Fuggedaboutit: NJ rated least corrupt state gov't
A nationwide study finds state governments lack transparency and accountability to citizens, and remain at high risk for corruption.
In the ranking, not a single state received an A from the probe, done by the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity.
There's a surprising state atop the list of most transparent and accountable governments: New Jersey.
Despite — or perhaps because of — recent corruption scandals, New Jersey gets the top ranking because of steps it took to combat corruption, including tough ethics and anti-corruption laws it adopted in response.
The report states: "The strong ethics rules were signed into law at the end of the 2004-05 legislative session. They were, in part, a reaction to the abbreviated, scandal-plagued administration of Gov. Jim McGreevey."
Reporters in each state researched 330 corruption risk indicators across 14 government categories.
Eight states got an F. They are: North Dakota, Michigan, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota and Georgia.
On Georgia, the worst-ranked state, the report claims that while the Peach State does have good ethics laws on the books, numerous reports of people and companies circumventing those laws "underscore what can sometimes be a gaping divide between Georgia's legal standards for public accountability, on the one hand, and everyday practice."
To see how your state did, visit the full report here.
Report: Most states do poor job in guarding against Corruption
Most American states are doing a subpar job in protecting against corruption and assuring accountability, according a study released Monday.
The joint report -- from the Global Integrity nonprofit advocacy group, Public Radio International and Center for Public Integrity investigative news organization -- used data on a host of measures to score all 50 states.
No state received an A grade, while five got Bs and 19 were given Cs.
The majority got grades that would be considered not passing in American schools, including 18 Ds and eight with failing grades.
"What's behind the dismal grades? Across the board, state ethics, open records and disclosure laws lack one key feature: teeth," said an overview of the report written by Caitlin Ginley from the Center for Public Integrity.
The report assessed 330 "Corruption Risk Indicators" across 14 aspects of government such as ethics enforcement, lobbying disclosure, auditing practices and executive, legislative and judicial accountability.
The top-ranked state, after an analysis of these measures, was New Jersey.
It got a score of 87, equivalent to a B+. It was followed closely by Connecticut.
The only three other states earned above-average scores of B- or better: Washington, California and Nebraska.
On the other end of the spectrum was Georgia, which ranked at the bottom of the report's rankings when it came to transparency and accountability.
Citing one reason for Georgia's failing grade, the report claimed "more than 650 government employees accepted gifts from vendors doing business with the state in 2007 and 2008" despite this being a clear violation of state ethics laws -- adding that the state hadn't issued a related penalty since 1999.
The Peach State wasn't alone in scoring an F. It was joined by South Dakota, Wyoming, Virginia, Maine, South Carolina, North Dakota and Michigan.
The report's overview notes that low grades in some sparsely populated Western or Plains states may be attributable to "libertarian roots, a small-town, neighborly approach and the honest belief that 'everybody knows everybody' (that) has overridden any perceived need for strong protections in law."
But overall, the study concludes that many failings are preventable, whether by giving more power to ethics boards, bolstering penalties, increasing openness and transparency, or taking stronger measures to decrease the influence of money in politics.
This is despite some public steps in recent years aimed ostensibly at fighting corruption.
"State officials make lofty promises when it comes to ethics in government.
They tout transparency of legislative processes, accessibility of records and the openness of public meetings. But these efforts often fall short of providing any real transparency or legitimate hope of rooting out corruption," wrote Ginley.
The report offers a number of examples.
One is former West Virginia Gov. Arch Moore, in office for three terms in the 1970s and 1980s, who went to a local dealership and took a car on a "test drive" and ended up keeping it for four years, while the dealership earned state contracts.
Then, the report references a North Carolina legislator who owned five billboards and sponsored a bill to loosen billboard construction regulations, with an ethics commission finding no violations. And it also faults a Tennessee ethics commission that hasn't issued a penalty in its six years in existence and that doesn't make complaints available to the public.
Scandals and a history of political corruption can be prime drivers of effective reforms, according to the report, which points to the positive measures taken in New Jersey, Illinois and Louisiana.
It also credits widespread improvements in transparency, in which legislation and "some government records are easier to retrieve than ever." But Ed Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics says in the report that such information often isn't presented in an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand format.
Ginley, in the report's overview, also claims the study found that "lobbyists find ways" around even retooled laws and that "across the board, enforcement is weak."
"When it comes to money, influence and power in state government, interest groups and big-money donors will find ways around just about any limit," she wrote.
