quick to the obvious of someone pretending to be honest and moral while selling himself to the power of the dollar and higher office. There was no smear against Reed. The accusations were tossed out and stuck because they were true.
As for this Richardson issue, if there is nothing to it all the Speaker has to do is let it die. If it is false, the story dies. If he makes his big speech acknowledging it but then saying he won’t acknowledge it, he looks guilty. Him even giving it a speech means there is something to it. The feeding frenzy comes from the person in question showing blood. Even a small amount draws others in. More stories are dug up and slowly chip away. The fact that this has to do with a lobbyist and one of a powerful company bodes even more ill than if it were a page or intern. Whether he’s guilty or not, he’s giving the story legs by his own actions.