Op Ed:
Takes Two To Deal:
Ethics Must Control
Lurking Lobbyists

Commission Needs Billy-Club, Not Lunch Checks

"Working Together" is the answer for best results.

(SALEM) - Even Adam Smith, very early-on, understood that “it takes two to make a deal” --in 1776. Smith’s fundamental assumption was-and-is that it should be equitable and worthwhile for both parties.

If one of them is working for somebody else, the other must take full caution and care; especially if chosen and trusted so to do, uniquely in the public interest, by very-public vote, now forced under sharp, serious surveillance --again.

Trust is on the voter-legislator side, and cannot in good conscience be applied to provide private profit for the other side.

That dominating trust cometh down from citizen to candidate-for-office, and creates a fundamental bond building the basic foundation for our democracy.

Latitude for landing all those lavish “campaign contributions” can no longer be allowed to conceal the reality now finally understood by most Oregonians. “Transactional lobbying” has taken on special meaning in far too many governance situations.

The Legislature sets its own working rules. They control their own consequences by how they structure their ethics-controlling Commission and the operational rules by which they shape their own working system.

When that works, as it should given conscientious and completely responsible characterization by its participants, every segment and section of democracy gets its say; setting up the rest-of-the-system for ethical and equitable operation in the commonweal.

That is how the Founders conceived that this very special concentration of power was to be used: in the public interest, conscientiously, for the better good of all in the commonwealth.

“Conflict of interest” is the antithesis of earned confidence and continued respect for all-concerned in this situation.

This particular Legislature is caught-standing on a very weak structure; supporting themselves over a gaping pit for those still new to “the game; and over an electoral grave for others at the weak-end of their term, facing voter fury soon-again.

The very beams underfoot have begun to rot in the years since they were thoroughly examined on first installation.

There’s little question, after this last campaign and its numerous telling-outcomes, about voter fury.

In preparation for the badly-needed “new rules”, a select group of specially-talented and well-informed leaders in law and equitable control of ethical responsibilities has conferred; and consulted and cooperated and compiled for a full year; a lengthy list of laudable steps-and-stages for strengthening and clarifying what the Ethics Commission can, should --and, now MUST--do in these distressing circumstances.

The demanding elements for radical, rapid, responsible change have been well laid-out; and the lists plainly published for all citizens to see and understand; in both print-side papers and on the Internet web, now ubiquitous and rapid for public understanding while still pertinent for positive response --sure to come this time in detail, depth and determined demand.

Now comes the hard-part: Actually putting into working position, and then into full operation the particular and peculiar pertinent changes --and new ways of working, too-- that the illustrious legal leaders set out with such special care and concern. Every single one earned its place by profound examination and detailed dialog --why now refuse, deny or delay on any one of them?

Already advocates for change are seeing canny corporate efforts to delay, defeat and even deny the absolute clean-up and clear-out which is all that’s left of those old rules and regulations --and of some of those who permitted this debacle to take place.

It may be seen as presumptuous by some to suggest that a basic principle, well-known to most struggling parents, may be highly useful here: Painful behavior should bring painful consequence.

Precedent is easily found; very recently the Federal Communications Commission used a factor of ten to put into place $350,000 fines for the smallest example of TV-broadcast “momentary exposure” seen as obscenity; for every station so-captured --NOT for their network-alone.

The best possible Christmas reward for many Oregonians, from this incoming Legislature --paused provocatively on the Capital steps and bearing its own consequential load-- will surely be whatever they unwrap either rapidly or slowly -- their gift to their own Ethics Commission --and themselves.