The suggestion to make Connecticut’s legislature more ethical by making it full time ignores the true cause of unethical behavior. Making the job of lawmakers a full time endeavor would only serve to increase the opportunity for trouble, not lessen it.
At the core of all unethical conduct is a relationship between two people. Someone in government with the ability to affect policy and someone outside government who wants to affect policy.
People who run for office need help and there are many people who are willing to help in the hope that their efforts will pay off someday — in the form of access or something more. As soon as a candidate makes the decision to run for office and accept help from others, he is putting himself at risk for conflict of interest.
We choose those who lead us through partisan political campaigns. The notion that we can separate politics from government ignores reality. Candidates take stands on issues, they attract like minded supporters and, when they win, those supporters expect the candidate to follow through and implement the platform the campaign was built on.
Â
Pristine Politics
Candidates and their supporters are usually friends with a shared policy vision.
In the pristine ethical world some in Connecticut now seek, office holders would have no contact with their supporters after Election Day. They would work together during the campaign season on issues they agree on, but after the election, members of the candidate’s team would step to the side and trust that their man will follow through as promised.
That’s not only unrealistic; it denies politically active constituents a right to participate in their government.
Political campaigns and the legislative process are highly social activities. Candidates and their campaign staffs tend to become friends, because they have lived through political battle together. Lobbyists and legislators tend to become friends, because they work together on complicated issues in the search for compromise.
It is the social aspect of politics and government that ultimately leads to conflicts of interest. Friendships impair good judgment. It is easy to see how Speaker of the House Jim Amann can convince himself it is acceptable to ask lobbyists for contributions for the Multiple Sclerosis Society, because he sees lobbyists as colleagues and friends.
Legislators who are also lawyers believe they have special knowledge making them uniquely qualified to review and confirm judicial nominees. It is easy to see how they can convince themselves they have no conflict of interest by sitting on the Judiciary Committee. Their ethical judgment is impaired by their superior knowledge of a narrow set of issues.
It is easy to see how State Representative Chris Caruso, a full time legislator working for what he considers part time pay, sees no conflict in his advocacy for a change that might more than double his salary. His judgment is impaired by his quest for something that can’t be achieved – government without politics.
Â
Ethical Purity
There is no doubt conflicts abound in Connecticut’s part time General Assembly. Many special interests have private sector colleagues in key positions in the House and Senate. The way to end undue influence is to insist that legislators with a real or perceived special interest abstain from voting when a conflict presents itself. A full time legislature absent that rule would not bring us any closer to ethical purity.
Creating a full time legislature will increase cost to taxpayers, lead to more government and unnecessary law. A full time legislature will not remove from the process the political and social relationships which are an inherent part of our system and at the root of all conflict.
Â
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
