Amendment 41 has been blamed for diminished conviviality and collegiality at the legislature, and for increased confusion about awards, gifts and hospitality.
Much of the anti-amendment angst is overreaction. It’s also a distraction from the Capitol’s real ethics problems.
The real ethics issues concern truth, fairness and mutual respect – the sorts of problems that surfaced in the recent debate over a bill to amend a homebuilding defects law.
Legislators in both parties have been threatened and intimidated. There have been misleading “robocalls” and veiled warnings about campaign contributions. A special ethics panel has been formed. A lobbyist has been put on paid leave.
Two Democrats, Reps. Alice Borodkin of Denver and Nancy Todd of Aurora, complained they were targeted by automated phone calls that claimed they were proposing a bill that would raise homeowners’ taxes. Rep. Debbie Stafford, an Aurora Republican, said she was pressured to vote with most of the rest of her party against the homebuyers’ rights bill.
There is a right to lobby and even a duty to be lobbied – a good legislator should listen to different points of view. But, says Stafford, “When you get to bullying or hammering on people, that goes beyond giving them information.”
The voter-approved amendment is silent on such things. It’s almost entirely about the money-related issues of lobbying – wining, dining, gifts and campaign contributions.
“Amendment 41 misses the mark,” says Peggy Kerns, a former Colorado legislator who heads the Center for Ethics in Government of the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures.
Kerns also served on a special outside committee appointed by House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year to study ethics reform. The committee didn’t recommend major changes, simply the addition of a retired judge who could be called upon as an independent investigator when ethics complaints were made.
But it didn’t finish its report until after the legislature’s regular 2006 session, and nothing came of it. That inaction may have contributed to voters’ approval of Amendment 41. A bigger motivating factor was probably the bad example set by Washington lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.
And yet, as Kerns points out, “What Abramoff did was already against the law.” Most state legislatures, including Colorado’s, have similar rules.
The legislature sets boundaries for its members and for lobbyists. A joint House-Senate rule says lobbyists may not “attempt to influence [legislators, officials, etc.] by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic or political reprisal … .”
A lobbying practices committee 20 years ago said lobbyists should “practice common courtesy and respect” and “uphold the honor of the legislative process.” (It also said they should wear their name tags.)
But fear of 41, and overreaction to it, have made the legislative-lobbying relationship worse. There’s really nothing to prevent lobbyists and legislators from dining together, as long as they pay their own way. But legislators and lobbyists are shying away from the kind of social interaction that allowed everyone to get to know each other. “We’re not building relationships as strongly as before 41,” Stafford said. Term limits compound the problem, leaving less time to build relationships and statehouse savvy.
Buying lunches and game tickets for legislators is not a particularly good tradition, but it’s not as big a problem as lying and threatening. Concern about the means and manners of lobbying is at least as important as the money.
In fact, it’s more important.
Fred Brown (punditfwb@aol.com), retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post, is also a political analyst for 9News.
