Benign neglect (noun) —
“An attitude or policy of ignoring an often delicate or undesirable situation that one is held to be responsible for dealing with.”
That dictionary definition describes a favorite tactic used by politicians to quietly tamp down unpopular sentiments, perceived problems or other matters that they just wish would go away. Actions, or inaction, used to handle these matters include stonewalling, waiting out the storm, putting unwanted legislation on a slow path to a certain demise, and so on.
That should not happen with ethics reform in Georgia. The march toward more-stringent rules governing lobbyists’ interactions with lawmakers and state officials mustn’t stop.
There has been proposed legislation bravely introduced by Rep. Tommy Smith, R-Nicholls. A Senate version is expected to soon follow. Smith’s principled stance in the face of substantial opposition to breakthrough changes should be celebrated and supported by voters quietly disgusted by the party-hearty-at-somebody-else’s-expense antics that prevail at the Gold Dome. Other lawmakers who silently agree should step out from the shadows and sign on as co-sponsors, especially Republicans who hold the decisive power at the Capitol. Their leadership is needed now.
The proposed ethics bill includes among its key tenets a common-sense $100 cap on lobbyist expenses that can be lavished on a single lawmaker in a single instance. Think about that. Who can argue that $100 won’t buy a decent, if not extravagant, dinner around Atlanta, even if thirsty citizen-legislators toss back a cocktail or two?
Admittedly, a hundred greenbacks might barely cover the tip and a skimpy appetizer at super-upscale spots frequented by high-rollers or wannabees. But in these tight-budget days when households and businesses alike continue to watch expenses closely, a $100 cap would force lawmakers to live the example of thriftiness that they often preach when it comes to state finances.
Many at the Gold Dome would disagree, based in part on recent reporting by this newspaper into a dinner held to honor the work of the Georgia House Natural Resources Committee.
Chairwoman Lynn Smith made the lobbyists’ job easy. They didn’t even have to come up with the idea. She issued a call for sponsors. How convenient, even if it’s the kind of public-private partnership we should do without in this state.
Lawmakers who showed up for the candlelight shindig expressed wonderment that anyone would question such gatherings or how outsiders could reasonably suspect that even a small degree of influence could be purchased through such behavior.
There’s good reason to believe Georgia voters share a different view, based on recent polling by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The Georgia Newspaper Partnership. Seventy-three percent of respondents across the state agreed that “accepting free meals, travel and sports tickets from lobbyists” does “compromise the integrity of a state legislator.”
Integrity cannot be bought at a price. It can, however, be lost, or compromised, at a price, we’d argue. And the cost of losing the public’s trust will be orders of magnitude more than the tab for a fancy meal, resort junket or free transportation provided to lawmakers.
That’s what’s led at least a dozen tea party groups to unite with organizations as diverse as the League of Women Voters of Georgia and Common Cause Georgia to push for ethics reform.
The mere existence of such a coalition indicates that citizen frustration with the status quo is much more widespread than lawmakers think.
Voters should continue to work the phones and email in-boxes to drive home that point until it can no longer be ignored. That seems the only way to get to where Georgia needs to be on ethics reform.
Andre Jackson, for the Editorial Board
About the Author