North Carolina: The story behind the score
When an influential North Carolina lawmaker named Stephen LaRoque helped sponsor and pass a 2011 bill loosening regulations on billboards, he was the co-owner of five billboards and president of a firm that owned four others.
But when LaRoque asked the North Carolina Ethics Commission to review his key legislative role, it found no conflict, citing what it called a “safe harbor” stemming from the fact that his law would benefit everyone owning billboards.
The case reflected what many analysts say is the prevailing state of North Carolina’s ethics regulations: A lengthy set of rules has been enacted to help keep public officials honest, but enforcement has sometimes not been strict. They also complain that the extensive rules haven’t adequately curbed the influence of monied interests on state policymaking.
North Carolina –a state of 9.7 million residents that will host the Democratic National Convention in September — ranks 18tth with a grade of C- and a score of 71 percent from the State Integrity Investigation, a collaborative project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International.
No state received an A, but North Carolina ranked lower than many others on measures of its public access to information, executive accountability, state budget processes, and its procurement. It bested all other states on its lobbying disclosure rules.
Many of its ethics requirements stem from legislation enacted in 2006, following a major scandal in which a powerful lawmaker bribed a rank-and-file legislator. In exchange for his vote the legislator received campaign donations and a government job for his son. A smaller package of changes was enacted in 2010, boosting disclosure requirements and imposing stiffer penalties for illegal fundraising.
The ethics legislation was “a breakthrough, a quantum jump in the way all kinds of things are regulated,” said Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, a non-partisan group that promotes government accountability. “We improved our regulation of the whole system.”
There have been some notable accomplishments, signaling the determination of some officials to punish ethics violators: In 2007 the two politicians involved in the bribe went to prison, in 2008 a legislator was expelled for violating ethics rules, and in 2010 a former governor pleaded guilty to a felony campaign law violation.
But campaign financing loopholes remain, enforcement is dispersed among several state agencies and commissions, and critics say the Ethics Commission – the principal body charged with policing conflict of interest standards —lacks sufficient staff and authority to punish violators.
“For the most part, they lack teeth,” said Frank Perry, a former Ethics Commission staff member who now directs investigations for the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service, a North Carolina watchdog group. “They could be a serious force in preventing and exposing and attacking corruption, and sadly we don’t have any proof that they’re doing it.”
The Commission – with four members appointed by the governor and four by the legislature — oversees the filing of financial disclosure reports, issues advisory opinions to officials, and launches a few investigations every year in response to complaints.
But its actions are mostly confidential, and the most severe punishment it can issue is a private admonishment. The Commission also can refer cases to the Governor, legislative leaders, or other elected officials for further action, but it never has done so. The Commission received more than 300 complaints between 2006 and 2010, and investigated fewer than twenty.
Commission Executive Director Perry Newson said most complaints are dismissed because they lack adequate factual support; in some cases, complainants refuse to reveal their identities and sign sworn statements, as the law requires.
But Chris Fitzsimon of NC Policy Watch, the group that first called attention to LaRoque’s financial interests, says the commission “seems to be unwilling to issue firm rulings that might not be in the interest of public officials.”
In LaRoque’s case, his group noted, two state officials with ties to billboards withdrew from a mandated review of the law’s implementation, citing their own conflicts of interest. Of the ethics commission decision to approve LaRoque’s role, Fitzsimon said, “That’s a very narrow interpretation of ethics laws.”
A different state government agency – the Board of Elections — administers campaign finance laws, while the Judicial Standards Commission governs judges’ behavior; legislative ethics committees investigate allegations against members of the General Assembly; the Secretary of State regulates lobbyists; and an elected State Auditor serves as a general government watchdog.
Recent efforts by state leaders to combine agencies and clarify their duties have provoked turf battles and partisan debates, partly because some of the regulatory boards are controlled by Democrats and others by Republicans.
But persistent confusion over enforcement authority was highlighted in January 2012, when a judge acquitted a lobbyist for a steel importer and other firms of charges that he had failed to register properly with the Secretary of State. The judge said the law is ambiguous and that the Secretary lacked authority to impose a $30,000 fine.
Scandal provokes reforms
The lobbying reforms, for which North Carolina scored the best, grew out of a 2002 encounter in the men’s room at an International House of Pancakes in Salibury.
Present were two state legislators: Democratic Rep. Jim Black, who was desperate for power, and Republican Rep. Michael Decker, who was desperate for money.
