Ethics bills solve some problems but create others

Utah legislators are finishing up their work on ethics reform measures for the 2009 session.

And as I've written before, congratulations for the steps they've made this year in trying to open government and make reforms in a number of areas.

But as with many legislative actions — from crime to road construction — legislators sometimes create problems as they try to solve other problems.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and using many years of watching the sometimes weird dance between lobbyists and lawmakers, point out where some of the new ethics laws may have stepped into the mud.

Curtailing retired legislators giving themselves leftover campaign accounts.

Last year several recently retired legislators gave themselves more than $20,000 in leftover campaign funds. That looks bad, since most of their campaign funds came from special-interest groups to begin with.

Thus, a legislator could announce in March of an election year he isn't running again, and lobbyists and special-interest groups thankful for that legislator's help over the years could give the lawmaker thousands of dollars — well-believing that that legislator would just give himself that money after leaving office. I don't call it a late-career bribe. I call it wrong.

But this year's law, while a step in the right direction, would still allow a retired legislator to give his campaign cash to a charity. And since 80 percent of legislators are faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, retired legislators can still pay their tithing with campaign funds, a clear financial benefit to them.

Lobbyist gift disclosure. This bill is also a step toward more disclosure. But it, too, can muddy up the lobbyist/legislator waters.

I've watched lobbyist giving for many years. And while most lobbyists are very careful about reporting correctly what they give, they are also smart people who can be adept at the giving game. More than a few have found ways around the gift-reporting rules.

For example, for a decade some lobbyists found a way to take a legislator out for a meal or entertainment and come in just under the $50 level that required the lawmaker's name be disclosed. Funny how that could happen.

In some cases, a lobbyist would spend $49.99 on a meal or golf game that cost more than $50, with the legislator picking up the rest of the cost so his name wouldn't be disclosed. For a time, several lobbyists would "split" the cost of an expensive gift, each coming in under the $50 naming threshold (legislators closed that loophole several years ago).