Non-ethical Non-dilemma
The Tennessee legislature is gearing up for a special session on ethics. This is, presumably, so that it can pass some ethics laws. This comes on the heels of The Tennessee Waltz, in which many legislators were arrested for taking campaign contributions err bribes. A few notes:
This is nothing but a dog and pony show. No real reform will come out of this. This stuff could have been handled during a regular session but wasn’t. You see, it’s much more dramatic for the governor to call a special session during the holidays because it emphasizes this notion that they’re really doing something. They’re not.
Politicians pass the laws that apply to them and how they operate. Said laws usually benefit said politicians and are designed to ensure they have power. We have here an entity that regulates and oversees itself. That’s not good. It’s rather like if an SEC company could audit itself. Why would you care about a financial report from a company that audits itself? You wouldn’t because the information would be skewed.
Despite those laws that we already had on the books, these legislators engaged in unethical and illegal actions. We have the laws in place and they don’t follow them. What good will more laws do if we can’t get a grip on the ones we already have? And it takes a three year investigation involving an elaborate plan that set up a fictitious company to catch them due to the complexity involved.
This is about the appearance of accomplishing something. Anything. Nothing more. Posturing at it’s finest. We’ll get to see our politicos act morally outraged and aghast. But they’ll do nothing of substance.
So, grab your popcorn and beverage and take in the little song and dance they’re putting on for us.
Update: Turns out, the ethics panel has never actually met:
But if the talk was big, the action was little, if any. The governor’s special ethics committee, created in that Cabinet meeting, did not meet even once.
And the panel he created in October 2003 to ensure that the state promotions process was conducted fairly never met, either.
Morons.
December 27th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
I think the one positive you can take from this is that most voters are fully aware that it is all a show. Sometimes common sense isn’t that common, but I’m becoming aware that it is.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t turned into voter-based change.
December 27th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Err, don’t libertarians generally assert that we should trust companies to self-police? The market, after all, will decide…
December 27th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
“Politicians pass the laws that apply to them and how they operate. Said laws usually benefit said politicians and are designed to ensure they have power. We have here an entity that regulates and oversees itself. That’s not good. It’s rather like if an SEC company could audit itself. Why would you care about a financial report from a company that audits itself? You wouldn’t because the information would be skewed.”
Ya realize that you just kicked the underpinning ut form under one of the rationales of libertarinaism, right? 😉
This is an old problem — who polices the policemen. The solution is, in the case of campaign contributions, to publically fund all campaigns. But you hate that idea. the only other choice is one not likely to happen unless a govenor makes it an issue: an outside body to police ethics with subpenoa and punishment, up to and including removal from office, power.
December 27th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
I’m not sure public financing actually solves this problem. Well, it only solves the narrow campaign contribution problem, not corruption from other forms of bribery, err, lobbying. I think you have to have an independent, non-partisan monitoring body (with real power, as you say) to clamp down on corruption.
December 27th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
I added a comment during the scandels uncovering and stated basically what you did Uncle. There will be little to no penalties, and everyone will walk away looking ike the cat that ate the mouse.
http://theblountfacts.blogspot.com/2005_05_22_theblountfacts_archive.html
December 27th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Let me see if I can simplify this;
It shouldn’t matter where legislators got their money, unless they stole it. They take an Oath of Office to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
If they’re doing that, they’re fine and good. If they’re violating that Oath, how should it matter where they got their money? They’re criminals, and Enemies of the State, regardless. Forget about the money.
Now, does that make sense?
December 28th, 2005 at 12:44 am
Representative Dunn from KNoxville should be praised for not going along with this. If we had a lot of people like him in the legislature, we would be a lot better off.