Black needed one more legislator’s vote to be elected a third time as Speaker of the House. In the IHOP bathroom, as Decker later admitted in federal court, he agreed to provide it in exchange for $50,000 in campaign donations and a job for his son.
The deal was part of a pattern of corruption involving Black, investigators eventually concluded. The former speaker pleaded guilty to accepting money from industry groups in exchange for legislation and admitted to the State Board of Elections that he collected blank checks from donors. By 2007, both he and Decker were in federal prison.
Other North Carolina politicians, meanwhile, spent campaign money on children’s clothing, home repairs, and merchandise from Victoria’s Secret. Lobbyists not only raised funds for politicians’ campaigns, but invited them to sports events and golf outings, and picked up the checks for legislators who ate at expensive restaurants near the capitol.
“One lobbyist told me that if he took three legislators out to dinner, three others legislators would send their checks over to him,” said Jane Pinsky of the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform. “There were legislators who thought it was their prerogative to be wined and dined.”
State legislators responded to the disclosures of these acts by prohibiting the personal use of campaign funds, banning gifts from lobbyists, and establishing the ethics commission.
The ethics law also restricted contributions and gifts from lobbyists to elected officials.
While Pinsky said the revised law still has a few loopholes that allow lobbyists to entertain lawmakers, there’s no longer a culture of lavish hand-outs.
“Lobbyists and legislators work really hard to make sure they don’t cross the line,” she said. “I don’t think that everyone even saw the line before.”
Loopholes and gaps remain
The law has a few holes in it. Lobbyists no longer can buy meals for individual legislators, but still can sponsor receptions for large groups of lawmakers. Benefactors also can treat public officials to trips or outings that are classified as “educational meetings.”
Though lobbyists no longer personally can contribute to political campaigns, the political action committees or interest groups that employ lobbyists are free to donate when the legislature is out of session or on recess. Political parties and caucus committees also have taken a more active role in funneling money to individual candidates, allowing politicians to bypass some of the fundraising restrictions.
“Every time I think we’ve done something smart, they do something at least as smart if not smarter,” Pinsky said. “There’s a level of corruption that has to do with the campaign finance system and the way money dominates politics…that has not gone away,” said Hall of Democracy North Carolina.
Public officials still engage in “pay to play” – in which major donors are rewarded with favorable legislation, state contracts, or appointments to powerful government boards and commissions.
“They put in an inordinate amount of money and have special status,” Hall said of big campaign contributors, noting that relatively small industries, such as video poker operators, have gained influence in state government by showering politicians with donations.
He recently documented how contributions from the commercial finance industry helped Republicans win control in 2010 of both houses of the legislature for the first time since the late 1800’s. Months later, GOP leaders tried to fast-track a bill allowing the industry to charge consumers higher interest rates.
“There was over $100,000 in small donations from commercial lending outfits going to targeted Republican challengers who became the majority,” Hall said. “It looks like a pay to play."
The funds were part of a large infusion of money in 2010 from wealthy conservatives, often to advocacy groups and think tanks, which prompted the New Yorker magazine to profile North Carolina politics in October 2011 under the headline, “State for Sale.”
Leaders of both parties still reward their contributors with appointments to powerful government boards and commissions, such as the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, the Wildlife Commission, and the Board of Transportation. The transportation board “acts like an ATM machine for the governor and other state politicians,” Hall wrote in a 2008 report.
“I think the reforms that we put in place, the reporting that we put in place, and the penalties that we put in place are working pretty well,” said Democratic Rep. Joe Hackney, who sponsored the 2006 ethics bill, then succeeded Jim Black as House Speaker in 2007. “We’ve demonstrated that we will take action.”
Hackney notes that during his tenure as Speaker, the House of Representatives expelled a member for violating ethics rules – the first time in more than a hundred years a North Carolina legislator was forced from office.
A legislative ethics committee concluded that Rep. Thomas Wright – a top lieutenant of Jim Black – failed to report $180,000 in campaign contributions and mishandled a similar amount of money in loans and charitable contributions. Wright is now imprisoned for fraud and obstruction of justice.
Since then, another North Carolina House member resigned amid an investigation of questionable campaign spending, the State Board of Elections assessed almost a million dollars in fines and penalties against politicians who violated campaign finance laws, and in 2010 former governor Mike Easley pleaded guilty to a felony for failing to report a contribution.
View Larger Map
Sources: CBS News, CNN, Fox News, State Integrity.org, Google Maps
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment