House Speaker David Ralston was quoted as saying at the Republican state convention last weekend that people who promote ethics reform “are not interested in seeing a Republican agenda.”
Since when?
When I first ran as a Republican for the General Assembly, 40 years ago, ethics and openness were already a core part of our party’s agenda. The very first partisan floor fight we ever organized was in 1975, for open committee meetings. Every year that I was the minority leader in the House, and most other years, too, we made ethics and openness one of our major issues.
For more than 30 years, as a growing minority party, we campaigned on the idea that if the people gave us a chance to govern, we’d be different — and we meant, above all, that we would be more ethical and open.
When the delegates to the state convention last weekend passed a resolution in favor of ethics reform (specifically, placing a $100 limit on lobbyist gifts), they were vocally reaffirming something that has long been a part of the Republican agenda.
They were showing that the Republican grass roots haven’t forgotten — even if most of the legislative leadership unfortunately has.
The convention also voted to put a question about limiting lobbyist gifts on the July primary ballot, to allow voters to express their opinion.
Polls show that more than 80 percent of Republicans want limits on lobbyist gifts, but the legislative leadership says it’s a bad idea. They argue that disclosure alone is enough — but if that were true, we might as well legalize bribery, as long as it is disclosed. Let’s see what the people think.
It is very striking that in the current debate about limiting lobbyist gifts, nobody except incumbent legislators are defending the current system. The reason is no mystery: they are the only people who benefit from it, being given overseas trips, Final Four tickets, expensive meals for family and staff, and the like. The only “No” votes at the Republican convention were from people who wanted a limit lower than $100 — preferably zero.
There will be problems with enforcing a $100 limit, as there are with many laws. But just the likelihood that somebody will try to break a law is no argument against enacting it. That is why enforcement mechanisms are needed, such as a strengthened and nonpolitical State Ethics Commission. To reinforce the disclosure laws already on the books, it also has been proposed that legislators as well as lobbyists should be required to report gifts — another good idea.
Details like this, and related ethics reform ideas, are better worked out in legislative deliberations than in convention resolutions, or ballot questions, or newspaper articles. But what the state convention delegates said, and what they gave the voters a chance to say, is: We want these details worked out by legislators who are for ethics reform, not against it.
When qualifying is over at noon today, we may discover that there are some primary races where ethics reform emerges as a major, or even a decisive, issue. I would urge everyone to examine carefully where candidates, including incumbents, stand on this issue and on the broader question of ethics reform.
In addition, there now will be the ballot question about a $100 limit on lobbyist gifts — admittedly nonbinding legally, but very powerful politically.
I would urge everyone in favor of ethics reform to vote for the $100 limit, even if you prefer a lower limit, or a different structure such as legislative reporting of gifts: a “No” vote will be interpreted as a vote against ethics reform.
Republicans, it’s time for us to reclaim the issue of ethics and openness, and to redeem our promise that we made to the voters for so many years — to be something different.
--------------------
Bob Irvin, a Republican who lives in Atlanta, is a former state representative and House minority leader.
About the Author
