ETHICS REFORM LITE IN LOUISIANA

Thursday, December 20^th, 2007

New Orleans, Louisiana

ETHICS REFORM LITE?

Ethics reform has become the byword of the new Governor-Elect, a number of legislators, and a cross section of most good government groups and various associations throughout Louisiana in recent weeks. Emphasis so far has been directed at financial disclosure by elected officials, and cutting down on dinners paid by lobbyists at Chris’ steakhouse and other fine dining establishments in and around the Capitol. If no serious effort is made to beef up financial disclosure and limitation laws, then any serious ethics reform will be little more than window dressing. It’s all about the money, and there is way too much at play in the Bayou State.

Two events took place in recent weeks that makes any neutral observer wonder if there is really a commitment to dealing with the whole area of ethics reform. First out of the box, the new Governor, having initially committed to immediately calling a special session to deal with ethics, postponed any such effort because of the hew and cry from many legislators who wanted no conflict with the Washington Mardi Gras Ball. Secondly, new and old legislators alike held their annual Christmas party last week at the State Capitol. Who picked up the tab? Why of course, the lobbyists. Hey, things are off to a great start aren’t they?

You can dance with this pig anyway you want. But when all is said and done, it’s all about money. Where it comes from and who is goes too. And right now, there’s way too much of it coming from groups and individuals who are looking for something in return.

If some newly elected reform legislator wants to really draw the line in the dirt, here are a few places to begin:

1. JUDGES – the overwhelming amount of campaign contributions to candidates for the judiciary in Louisiana come from attorneys. There is a pervasive feeling that tainted justice prevails in many Louisiana courts. What do you do about it? Simply cut out the money. Change the law to state that any judicial candidate or sitting judge is prohibited from accepting any campaign contributions, either directly or indirectly, from anyone who does business in the court system. That would include lawyers, bail bondsmen, and any suppliers of goods and services to the court. In addition, any case that comes before a sitting judge where any party has made a financial contribution either to the judge or to a previous opponent, the judge should be required to remove himself or herself from the case. Take the money out of the system, and you will go a long way to eliminating future scandals akin to the Wrinkled Robe debacle last year in Jefferson Parish.
2. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION – members here are funded in a major way by those very companies that the Commission regulates. So cut out the money. Require that any member of the Public Service Commission be prohibited from accepting any campaign contributions, directly or indirectly, from anyone who appears or is associated with those who appear before the Public Service Commission for regulatory help. The next step would be to eliminate the elected Public Service Commission altogether. Few other states have such a system, the issues are technical in nature, and the public has no concept to what the qualifications for such a position should be. The Commission really ought to be appointed. But the first step is to drastically limit where the money comes from.
3. OTHER REGULATORS – there are a host of other officials and commissions that regulate what is supposed to be the public interest. An obvious example is the Insurance Commissioner. Make the same rules apply as outlined for judges and Public Service Commissioners. Prohibit the Insurance Commissioner from accepting any contributions from any individual or company that is regulated by the Department. Shut down the money, and you will put an end to favoritism, conflicts, out-right scandals like you are seeing with the Citizen’s Property Insurance Company.

(A disclosure and disclaimer here. I only half-heartedly followed such a rule when I held this position. It was a mistake. Money should be prohibited from those who are regulated. Quite frankly, this office too ought to be appointed. Forty other states appoint their Insurance Commissioner, including Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, New York, and a host of other more progressive states. It is time for Louisiana to do the same.)

There are other regulatory offices overseen by elected officials that should require limits on campaign funds. The Agriculture Commissioner gives out licenses, and oversees a variety of functions that involve the granting or denying of specific requests. Here again, campaign contributions come into play. The Commissioner of Agriculture should be prohibited from accepting funds from anyone where regulatory decisions are necessary.

And the same goes for the State Treasurer who chairs the Bond Commission. Cut out the money from bond attorneys, or any other group who appears before the Commission. The Treasurer drives this agenda, and the ability to raise funds from those whose blessing he gives should be prohibited.

One other area of abuse that needs to be addressed is the “bundling” of campaign contributions by one individual or group, spread through numerous LLCs, or through other fronts. In the last election, there were hundreds of thousands of dollars pouring into Louisiana, much of it from out of state, by one group or individual who used such fronts to get around the campaign limits. The present law has holes big enough to drive a truck through. These holes need to be closed.

It’s fine to talk about limiting football tickets, fancy meals, and acquiring financial disclosure. These areas need to be addressed. But if the new Governor and legislature turn their backs on any effort to strengthen the financial disclosure and contribution laws, then any claim to success in ethics reform will prove to be a shallow victory.

**********

The dominating influence of wealthy special interests in the funding of campaigns has eroded public trust in our political system and discouraged political participation. In a system that gives undue access to lawmakers and influence on legislation to those who contribute large amounts to campaigns, most citizens believe their voice is not being heard.

– Common Cause