Randy's Views

As the 110th Congress convenes, the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has made ethics reform a centerpiece of their first 100 hours of control. Certainly, with the ethics scandals from both parties during the last Congress, there is plenty of reason for changing the ethics rules governing the Congress. The list of Members of Congress who have plead guilty to crimes involving their office, or are currently under investigation by the FBI, is embarrassing. Absent real changes, this trend is likely to continue.

Unfortunately, the new version of the ethics rules passed by the new majority will not solve the corruption and ethics issues that exist in the Congress. The new rules are designed to tighten restrictions without addressing the core issues that have made the existing rules ineffective. The result will be tougher rules which are not enforced and which have little effect on corruption in the Congress. Here's why.

First, the new rules continue to rely on Member reporting (or reporting with Member permission) of rules violations. These limitations on who and how a potential violation of the ethics rules can be reported will effectively preclude any meaningful enforcement of the ethics rules. As documents and information from corruption cases from the last few years illustrate, guilty House Members routinely violated existing House gift rules without little fear of an ethics investigation.

The problem was not that the expiring gift limit of $50.00 per gift (with an annual aggregate gift limit of $100.00) was too high. The problem was that there was no effective policing and enforcement of the expiring gift limit. This problem will continue.

Just as the expiring rules did, the new gift ban (effectively reducing the gift limit from $50.00 per gift to $0.00 per gift) will depend on Members to report or permit the reporting of violations by other Members. This will not happen. Members live in glass houses and never want to be the one to set the standard by which they will be judged. Hence, fearful of an allegation that they have taken a banned gift, Members will never make the same allegation against a colleague, even if the violation is clear. There will be unspoken expectation that every Member will simply look the other way.

The result is a pattern and practice of gift violations that are never reported nor investigated until the pattern reaches the level of criminal activity. Then, the FBI or the Department of Justice steps in.

Second, there is no mechanism for enforcing the rules against one significant source of the problem - lobbyist donors. Neither the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct nor the Federal Election Commission have the jurisdiction to detect, investigate and sanction
lobbyist donors who give the gifts in violation of the gift rules.

As a result, those responsible for reporting violations (Members), have every reason not to report (sanctions). As they are unregulated, those responsible for causing the violations (lobbyist donors) do not have any reason to stop. Thus, there is an endless circle of improper gifts by those who cannot be sanctioned to those who have no incentive to report them. Nothing in the new rules solves this problem.

Effective ethics reform in the Congress requires real changes in the reporting procedures for violations, enhanced disclosure requirements for lobbying activities, better transparency of the system, and oversight jurisdiction to enforce the rules against both the donor and the recipient of improper gifts. Anything less is just cosmetics.

Senator Barack Obama is the news of the day. Will he be a competitive
candidate for the Democratic nomination for the President of the United
States? His age and experience say "no." His polling numbers and
fundraising prowess say "maybe." He does have a couple of things
working for him. He is great television. He is a charismatic speaker.
And, he was against the war before being against the war was popular.
Only one thing stands in the way - well, maybe two - Bill and Hillary
Clinton. And these are no small things.

Few insiders actually expect Senator Obama to be competitive with
Senator Clinton at the end of the day. After musings about
Clinton-Obama showdown in Iowa and New Hampshire, the talk quickly turns
to speculation about the chances of a Democratic "Dream Ticket" with the
inevitable Senator Hillary Clinton for President and the ever-rising
Senator Barack Obama as Vice President. (The Georgia equivalent would
have been a Secretary of State Cathy Cox/Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor
ticket in 2006.) It will not happen. Here's why.

In selecting a Vice Presidential running mate, there are several things
that a Presidential nominee will consider. First, can the Vice
President deliver an "up for grabs" state and its electoral votes? If
Al Gore had followed this simple rule and picked a U.S. Senator from
Florida as his running mate in 2000, he would have likely easily won the
state and the Electoral College and become the President of the United
States. Absent a political earthquake (similar to that which happened
in Ohio in 2006), Illinois is unlikely to be at play in 2008. Senator
Obama's addition to the ticket is unlikely to make any real difference
in the chances that the Democratic nominee will win the state.

