There is a lot of talk in the media that serious ethics reform could happen in this session of the Virginia General Assembly. Don’t count on it! Too many legislators regard special interest gifts as entitlements. While they profess to support limiting “tangible” gifts to a minimal value and more reporting, they fiercely guard their rights to certain gifts which supplement their incomes. I’ve communicated with some delegates and state senators claiming to favor reform, including Reston Delegate Ken Plum and State Senator Janet Howell, both Democrats. Together they’ve served over 50 years. Both are respected and are generally progressive, especially Plum. So, what is the problem? Both insist that meals and trips be protected from reform. They indicate no willingness to limit these exceptions. I guess I don’t have a problem if, e.g., Dominion Power (Virginia’s biggest corporate gifter and major campaign funder to both) wants to take Ken or Janet to an occasional meal at Clydes and spend $25 or $30. But, they are more likely to spend $100 or $200/person in much fancier settings. And, let’s be serious for a minute.
Dominion and other corporates who stand to benefit by Virginia legislative action do NOT wine and dine our legislators for humanitarian reasons or to further good government. They do it to curry favor, and influence actions favoring their interests. The only defense I have heard to date is that legislators are so busy they have little time to talk with folks with interest in legislation unless they dine together. If that is the case, why not dine at a Clydes or the Montmartre, and report it. The other gifting our legislators want to protect is travel. They argue that trips to Turkey or the Far East, for example, can serve a legitimate legislative purpose. Thus, they argue, it should be OK if the benefitting interest pays their travel and associated costs—including meals, of course. I don’t think so. If travel serves a legitimate legislative purpose, then it should be justified as such and paid from the legislature’s budget. If a trip serves the public interest, it should be paid for by public funds, not by special interests whose purpose is their own benefit. On occasion, legislators I talk with bemoan their low salaries in the context of conversations about ethics reform and exceptions for meals and travel. Indeed their salaries are very low for the time they really put in: as a Senator, Howell makes only $18,000/year; and, as a Delegate, Plum makes just $17,640. These amounts are in the lower one-third for all state legislators. They do make up some lost ground with per diems of $180 and $170 respectively—sixth highest in the U.S.
Linking valid complaints about low salaries to discussion of gifts and wanting to protect meal and travel gifting is where the sense of entitlement comes in. The suggestion seems to be that since senator or delegate pay is less than it should be, it is somehow OK to make it up with meals and travel paid for by folks seeking influence. When I suggest instead they take action to research fairer salaries and raise them appropriately, the response is that to do so is to risk jeopardizing all important re-election by voting themselves a raise. Better to be partially indebted to special interests?! This thinking can undermine democracy’s foundation. Let your reps know what you think. They need and want your input.