REALITY CHECK
A state-required ethics course won�t make lobbyists ethical
BY RANDI THOMPSON

He sat right there, in the chair you are in, and flat out lied to me,� said the exasperated Assemblyman from Las Vegas. �Of course, I won�t tell him that I know he lied to me until after session, because I need his help on my bill. But he flat out lied to me!� 

That was what I heard recently from a senior Republican assemblyman who was explaining his frustration with a long-time lobbyist who had come to talk with him about one of his bills. 

Now, the fact that this lobbyist has been a lobbyist longer than the legislator has been a legislator is not surprising. But the irony here is that there is a bill being discussed in the assembly this session that would place tighter controls on lobbyists, requiring new lobbyists and legislators to take an ethics course. My question is: Why stop there? Let�s mandate that all existing and new lobbyists and legislators take an ethics course before every session begins. But somehow, I don�t think the course will make them ethical. 

While I support the concept, there is still a major problem in making lobbyists comply with these regulations � there are unethical lobbyists. 

Now don�t get me wrong � politicians are unethical, too. And that�s just the reality of life. Human nature is always unethical when humans inherit power.

And the major flaw in trying to require a higher ethical standard for lobbyists (and politicians) is this � self-reporting. 

Right now the law states that lobbyists are required to have a badge, whether they are getting paid or not, to talk to a legislator about a bill.

We are also required to fill out reports once a month on how much we spent for a meal or party, what events/lunches legislators attended, and any gifts or loans that we made. 

Well, if I buy lunch for a legislator at a crowded restaurant, then I�m likely to report it since there are likely witnesses. But if I had a few legislators over for dinner at my house, I really don�t have to tell anyone. Who would know? I�m policing myself. And the legislators don�t have to tell anyone because they don�t have to submit any reports that disclose with whom they dined. 

So the system is dependent on lobbyists being ethical and forthright and following the rules � or else.

I saw a former legislator at the assembly in February, walking the halls, talking to members, meeting privately in their offices � without any type of badge. Maybe he was just visiting; maybe he was lobbying � we don�t know because no one asked. Where�s the accountability? You can�t force people to be ethical if there is no enforcement of the policies that are already in place. 

If we lobbyists don�t come clean and report for whom we bought dinner, who will come after us? Few reporters snoop around trying to discover who we are lobbying. There�s no ethics officer watching us and keeping us honest. There is the threat of legal action, but I don�t know of a single case where a lobbyist was taken to task. (I may be the first after writing this!) And if no legal action came about after the raucous 2003 session, then I find it hard to believe there will be in the future.

What�s worse is the false premise these �ethics� classes set up. It gives lawmakers an excuse, when facing a controversy over ethics, to say, �I have no reason to doubt Lobbyist X did anything wrong, because he took the ethics class certified by the state. He/she must be ethical.�

It also adds another layer of distortion and deception. 

We know there are unethical people in politics because there are unethical people, period. But the real issue is this: Buying a legislator lunch to discuss a bill is not going to get their attention as much as a $10,000 contribution to their campaign. If the goal of the ethics bill is to reduce the influence lobbyists have, then reduce the amount they can contribute. That is the only way to ensure a level ethical playing field. 

Somehow, I doubt sitting politicians want to reduce the contributions that they receive.