Legislature failed to deliver needed ban on lobbyist gifts

By Mary Margaret Oliver

Richard Wayne Penniman is a famous Georgian who has been formally recognized by the General Assembly as the author of our state’s “official” rock ’n’ roll song, “Tutti Frutti.” He was an early inductee to the Georgia Music Hall of Fame in his hometown of Macon.

Penniman, known more fondly as Little Richard, has had a diverse and sinful life, but he believes in redemption, and has frequently served as a preacher who spoke the gospel. When he left the low-life bar scene and went to the pulpit, he used to say, “It is time to get on the good foot!”

The Georgia General Assembly, particularly the House with the election of a new speaker and new rules of the House, got on the “good foot” this year.

Passage of new ethics legislation will help establish improved standards of behavior and enforcement through expanded disclosure requirements and increased fines for disclosure violations.

Senate Bill 17 includes provisions of the four ethics bills I introduced early in the 2010 session to define abuse of power, and specify violations for conflict of interest and sexual harassment. I was pleased with these new standards and procedures, and voted for SB 17.

My most significant disappointment in SB 17 is the failure of the General Assembly to moderate or restrict gifts to legislators. I am convinced that my constituents do not support legislators receiving gifts of any kind, even if all gifts are disclosed, and I filed legislation to prohibit all gifts over $25.

Most practically, for most legislators, gifts are received in the form of meals and beverages, based on a culture where business entertainment is encouraged.

I am fortunate that I do not have to live alone in a hotel in order to serve in the House as many of my colleagues do, and I can easily go home each night to eat in my own kitchen. Sometimes I am uneasy criticizing others, who readily and routinely accept free meals and drinks from lobbyists to avoid lonely hotel rooms.

But it is also true that some of my colleagues abuse the receipt of gifts, both meals and tickets to high-priced sporting events or concerts, and I believe my constituents want change.

These long-standing abuses from the receipt of gifts from lobbyists to legislators are hard to change.

In many “back-room” discussions lobbying for a variety of ways to restrict gifts, I have learned I am the minority, in both the Republican and Democratic caucuses, who want to eliminate or restrict gifts.

The reasons legislators give in private for why they want to keep the gifts coming are good, bad and human. These arguments are rarely made in the public.

The first and most often stated reason for keeping the benefits of gifts is that the voters do not care about receipt of gifts, and only the press pays attention to who goes to the Masters, NASCAR events or dinners out as guests of lobbyists.

Second, the expanded disclosures requirements allow voters easily to read online who receives gifts, and can make up their own mind if the gifts matter to them.

In effect, disclosure of gifts provides a sufficient “chilling” of unreasonable gifts to legislators, and as a result the business entertainment of members of the General Assembly is fairly moderate. Although I do not agree with these reasonings, both these arguments are reasonable.

Other reasons and excuses are less acceptable. I believe many legislators develop misplaced “entitlement” responses to receiving unprecedented and continuous attention from lobbyists, or “paid friends.”

Legislators, particularly the newly elected, do not quite understand that lobbyists are paid to be friendly, social and inviting to Atlanta’s nicer restaurants that the legislators would not otherwise visit.

Legislators also too frequently assert they cannot be “bought” by a steak dinner or a ticket to see the Hawks play, and the gifts of meals and sports tickets are harmless. They miss the reality that lobbyists are seeking a preferred business relationship, looking into the future for some special favor or benefit, stated or unstated.

But the worst excuse for defending the receipt of gifts is simply that some legislators want to go to a party, to be entertained, to enjoy all the temptations of the big city. For a few, they want to renew attendance at long-forgotten fraternity parties, with the occasional resulting embarrassments that have greater consequences than they anticipated.

I remain committed to further restrictions on gifts to legislators from lobbyists, and I do not believe I will always be in the minority with this view.

On the House side, Speaker David Ralston is committed to ongoing dialogue about additional ethics legislation, and I know the discussion will continue.

But if the legislator attitudes are to change, the voters must engage more directly in the debate. We all need more incentives to “get on the good foot” and follow the advice of Little Richard.

State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur) represents Georgia’s 83rd District.