BCT Editorial – 6/4/06

This page was last updated on June 4, 2006.

No free gift; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 4, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Lawmakers’ acceptance of freebies undercuts people’s faith in Congress

[RWC] This statement is true, but the author quickly lets partisanship run him off the track.

“U.S. Sen. Harry Reid is the latest federal lawmaker to get his hand caught in the lobbyist/ethics jar.”

[RWC] The author would like us to believe Mr. Reid was as pure as the driven snow before this incident. As you will read below, that’s far from the truth.

“The Senate minority leader, who has been free in his criticism of Republicans’ much-publicized ethics standards, or lack thereof, turns out to like freebies, too.”

[RWC] Note the author failed to mention the recent ethics problems of Democrats, most notably Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) who was allegedly caught on tape accepting a bribe.

“The Associated Press reports the Nevada Democrat accepted free ringside tickets to three professional boxing matches between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission.

“As others who have come under scrutiny before him, Reid said the gifts would never influence his position on the boxing bill and that he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry.”

[RWC] For the record, Mr. Reid opposed the position of the NAC and voted that way.

“While Reid’s ringside seats are small stuff compared to the goodies that others have accepted, notably the lap-of-luxury junkets of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, they are cut from the same cloth.”

[RWC] With “Reid’s ringside seats are small stuff,” we have the author serving as apologist for Mr. Reid. Does anyone believe for a second the author performed any research to determine Mr. Reid’s history with respect to “goodies” and “lap-of-luxury junkets?”

Lest we forget, Mr. Reid also accepted upwards of $70,000 in campaign contributions from clients of Jack Abramoff.

Regarding Mr. DeLay, the Times can’t seem to cover ethics without mentioning him. I wonder whom the Times will target once Mr. DeLay’s resignation from the House becomes effective? I can pretty much guarantee it won’t be Rep. Jefferson (D-LA).

“Lawmakers apparently fail to realize how their acceptance of free gifts and other special-interest goodies undercuts our representative democracy by eroding people’s confidence in the system.

“Every member of the Senate and the House of Representatives has two constituencies - a voting constituency and a money constituency.

“It is all too evident today that the money constituency has the attention of far too many members of Congress, pushing the public weal far into the background.

“Gerrymandering and campaign finances have further diminished the importance of voters. Under gerrymandering, lawmakers pick their voters, making it much more likely that they won’t face serious challenges when they seek re-election. The money they raise for their campaigns from special-interest groups makes it that much harder for someone to challenge them.”

[RWC] I’ve asked this question before, but I’ll ask it again. When did gerrymandering become an issue for the Times? Did the Times publish editorials against gerrymandering when Democrats were in control of redistricting? FYI, that’s a real question. I don’t know the answer.

Regarding “Under gerrymandering, lawmakers pick their voters,” technically that’s true only for state politicians. State legislatures determine districts for both state and federal representatives. Congressional lawmakers play no official role in redistricting, though I’m sure they try to exert influence.

“The result is that voters are left virtually powerless, allowing lawmakers and special interests to rule the roost in the nation’s capital.

“People aren’t stupid. They know their votes don’t matter, which probably goes a long way toward explaining why voter turnout is so abysmally low. They understand that in politics there is no such thing as a free gift.”

[RWC] “People aren’t stupid?” You would never know that’s the opinion of the Times given the editorials published.

Regarding “votes don’t matter,” they don’t matter only when we don’t vote or when we continue to vote for the same gals/guys and/or people with the same principles and expect different results.

“The rule governing gifts should boil down to one question that every lawmaker should ask when offered a deal that is too good to pass up: Is this gift available to the general public? If it isn’t, they should take a pass.

“Is that so hard to understand?”

[RWC] Actually, the Times is more lenient than I would be. In my opinion, government officials should refuse all gifts (clothing, food, travel, etc.) from lobbyists regardless of value. That may seem extreme, but we have two issues to deal with.

First, we have to deal with true influence peddling even when no quid pro quo can be proven.

Second, we need to deal with perception. While a $50 dinner may not seem like much to a lawmaker who makes $150,000/year and probably would not influence a vote, it’s a lot to most of us. For example, I can’t remember ever paying anywhere near $50 for a meal unless I was paying for others as well.