Georgia Republicans have a different ethics view, now that they're in charge.

Republicans have a different ethics view, now that they're in charge

By Kristen Wyatt
Associated Press
February 21, 2005

When Gov. Sonny Perdue first ran for governor, he said many times that a top priority would be new ethics rules for elected officials. He depicted long-ruling Democrats as pigs at the trough of state government and vowed to change all that when he took office.

Now, three years later, the Republican governor presides over a Legislature firmly in GOP hands for the first time in modern history. And it appears that Republican passion to overhaul state ethics laws has cooled now that they're the ones in power.

For example, Perdue's first ethics proposal, in 2003, included a ban on candidate-to-candidate campaign contributions. That's where a powerful lawmaker raises tons of money, more than he needs to win re-election, and turns around and donates it to other candidates, a practice thought to allow that senior legislator to control his colleagues.

"I think we ought to stop it once and for all," Perdue told reporters three days after taking office.

Two years later, that ban on candidate transfers is conspicuously absent from Perdue's current proposal.

"That's an issue between a candidate and his or her contributors," said Rep. Rich Golick, R-Symrna, who is sponsor of Perdue's 2005 bill.

A spokesman for the governor, Dan McLagan, said Perdue hasn't flip-flopped on the matter, but dropped the idea because lawmakers would never agree to it.

Which points to a bigger story about Republicans and ethics reform. Perdue tried and failed his first two years as governor to pass sweeping ethics reforms. Republicans have blamed Democrats for stopping his idea, even insinuating that they weren't serious about cleaning up corruption.

But this year, with the Democrats effectively dispatched from positions of power in the Legislature, it is Republicans who are in-fighting on what ethics changes are needed. The ethics bill has stalled in committee, with Republican sponsors hinting vaguely that there are problems in the bill, but not saying what the problems are or when the bill might proceed to a full vote.

"There's a lot of disagreements between us and the governor, we just don't choose to make those public," said House Speaker Glenn Richardson. (Perdue's ethics bill is not pending in the Senate, just the House.)

McLagan, speaking for the governor, also was vague when asked what the areas of disagreement were. "We don't try to micromanage the Legislature," he said.

The stalled ethics plan has Democrats, and even some Republicans, griping that the GOP is slow to make reforms when it is fellow Republicans who could be hurt by tougher rules.

Rep. Wendell Willard, a Republican and powerful House chairman, said many rank-and-file Republicans think it's unseemly that the party has quietly dropped its opposition to candidate money transfers. "Strange how that changes depending on who's in control," he said.

Democrats are even more blunt. "They want to protect their perks," said Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, D-Decatur, who has suggested a cap on candidate transfers, plus lower limits on some campaign contributions.

Another area of contention is a proposed $50 cap on gifts to elected officials, which would include meals and drinks. Oliver and other Democrats are siding with Perdue. They say $50 is a reasonable limit, allowing lawmakers to have business dinners without appearing to be wined and dined.

But some Republicans, including the chairman of the Ethics Committee, say the cap is too low. "The average dinner in Atlanta is $65," said the chairman, Rep. Joe Wilkinson of Atlanta.

Richardson, the speaker, is also fighting Perdue on the gift limit. He called lobbyist dinners "an effective use of how we get business done."

Less controversial is a proposed one-year waiting period to keep elected officials from becoming lobbyists as soon as they leave office. Perdue's plan includes a waiting period, aimed at stopping the so-called "revolving door" of officials taking job with the people they recently regulated.

"We will stop the revolving door," Wilkinson said.

But there, too, the GOP is vulnerable. Perdue's ethics plan was sponsored in the Senate last year by former Sen. Dan Lee, a Republican from LaGrange. The bill passed the Senate but stalled in the House. A few months later, Lee lost in a primary. And now? He's a registered lobbyist, taking the job just days after leaving office.

Not surprisingly, Democrats are hoping to take full advantage of what they call an inconsistent ethics message from the GOP. House Democrats chafed at being blamed for stopping ethics reforms the last two years, and they're clearly glad they can't be blamed for it again.

"No longer can it be blamed on us," said Rep. Calvin Smyre, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "The spotlight has to be cast on the Republicans. The differences are within their own ranks."

Smyre said the GOP is finding that it's easy to throw stones at political opponents, just not at themselves. "When you're in the opposition for so long, there's a contrast in being opposed to everything in government, and then running the government and being in charge."

Not so, Republican leaders retort. They vow that substantive ethics reforms will become law, and that they're not dragging their feet. "The Democrats had 135 years to make those changes. We've had 35 days. Give us a little more time," said Wilkinson, the Ethics chairman.

House Republicans and the governor agree that an ethics package is desperately needed to boost public confidence in their elected officials.

"What the governor is proposing is the most sweeping ethics reform that we've seen in a very long time, maybe ever," Golick said. "The reason it's slow going right now is because of the breadth of what we're doing. Ultimately what matters is that we pass a bill that moves us a state much farther along than where we are now."