For decades Michigan has had a campaign finance reform law and lobbying regulation law on the books. It has not been updated since then in any significant way. Michigan was a leader in regulation and monitoring of public officials campaign funds and lobbyist behavior. For the last twenty years most other large states have passed us by. We have not done any significant reform and our laws do not reflect the changes in our society or in techonology.
It is time for sweeping changes and reform.
Attorney General Cox has made such a proposal. He is running for Governor so one has to question his motiviation, BUT at least he has thrown something into the reform bucket. He is putting something forward. It is time for legislative leaders to come forward with their proposals. Citizens groups also. Only 8 of 38 Senators will be returning, due to term limits, after the 2010 elections. One third of the House will be new. The Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and the Secretary of State are all term limited and they will be replaced by new officials. It is time for these exiting officials to take a look at this issue and put some reform in place for the new government that will arrive on January 1, 2011.
The following is a news story by the Detroit News on Sunday, August 30, 2009:
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Cox proposes ethics reform bills for Mich. public officials
Mike Wilkinson / The Detroit News
Detroit -- Public officials across Michigan from the Detroit City Council to the governor's office would be required to disclose lobbyist-paid gifts and details about their assets, incomes and debt under an ethics reform package proposed by Attorney General Mike Cox.
If the package of bills is passed, Cox said Thursday, the state would join 47 others that have more detailed rules on what public officials must tell constituents about their financial lives. Such disclosure, he said, would allow citizens to know more about potential conflicts between a politician's life and their voting record.
Under Cox's plan, many elected officials and some appointed ones would be required, under fear of criminal prosecution, to reveal on what boards they serve, who took them out to golf and dinner, and which bank holds their mortgage. It would also force the disclosure of similar gifts given to spouses and dependents, and would give the Secretary of State subpoena power to gather information.
"If I'm serving on a corporate board, the voters ought to know about it," Cox said.
According to a recent report by the Center for Public Integrity, Michigan, Vermont and Idaho are the only states that have no laws requiring personal financial disclosures for legislators. The organization gave each of them, along with 17 other states, an "F" grade. But 14 others states, according to the organization, have improved their disclosure laws since a similar survey was done in 2006.
"Michigan has the opportunity to join the bandwagon, where the thrust has been internationally for more transparency and openness in government," said Peggy Kerns, director of the National Conference of State Legislatures' Center for Ethics in Government.
Kerns, however, said the disclosure must have two components: easily accessible data and a public that wants the information.
"The public has to care about this stuff too," said Kerns, who is based in Denver.
The package proposed by Cox is expected to be introduced in the Legislature within the next week, he said. It is sponsored by state Rep. Paul Opsommer, R-DeWitt.
Most states have ethics legislation, and Michigan has some: Lobbyists, for instance, are required to disclose when they give gifts totaling $725 to public officials. But the Opsommer bills would put that onus on public officials, and would require disclosure when the total exceeds $250.
Cox announced the package during a press conference at his Detroit office, where he was joined by Warren Mayor Jim Fouts and Gary Brown, a candidate for Detroit City Council who was at the center of the text-message scandal revealed after he won a whistle-blower suit against the city and former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.
The law would cover the state's top elected officials, as well as department directors, the state boards of education, legislators and state Supreme Court justices. It also would cover local elected officials who earn more than $65,000.
Among the provisions:
• Report gifts from lobbyists (sporting events, meals, trips) that exceed $250.
• Reimbursements from lobbyists that exceed $250.
• Outside income that exceeds $1,000, including second jobs, rental income and investment income.
• Assets, including homes, recreational vehicles, stocks and bonds that exceed $2,500.
• Liabilities, such as home loans, that exceed $10,000.
Fouts said he has taken flak in Warren for a "no gifts" policy, one of several ethics stands he's taken in the Macomb County city. The public needs to know that there are no hidden interests behind the politicians they elect, he said.
"It really enhances the public good and, more importantly, the public trust," Fouts said. "People should be elected to serve the public and not their personal interests."
Cox, who has announced his bid for governor in 2010, said he will make his own voluntary disclosure next week. He admitted to getting some candy and nuts at Christmastime but said he has eschewed other gifts. But he said he knows that lobbyists and others are always interested in gaining the ear of politicians.
"If you want to golf all summer, you can golf all summer," Cox said of lobbyist-provided gifts. "The temptations are always there."
Brown, who is among the 18 finalists for City Council, said, if elected, he will propose similarly tough disclosure legislation for Detroit. He would expand it, however, to include department heads. Brown, who was fired in 2003 by Kilpatrick after he began investigating the behavior of the mayor's staff, ultimately won an $8.4 million settlement from the city.
He said he'd like to see the creation of a Web site that would allow anyone to see how every dollar is spent by the city.
"I would like to see a bright light shined on city government," he said.
mwilkinson@detnews.com (313) 222-2563
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am so glad that Attorney General Cox is planning on proposing ethical guidelines for lawmakers to follow. Personally, when I worked for a large municipality downstate the developers would bring Zingermans bagels in every morning for the planning and building department. Then at Christmas, everyone got gifts ranging from food to gift certificates. There were a couple of instances where one of elected officials would be asked out for dinner to discuss their review from the planning department and after that dinner, I would receive a note on my desk asking me to look at their plans again. The place that I work now, we have been trying to work on an ethical code and the trustees have a hard time disusing what a conflict of interest is and if that should be defined in board policies.
