« Law - "Debtors in Rush to Bankruptcy as Change Nears" | Main | Law - Analysis of the Vioxx trial »
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Law - "Why ethics involve more than free golf"
As readers are most likely aware, the Governor of our sister state of Ohio "pleaded no contest [last week] to four misdemeanors for failing to report gifts." The Cincinnati Enquirer has an editorial column this morning titled "Why ethics involve more than free golf." Here are some quotes:
Bob Taft apologized for the golf, the free meals and the hockey tickets. But what he did wrong had a lot more to do with what he gave away for these freebies. He gave away face time without telling the rest of us.On Thursday, Taft became the first sitting governor in the history of Ohio to be convicted of crimes, after he pleaded no contest to four misdemeanors for failing to report gifts.
In the world Taft inhabits, the benefits he received from these gifts are so laughable they will undoubtedly end up in late-night comedy monologues. But the benefits to those he shared his meals and golf outings with cannot be measured. Those benefits were in the priceless form of influence - real or perceived - and that is the coin in which politicians and those who seek to be close to them trade.
Perceived influence is almost as good as the real thing. If other people think you have a strong connection with a powerful figure, they treat you with a deference and extend a certain benefit of the doubt.
Taft's offenses were violations of Ohio's Financial Disclosure Law. There are many people who think the law is just being picky - prosecuting the governor or any other public official over a few rounds of golf. Under the law those golf rounds are gifts, and because each round cost more than $75, the governor was required to report them as gifts on his annual financial disclosure report. Accounting for every $75 gift - and that can cover everything from golf to the price of a good dinner - is picky. But the Ohio Ethics Commission spells out on its Web site exactly why the law is so picky:
The financial disclosure requirement reminds public officials and employees of their financial interests to help them avoid conflicts of interest. The disclosure requirement also promotes confidence in the integrity in state and local government by assisting the public in recognizing areas of potential conflict of interest.It is the second sentence that applies to Taft's situation. There is no evidence that he received any financial benefit in return for the golf games and other gifts he failed to disclose. In fact, a report by the Ethics Commission that was sent to the prosecutors said the people Taft played with generally indicated the events were "social in nature." Taft described them as weekend events with friends. * * *The law requires the disclosure of gifts so that the public can know who their public officials spend time with, who gets a chance to get private time with our governors, mayors, legislators and other public officials on the golf course, on a fishing trip, at a resort.
We have a right to know who gives expensive - and for the average person a $75 present is expensive - gifts to those entrusted to do the public's business. We can then decide for ourselves whether those gifts influence the officials.
Taft may have felt his golf games were innocent weekend social events, but it isn't his place - or the place of any public official - to make such judgments.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 21, 2005 11:33 AM
Posted to General Law Related