Just to get the discussion started this morning we'll spotlight a thoughtful editorial appearing in today's Standard-Examiner, harping once again on the sorry condition of ethics reform in the Utah legislature. Today's editorial falls close on the heels of Tuesday's editorial, which put the focus on lobbyist reporting. The Std-Ex is on a roll on the topic of ethics reform. We'll add that we agree with the Std-Ex editors 100% on this issue. From this morning's editorial:
They may be bluffing again, but the possibility exists — unlikely as it may be — that Utah lawmakers are getting themselves into the mood for meaningful ethics reform.As the Std-Ex editors observe, even the best-intended ethics reform legislation faces an uphill fight in our legislature under its present mode of operation, whereby the gatekeepers of the status quo, legislative leadership, exerts tight control over unfavored bills, especially at the committee level.
We know: This is familiar territory. Between annual legislative sessions, or in the early days of the actual sessions themselves, one or two optimistic lawmakers will talk about lowering the dollar limits on gift reporting, banning the freebies outright or placing some sensible restrictions on the expenditure of campaign contributions. But it almost always comes to naught.
Take the 2008 session, for example. Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, sponsored Senate Bill 273, titled “Regulation of Gifts.” The bill aimed to, among other things, require “that gifts of food or beverage be reported by” a public official’s “name if the expenditure exceeds $15, rather than the current $50 threshold” and would have required “that gifts totaling $30 within a calendar day be reported by” a public official’s name, “rather than the current $50 threshold.”
All pretty reasonable, but it’s fate, according to the Legislature’s own Web site, was to fail to even get a hearing in committee — the most preliminary step a bill must take if it is to have a shot at being heard by the entire Senate.
For reasons like these, we rarely are confident that lawmakers will do the right thing when it comes to revealing what freebies they are getting from lobbyists. But hope is a good thing to have in your heart — it crowds out the cynicism — and we’re experiencing a smidgen of renewed hope as the result of last week’s Government Operations Interim Committee meeting.
It seems to us that the only way we'll ever clear out the current bottleneck is to replace current leadership with opposition candidates who are more responsive to the will of the electorate. And what are the chances of that, we ask?
Being the curious type, we navigated to the State Elections website this morning and looked at the 2008 election contenders in the races involving the four top legislative leaders. We list below the opposition posture in those four races:
State Senate
John Valentine (Dist. 14 - Orem) - Senate President - Unopposed
Curt Bramble (Dist. 16 - Provo) - Majority Leader - Two challengers (Republican & Democrat)
Bramble, it seems, faces a GOP opponent at the May 10, 2008 GOP State convention.
State House
Greg Curtis (Dist. 49 - SLC) - Speaker of House - Two Challengers (Constitution & Democrat)
David Clark (Dist. 74 - Santa Clara) - Majority Leader - One challenger (Demograt)
Yeah, we know that this data is somewhat rudimentary, and that much depends on the quality of legislators who are elected in 2008 who will not occupy top legislative leadership spots. Nevertheless, we believe the above information provides something of a springboard for the beginning of a WCF discussion on this topic.
And we'll throw in our own two cents: assuming that a change in legislative leadership will trigger a more enthusiastic legislative response to proposed ethics reform legislation, we're with the Standard-Examiner -- hopeful.
But we're certainly not going to bet the farm that there will be substantial leadership changes on Capitol Hill.
And what say our gentle readers about all this? What are the odds that any of the three opposed GOP legislative leaders will be knocked off?
Update 4/24/08 8:28 a.m. MT: One of our favorite Utah blogs, The Sidetrack, provides some fresh and interesting information regarding Senator Bramble's intra-party challenger, Jacque deGaston, who has created much political heat for the incumbent Senate Majority Leader, in connection with the hotly contested Senate Dist. 16 race.
5 comments:
If you want real reform, throw out all the republicans and let the leaders of the new democratic party show you what real reform looks like.
Just Watch and See is right. The common sense solution is to vote Democratic. It's the only way to guarantee the dismantling of the rat's nest.
Advice from a Card-Carrying Yellow Dog Democrat: If you're unhappy with the direction Republican leaders in Utah have taken your party, then support those in your own party who challenge them for re-nomination. You can whine and moan all you like about where your extremist leaders have taken the party, with not a care in the world about what they party or the people think about it... e.g. vouchers. But unless there are real consequences to your anger and complaint... i.e., Curtis or Bramble don't get re-nominated... nothing will change from within your party. We Democrats may take one or two of them down... and I hope we will. But that will happen only after you fail to do your own housecleaning.
And yes, some of us are engaged in the same house-cleaning operations in our own party. We're responsible for the people we put up and ask voters to support... the Democrats we nominate. You guys are responsible for who you put on the ballot. If you're really unhappy with Curtis and Bramble [I notice Valentine is unopposed within the party], put up someone else. But without real consequences... somebody losing renomination... don't expect much change. In fact, don't expect any.
End of unsolicited advice.
Good Old (?) Curmudgeon:
How do you feel about your (my) party's candidate for District 10? I believe Addled Dr. Edgor to be a worse self-important, self-righteous soda sot than his midget, GONDOLA dwarf son-in-law of "precious character." Please consider crossing party lines on this one, if you are south of 30th Street.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Jason:
At the moment, I'm undecided. I haven't talked to the candidate yet about where he stands on matters he will have to vote on in the House. Much of what you are unhappy about involves Ogden City matters. He's not running for Mayor. He's running for state legislator. I want to know where he stands on matters like state support for public transit, on ethics reform [gift giving to legislators mostly], on public education, on immigration, and so on. When I have a good grasp of where he stands on the matters he's likely to have to vote on if elected, I can decide. I don't have enough information yet.
And no, Jason, the man's being related to Hizzonah or thinking Hizzonah's ideas are good ones does not automatically disqualify him from getting my vote for state legislator. It absolutely would disqualify him from getting my vote for City Council. If he were running for that office, I'd be pounding the pavements, knocking on doors for his opponent.
But for the legislative seat, he gets to make his case before I decide. [So does his opponent, by the way.] The candidate's views about the Mayor are not enough, on their own, to decide the matter for me. I need to know more than that in a state legislative race.
As for his nomination, so far as I am aware, no other candidate came forward when Lou decided not to run for re-election in that district. As you may have noticed, WCDems often have a hard time persuading people to step up and declare for an office.
Post a Comment