ReplyDeleteIf the lawmakers donate say $100,000 to the Christian Coalition I think that information should be public. This could influence their vote on such things as prayer in school and abortion. The point that was made about this should be done if the public wants to know, I firmly believe that the public does want to play in active role of government, they are just unsure how to do so. I think that if they are able to get as much background information on a candidate or a current lawmaker then there is the possibility that an individual might see something in particular that gets them fired up. I know some municipalities that put their entire board packet including expenditures and revenue reports on the web, personally I see that is a good and bad thing. From the resident standpoint, I think this will give the public a sense of control in that they can watch what the government spends and question their spending habits. From a government work position, I see the potential conflicts that could arise and the questions that people will ask, like why did you spend that amount of money at Menards and not at our local Ace Hardware. All in all, I think a code of ethics for lawmakers and local officials is a wonderful idea, if there are guidelines to follow those that want to succeed in politics will follow the rules and when a politician breaks one, we will have a standard that they can be held accountable for.
Federal standards for the house of representatives are so strict why would states not start this? Workers for federal officials can not even except baked goods because it would be a violation. The money from lobbyists seem almost like bought and paid for votes. This is why most citizens are for campaign finance reform. It looks like a big change will be coming to Michigan in 2010.
ReplyDeleteI see this as a very positive thing for Michigan. Why is it that some officials see nothing wrong with these obviously unethical payments or gifts? Cox has the right idea in that, if these officials have to disclose all of the extras they are getting and just how much monetary lobbying is really going on, they will most likely be more conscious of what is ethical and what isn't. It is rather sad that Michigan is one of the few states that does not have any personal finacial disclosure laws. I feel that is not only a need for it, but also a desire for it from the public. People that follow local and state government fairly closely would appreciate an opporunity to see where a canidate's true feelings lie. Did they take money from a gun company, or a animal rights group? Are they donating money to charitable organizations? What organizations are they a part of on their own time? These disclosures could prove to show the real people behind the hype and written speeches. You would know when they donated their money for something they believe in or maybe money was given to help a family member. All of this information could provide the voters with a better understanding of the canidates and allow them to make a sound judgement in the voters booth. Voters choose an individual to represent them as closely as possible based on only the little information that they are given. So many voters would appreciate the opportunity to get to know the person from as many sides as possible. Hopefully if this passes we can put start putting some much needed trust into our elected officials and our government.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely like to know more "important" things about my elected officials; I don't really care what they did in college, or what their sexual preferance is, or who they're picking to make it to the Final Four, I would like to know, however, "important" stuff like: what developer exclusively contracts their privatly owned plumbing company, what corporate boards are they serving on, what corporate boards are their family members serving on, where are their investments, etc. There's an infinite list of things to consider when trying to figure out where an elected officials interest are; I guess in addition to laws requiring financial disclosures, Michigan should become even more reformed, and reduce the number of elected officials; lets narrow them down and watch them more closely.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is a step in regulating a form of corruption they may not be widely apparent to the American public. Lobbyists are Americans and they do retain vaules that many of have or don't have. Regardless they are the voice of a certain goal or cause but when adding monetary gifts of some sort into the equation it no longer becomes whether their issue is important for the American people. I see why this would be opposed by some candidates, the average citizen regards lobbyist activities with distaste. Publically revealing this kind of information could be detrimental to their campaign.
ReplyDeleteI see this leglislation as a move in the right direction. Certainly public officials need accountability to their constituents. Michigan, having a state unemployment rate of 15.2%, certainly is struggling. Ethics reform could, perhaps, create more confidence in the regulatory process and encourage more corporations to conduct business here. Following, the effects of this leglislation could, arguably, help stabalize the job market, and a robust economy is in everyone's best interest.
ReplyDeleteA problem still exists, however. There is corruption that takes place no matter how much regulation and transparency could be imposed. Imagine a scenario with an elected official in Wisconsin and his friend in an elected position in Michigan, who happened to serve on a house subcommittee. The official from Wisconsin has business interest in a particular corporation that fiercly opposes a merger based on an bogus antitrust argument.
Now, the official from Wisconsin writes his friend in Michigan and request that he or she use his or her clout, based on his or her position in the house subcommittee, to attempt to block this merger that poses a competitive threat.
There may be no exchange of money but rather favors between officials. It is very hard to trace these relationships but each official is acting on behalf of his or her rational self-interest and not his or her constituents. In fact, the constituents may be shareholders in the corporation that seeks to be on the receiving end of the contested merger. In this case, the official may be working against the majority of his of her constituents in the respective district.
Cox has made a stride toward reform that is admirable. However, where one finds something of value, he or she often have the desire to exploit it for his or her own gain. As the saying goes, "where there is a will, there is a way".
In politics charcter counts for everything. Reform can, ultimately, only go so far to curb corruption.
Enforcement is the key issue of course. If there is no way to adequately enforce the campaign rules, then it will only put the candidates who follow the rules further behind. I would be surprised if there are many candidates out there who wouldn't violate a simple campaign finance law if it meant the difference in an election.
ReplyDeleteIt is admirable of Attourney General Cox to put it on his platform however. Hopefully, it isn't a major point of his platform. I think Michigan really needs to vote from an economic standpoint in the upcoming election. Voting on candidates based on social issues in a state election doesn't make a whole lot of sense because little is usually accomplished. I think the next governor should have the best economic plan for improving Michigan.