Steps in the right ethical direction

Sometimes, the length of the stride isn't quite as important as the direction of the stride. There are ways in which every ethics bill the Utah Legislature has passed, or soon will pass, this year could be stronger, tougher and more airtight. But it sure is nice to see ethics bills of any sort make it to the governor's desk for his signature.

For years, we have lamented — and opinion polls have shown most Utahns agreed — how gifts from lobbyists buy too much influence. This has been particularly upsetting in light of how Utah has held to a part-time citizen Legislature in the belief that it keeps lawmakers close to the people who elect them. Jazz tickets, theater tickets, expensive meals, rounds of golf — the list of gifts is long, and each helps cement relationships that influence which ideas become law, often regardless of how the public might feel.

Now the Legislature has passed SB156, which would require publicly listing the names of any lawmaker who received any meals or food costing more than $25 and any ticket to a sporting or artistic event costing more than $10. We would have preferred an absolute ban on gifts, regardless of value, that reasonably could be construed as intended to buy influence. But this bill is a great first step. It tightened what had been a rather loose $50 limit.

The bill also exempts any gift offered to the Legislature as a whole or to a standing or interim committee or party caucus. That's a loose standard as well. Senate standing committees consist of only seven members. A lobbyist could easily provide those members with gifts and never have to file a report.

Several other bills, including ones that would control how retired officeholders spend leftover campaign money and that would keep lawmakers from leaving office and becoming lobbyists for a set amount of time, are expected to pass before the session ends. Each has potential loopholes that could render them ineffective under certain circumstances. But each is a step in the right direction.

One lawmaker said he opposes these measures because they will force lobbyists to instead lavish huge campaign contributions on legislators in order to gain influence, something he sees as far worse than a free meal here or there.

But with quick, accurate and public reporting, such contributions would become public knowledge.

The truth is there is no ironclad way to divorce money from political influence. Nor should that be the goal. Instead, Utahns deserve a way to easily see how such money moves, and to assure themselves that their representatives are not enriching themselves at the expense of the public good. A gift ban, a waiting period between lawmaking and lobbying, and strict limits on the use of campaign funds for personal enrichment would help accomplish this goal.

Clearly, new leadership in the House and Senate deserve praise for pushing things in the right direction. But the work is not finished.