As a tumultuous session at the Georgia General Assembly nears its end, it is encouraging that Speaker David Ralston made good on his promise to push for ethics reform. However, when reviewing the legislation that was passed by both the Georgia House and Senate on Wednesday, April 22, one has to wonder if the legislation will curb any of the abuses that made headlines this session.

While the legislation provides for more disclosures by lobbyists and legislators, and increases penalties for failure to comply, it is notable that the bill neglects to incorporate the more comprehensive reforms contained in other bills introduced this session. The provisions that were not adopted would have:

• required legislators to report the gifts they receive from lobbyists on a quarterly basis (currently, lobbyists are required to report this information) and would have instituted progressively stronger penalties for failure to do so, including potential expulsion from office and criminal sanctions,

• limited the value of lobbyist gifts to legislators to $25.00 (where currently there is no limit),

• prohibited current government employees and contractors from speaking before General Assembly committees,

• restricted the use of campaign contributions to the candidate to whom they were given and for the office the candidate was seeking when the donation was made,

• prohibited any person shown to have willfully failed to pay their taxes from running for public office.

None of these restrictions made it into the bill that passed. While, arguably, new laws like these may not be needed to address the myriad of ethical problems that nearly derailed this session, it is disappointing that our elected leaders did not do more when they had the opportunity.

Also glaringly missing from the legislation are any restrictions on the types of relationships between lobbyists and legislators that sparked the reform debate. In the wake of the scandal involving Speaker Glenn Richardson and a lobbyist, a sad state of affairs under the Gold Dome was made public: that some of our elected leaders feel comfortable openly doing things that, while not necessarily illegal, are dishonest, unethical and unbecoming of those holding positions of public trust.

In Speaker Richardson’s case, not only was his sexual affair with a female lobbyist well known at the Capitol, but so was the connection between that lobbyist and legislation Speaker Richardson supported that benefited one of her clients.

Now that Speaker Richardson is no longer in the General Assembly, it is easy to forget that it was not until his ex-wife made very public statements about the affair, among other revelations, that serious pressure began to mount for him to resign. And, even with public anger mounting, it was not clear that House leadership realized how damaging the revelations were or that their efforts to have the Speaker resign were long overdue.

The series of events leading to Speaker Richardson’s resignation show that a culture has been allowed to develop at the General Assembly where self-policing (a necessary component of an institution governed by ethical rules) is virtually nonexistent as behavior like that of the Speaker is routinely tolerated.

And in the months since Richardson’s resignation, other ethically questionable conduct has come to light. The practice of legislators holding major fundraisers during the weeks before the beginning of the session (where lobbyists are major donors) was made public. There have also been reports of metro area legislators seeking reimbursement for expenses, like housing, when they live within a 40 minute drive of the Capitol.

While legally these practices may be fine, they certainly do not appear that way to the average voter, which should be enough for our elected leaders to avoid them. After all, avoiding the appearance of impropriety is typically an implicit goal of most systems of ethical rules; it would be refreshing if the members of our General Assembly adopted it as their mantra.

While this kind of culture may present a moral hazard for those living in it, it also poses potential perils for our state. Where our leaders are morally or ethically compromised, there is a greater likelihood that they can and will be blackmailed into supporting legislation that is not in the best interest of our state or compromises commitments they have made to their constituents. At the very least, when our elected leaders are unethical or condone the unethical behavior of their peers, they do serious harm to our most important democratic institution.

To be clear, it is not the point of this column to simply pile on. Instead, our hope is that by continuing to focus on this issue, pressure will mount and steps will be taken to reform the General Assembly in a more substantive way, making it more ethical, more transparent and more responsive to the citizens of Georgia. The failure of transformative ethics legislation to be passed this session is one of many indicators that the memories of the events leading up to this session have faded far too quickly.

We must expect more of our elected leaders – in terms of their own conduct and in terms of the conduct they tolerate from their peers. While we are appreciative of Speaker Ralston for pursuing reform, much more is needed.

A good first step would be for members of the General Assembly to make a collective pledge that they will commit themselves to the highest ethical standards and to follow up that pledge with actions that show how serious they are. If they are serious, they will do what is necessary to expose the corruption in their midst, whether through new laws or self-policing. Law enforcement and voters will then do the rest.
Georgia Family Council is a non-profit research and education
organization committed to fostering conditions in which individuals,
families and communities thrive. For more information,
go to www.georgiafamily.org, (770) 242-0001,
stephen.daniels@georgiafamily.org.