« Environment - More on "U.S. EPA raises concerns about IDEM changes" | Main | Environment - Still more on "U.S. EPA raises concerns about IDEM changes" »
Friday, January 23, 2009
Legislative Benefits - "Transparency bills get no respect"
That is the headline to this editorial this morning in the Indianapolis Star:
It's still early in the session, but several bills that would tighten Indiana's extraordinarily loose oversight of state legislators' interactions with lobbyists already appear to be in jeopardy.State Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, said this week in a meeting with The Star's Editorial Board that he's pessimistic that three bills he authored on lobbying reform will make it out of committee.
As it stands, legislators aren't required to report lobbyists' gifts valued at less than $100. That means a lawmaker who accepts a lobbyist's offer of a $90 meal at one of Downtown's better restaurants doesn't have to report it -- even if the lobbyist picks up the tab night after night.
Senate Bill 17, which would reduce the minimum for reporting to $25, has been assigned to the Senate Rules committee, frequently a sign that the leadership has no intention of moving the legislation forward.
SB 242, which would require lobbyists to file weekly reports on their contacts with legislators and staff members, was dealt a similar fate.
So too was SB 15, a proposal authored by Sen. Pat Miller that would establish a one-year cooling-off period before a former legislator could work as a lobbyist before the General Assembly. [See earlier ILB entries on this bill here and here.] * * *
The Senate leadership's disinterest (and it's not any better in the House) in closing the huge loopholes in existing regulations is disappointing. The close ties binding lobbyists to lawmakers have fueled public cynicism toward the General Assembly, a fact that should alarm lawmakers. Instead, they fight to guard the status quo.
The reforms pushed by Delph and Miller are moderate and practical. They would promote better transparency in the legislative process and erect reasonable safeguards against corruption.
Opponents, confined to the ranks of lobbyists and lawmakers, have failed to mount any persuasive arguments against the proposals. If the bills die, as it appears they will, it will be only because legislators want to keep the stream of gifts, meals and job offers flowing. That may be in lawmakers' best interests, but it's not in the public's.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 23, 2009 08:56 AM
Posted to Legislative Benefits