Of course, this is not always the case. Obviously, Dick Cheney's home
red state of Wyoming did little to change the electoral mathematics of
the 2000 election. Yet, he was a meaningful addition to the ticket. He
solidified the political base of then Republican nominee George W. Bush.

Some speculate that Senator Obama's addition to the ticket would
solidify the African-American base of the Democratic Party. Political
activists generally agree that this is not true. The fact is that
Senator Clinton (with the help of her husband, former President Bill
Clinton) is already as strong as a Democratic candidate can
realistically expect to get among African-American voters.

Without hard cold Electoral College votes to deliver, or the
strengthening of a core constituency, the question is what would Senator
Obama bring to the ticket? The answer is "star power."

No one should underestimate the power of celebrity in this political
environment. The combination of celebrity with talent is especially
noteworthy. However, by the time the Democratic nominee picks her
running mate in 2008, it will be a different time. The freshness of a
new face will have passed with the constant coverage of a Presidential
campaign. The ambiguities of unknown positions will have been
eliminated by the constant light of media investigations and exploration
on every possible issue.

Then, there is the compatibility "thing." Political competitors rarely
make good partners. Reagan did it, but there was never a question about
who the star was. In the next Clinton Administration, there will only
be room for two stars (if that) and one of them will not be the Vice
President. Star power is not a plus.

And, without the stars aligning, there will not be a Clinton/Obama
ticket next year.

The founding fathers contemplated a constant check and balance among the three branches of government. That tug of war continues in 2007. Within this context, the Georgia General Assembly has asserted its constitutional powers. Certainly, the power of the purse string is an important check that the legislative branch has. Yet, it may be the power to regulate elections that proves to be the most significant in 2007.

Some question whether to have judicial elections at all. Of course, now that Georgia has a Republican governor with a Republican legislature, there is little appetite among the leadership of the Georgia Bar Association for appointed judges. Instead, there has been a renewed enthusiasm for elected judges despite constant complaints about the tenor and vitriol of judicial races.

Oddly enough, the self-appointed committees and groups charged with monitoring judicial elections for civility and decorum have completely disappeared from the legal landscape as lawyers talk with glee of election successes using vicious personal attacks against judicial opponents. Unfortunately, these strategies have only lowered the bar (no pun intended) in the context of selecting judges.

Some forget that it was the donation and acceptance of money from the Democratic Party of Georgia that broke the barrier for partisan money in a judicial race. Just one cycle later, it will undoubtedly be then politics of personal destruction in a judicial race that sets the standard for the next judicial race.

Results oriented bar leaders focused only on winning the last battle with no regard for the next have set in motion a chain of events that can only lead to another round of judicial elections that result in lower respect for attorneys, and even less regard for judges. This strategy undermines the very branch of government that they insist they are trying to protect. Because control is more important than preservation, they have guaranteed that hotly contested, expensive, and degrading judicial elections appear to be here to stay.

Members of both political parties in the General Assembly have insisted that judicial elections are broken and must be fixed. Some have urged a ban on political party contributions to candidates for judicial elections. Others have recommended changing the rules on campaign contributions. One proposal includes the possibility of publicly funded judicial campaigns. Yet, another group has suggested simply making judicial elections partisan. Virtually all have focused on the growing problem of money in judicial elections.

One of the factors that has complicated this issue is the decision of the Georgia Bar Association to use the mandatory fees that it collects from lawyers for political purposes. Another complicating factor is the different set of rules that appear to apply to donations to judicial campaigns.

Other constitutional officers in Georgia are subject to a rule that public officials cannot accept political donations from people they regulate. The reason is obvious.

Yet, candidates for the Georgia Supreme Court can accept donations from folks that the court directly regulates - lawyers. In fact, candidates for the Supreme Court can even accept donations from lawyers who have cases before them. So, there are now proposals to change this exception for lawyer donations, in whole or in part.

Whether any of these proposals should or will make it to the Governor's desk is unclear. What is clear is that the system is not working. As judicial elections continually devolve (as in evolve in the wrong direction), it will become virtually impossible to get good people to serve. And, that is something that the framers never intended.