THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, January 21, 1997 TAG: 9701210011
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A16 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SERIES: A VIRGINIA REFORM AGENDA
One of a series
LENGTH: 134 lines
How many messages do Virginia lawmakers need? Warned by governors, blue-ribbon commissions and national experts, they still persist in banking on the state's tradition of relatively honest government to ward off disgrace.
Such myopia does not cloud the facts. Virginia's campaign-finance and legislative-ethics laws have gaping holes. If the legislature has avoided Washington-style scandal, it is in spite of, not because of, the lax oversight.
Most lawmakers apparently aren't pocketing special-interest money, but those individuals and groups that can bankroll candidates and mount major lobbying campaigns do have disproportionate influence in the General Assembly.
From bankers to utility chiefs to insurance executives, those who wield economic clout get what they want far more routinely than those who do not. It's a poor way to make public policy.
The starting point for ethics reform should be limiting individual contributions. Virginia is one of only eight states with no restrictions. In past gubernatorial campaigns, individuals have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to a single candidate. One Northern Virginia developer gave about a half-million to a candidate for governor. Too much.
A reasonable proposal was debated by the General Assembly in 1993. It would have restricted gifts to $5,000 in statewide elections, $2,000 in state Senate races and $1,000 in House of Delegates' races.
There's no magic in those figures, but a maximum should be set. Vigilance will be needed to make sure that special interests do not circumvent spending limits by giving to political parties, as they have done at the federal level.
Beyond that, Gov. George F. Allen and others have outlined a number of problems in lobbying- and legislative-disclosure laws that should be corrected in the current session. Among them:
There is no way to know if legislators are pocketing a $9,000 expense allowance for operating a district office. No accounting is required. The growing trend of lawmakers combining political and business activities demands such an accounting.
While lobbying laws finally require reporting of year-round activities, there is no way to know how much is being spent while the legislature is in session.
Thus, citizens didn't know until four months after the Assembly adjourned last year that Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield had paid 16 lobbyists about $135,000 to support its efforts to become a for-profit company. Nor did they know that Virginia Power, the state's largest utility, paid 17 lobbyists $167,000 to push a packet of bills clearing the way for looser regulation.
Virginians need to know how much money is being spent to influence legislation while the debate is occurring. A midsession report for spending in excess of $10,000 would shed light on the process.
Several changes are needed to make current reporting requirements meaningful. For instance, lawmakers who represent clients before state agencies have to check a box if they receive more than $10,000 in compensation. But there is no way to know if payments are closer to $100,000 or a half-million. A range of categories should be added.
Lobbyists now have to disclose when they give a lawmaker a gift. They just don't have to say who they gave it to. That ridiculous omission makes the reporting meaningless. Allen wants gifts in excess of $25 to be reported and the recipient named. That's a reasonable proposal.
Random auditing of campaign-disclosure reports, with penalities for violations, is needed. Even a cursory review of old documents turns up numerous reporting violations. Many candidates routinely ignore the requirement that they supply the occupation of major donors.
Currently forms are deposited at the State Board of Elections, where they collect dust unless reviewed by reporters or the public. A random audit would be a powerful incentive for accurate reporting.
None of these reforms should be particularly difficult for the legislature to approve. But they would do much to diminish the corrupting influence of money on the political process.
How many messages do Virginia lawmakers need? Warned by governors, blue-ribbon commissions and national experts, they still persist in banking on the state's tradition of relatively honest government to ward off disgrace.
Such myopia does not cloud the facts. Virginia's campaign-finance and legislative-ethics laws have gaping holes. If the legislature has avoided Washington-style scandal, it is in spite of, not because of, the lax oversight.
Most lawmakers apparently aren't pocketing special-interest money, but those individuals and groups that can bankroll candidates and mount major lobbying campaigns do have disproportionate influence in the General Assembly.
From bankers to utility chiefs to insurance executives, those who wield economic clout get what they want far more routinely than those who do not. It's a poor way to make public policy.
The starting point for ethics reform should be limiting individual contributions. Virginia is one of only eight states with no restrictions. In past gubernatorial campaigns, individuals have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to a single candidate. One Northern Virginia developer gave about a half-million dollars to a candidate for governor. Too much.
A reasonable proposal was debated by the General Assembly in 1993. It would have restricted gifts to $5,000 in statewide elections, $2,000 in state Senate races and $1,000 in House of Delegates' races.
There's no magic in those figures, but a maximum should be set. Vigilance will be needed to make sure that special interests do not circumvent spending limits by giving to political parties, as they have done at the federal level.
Beyond that, Gov. George F. Allen and others have outlined a number of problems in lobbying- and legislative-disclosure laws that should be corrected in the current session. Among them:
There is no way to know if legislators are pocketing a $9,000 expense allowance for operating a district office. No accounting is required. The growing trend of lawmakers' combining political and business activities demands such an accounting.
While lobbying laws finally require reporting of year-round activities, there is no way to know how much is being spent while the legislature is in session.
Thus, citizens didn't know until four months after the Assembly adjourned last year that Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield had paid 16 lobbyists about $135,000 to support its efforts to become a for-profit company. Nor did they know that Virginia Power, the state's largest utility, paid 17 lobbyists $167,000 to push a packet of bills clearing the way for looser regulation.
Virginians need to know how much money is being spent to influence legislation while the debate is occurring. A midsession report for spending in excess of $10,000 would shed light on the process.
Several changes are needed to make current reporting requirements meaningful. For instance, lawmakers who represent clients before state agencies have to check a box if they receive more than $10,000 in compensation. But there is no way to know if payments are closer to $100,000 or a half-million. A range of categories should be added.
Lobbyists now have to disclose when they give a lawmaker a gift. They just don't have to say who they gave it to. That ridiculous omission makes the reporting meaningless. Allen wants gifts in excess of $25 to be reported and the recipient named. That's a reasonable proposal.
Random auditing of campaign-disclosure reports, with penalities for violations, is needed. Even a cursory review of old documents turns up numerous reporting violations. Many candidates routinely ignore the requirement that they report the occupation of major donors.
Currently forms are deposited at the State Board of Elections, where they collect dust unless reviewed by reporters or the public. A random audit would be a powerful incentive for accurate reporting.
None of these reforms should be particularly difficult for the legislature to approve. But they would do much to diminish the corrupting influence of money on the political process.