Picture courtesy of okiecampaigns

It was OKPNS that broke the news of the House campaign finance ethics investigation last year. Ultimately, House Speaker Lance Cargill resigned over the affair, but some Cargill loyalists stayed in power, the most prominent Rep. Ken Miller of Edmond.

It seems the shock waves from that investigation are still being felt. Yesterday’s Tulsa World editorial takes a hard shot at Miller, and there are rumblings that some action regarding last year’s scandal may be coming down from the ethics commission.

A sweeping ethics reform package making its way through the legislative process will benefit all candidates, not just incumbents, the bill’s author, David Dank (R-OKC) said Friday:

Most Oklahomans believe we need to erect a clear barrier between campaign fundraising and passing laws to prevent even a hint of conflict-of-interest and ‘pay for play’ suspicions. That’s why the Oklahoma Clean Campaign Act of 2008 would ban fundraising by incumbents and candidates alike during and 15 days before and after the annual legislative session.

Officials representing third-party and independent candidates have said the bill would harm their efforts, but Dank said the legislation would benefit all candidates by reducing the campaign-funding powers of incumbency. Dank continued:

House Bill 2196 is a fair and much-needed reform independents should be supporting. There is nothing to forbid a legislative candidate from launching his or her campaign a year or even two years before Election Day, which most candidates do – be they Democrats, Republicans or Independents – because they know what a formidable challenge a political campaign can be.

He noted that independent candidates also have an advantage because they do not have to finance a primary campaign and instead face the voters only at the general election, which gives those candidates more time to raise and spend campaign funds than their major-party opponents.

Although critics have called the ethics reform bill an “incumbent protection plan,” Dank said the new restrictions on fundraising actually level the playing field for challengers:

The current free-for-all system is the biggest incumbent protection plan of all. For decades incumbent legislators of both parties have raised large sums during the legislative session, sometimes totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s not uncommon to see a major donor hand a $5,000 check to a legislator on Monday evening, then appear in that same legislator’s office on Tuesday morning in an effort to influence legislation. That is precisely what HB 2196 is designed to stop – the impression, right or wrong, that legislation is for sale in Oklahoma.

He said an in-session ban on fundraising actually reduces the money-raising power of incumbents:

House Bill 2196 contains vital reforms that can increase public faith in our lawmaking process and draw a clear boundary between fundraising and making law. Democrats and Republicans alike support it. Independents should, too.

Just weeks after new House Speaker Chris Benge forced House Majority Floor Leader Greg Piatt (R-Ardmore) to make an embarrassing refund of a controversial contribution from a Texas businessman, some Capitol observers are raising questions about thousands of dollars in similar contributions Benge has received.

Benge’s third quarter 2007 ethics report shows he received 43 separate checks, totaling thousands of dollars, all on a single day, July 6, 2007. All of these checks were written by people employed by Career Technology Centers. Benge received an additional check that same day from the Career Tech System’s Political Action Committee. Altogether, the checks total over $4,000.

The donations are drawing scrutiny because Benge as appropriations and budget chairman last year advanced a large budget increase for career techs and much of the increase was used to raise salaries within the career tech system. Now it appears that closely on the heals of that vote and the pay increases, Benge was handsomely rewarded with thousands of dollars in contributions from career tech interests. Some also find it odd that dozens of checks from all across the state were somehow received by the campaign on the very same day.

Capitol observers are now wondering whether Benge will apply the same standard to himself that he applied to Piatt. Piatt was criticized for taking a $5,000 contribution from Texas businessman Brad Phillips after having worked on an insurance bill last session which was favorable to Phillips’ interests. Piatt had refused to return the contribution for weeks but was forced to make an embarrassing flip flop and admit the impropriety of the contribution by returning it shortly after Benge became Speaker. Piatt admitted that Benge asked him to give the contribution back.

Given the thousands of dollars Benge got from a group that he helped legislatively last session that are now drawing scrutiny, Capitol observers wonder if he will apply the same standard to himself that he applied to Piatt and return the contributions. Some see this as an early test of Benge’s leadership – will he apply consistent standards for everyone – including himself – or keep a double standard when it comes to his own fundraising?

Received via the confidential OKPNS Tip Line:

For more information, see the Oklahoma Ethics Commission

By Rep. Jason Murphey

Recently, a bill I authored, HB 2444, was approved by the House Rules Subcommittee on Elections and Redistricting. HB 2444 would ask the state Ethics Commission to create and maintain a voluntary “No Gifts List.” Under the bill, lobbyists would be prevented from giving gifts to lawmakers who voluntarily place themselves on the list.

When I asked for your vote to be your State Representative, I did so because I wanted to spend time in the Legislature working for the people, not taking lobbyists gifts and certainly not going through the hassle of returning unsolicted items.

Refusing gifts has proven harder than I expected, as lobbyists kept delivering unrequested items to my office. This became a logistical challenge, since some were left with office staff or even sent in the mail. Other lawmakers have told me of similar frustrations, as they did not want to receive gifts either, and yet items are left at their offices. Read more…

OKLAHOMA CITY (Monday, Sept. 24, 2007) House Speaker Lance Cargill issued a statement Monday following an announcement by state Rep. David Dank on ethics legislation:

“I commend Representative Dank for coming forward with this proposal for ethics reform. For far too long in our state’s history,there have been too many problems with ethics in state government, from the Supreme Court to the Legislature to the governor’s office. That’s why I was proud to author last year’s House Bill 2101, which has been described by many, including officials at the state Ethics Commission, as the most sweeping and comprehensive legislative ethics reform in years. House Bill 2102, among other things, banned contributions at the Capitol and honoraria payments to legislators. Obviously, anything we do must be constitutional, but we certainly support tough rules. I look forward to reviewing the details of Representative Dank’s proposal.”

This letter was recently sent to the editor of Newsok.com

I was disappointed by the design of Oklahoma’s commemorative quarter that features the state bird and wildflower. My submission was much more appropriate. It contained the images of Gene Stipe, David Walters and Judge Donald D. Thompson with the caption: “Celebrating 100 Years of Corruption in All Three Branches of State Government. Instead of one lousy bird on the back of the coin, we could have had three jailbirds.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who led the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation into the Jack Abramoff scandal, has sworn off taking tribal money in his presidential campaign but continues to accept donations from lobbyists whose firms represent tribal clients.

McCain spokesman Danny Diaz said the senator believes that tribes can spend their money in other ways. He added that McCain implemented the ban on tribal money when he became chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in the midst of the Abramoff scandal, before the panel began probing the tens of millions of dollars the tribes paid the former lobbyist.

Diaz, however, would not explain why McCain would not extend that policy to lobbyists representing tribes.

Other members, such as Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee and is the only registered member of an Indian tribe in Congress, say they believe that tribes should not be punished for the Abramoff scandal and should be free to be as active in the political process as possible — including in the political fundraising arena.

Cole said he respects McCain’s decision not to accept money from tribes, stressing that any member is free to establish his or her own policy about fundraising. But Cole argues that the Abramoff scandal is a lobbying scandal, not an Indian scandal.

“I don’t know one tribe that was found to have done anything wrong — in fact, they were the victims,” Cole said last month in an interview. “But what Abramoff and others were doing was clearly criminal. Tribes have the right to participate in the system because if they are not looking out for their interests, nobody else will.” Read more…

Oklahoma lawmakers are wrestling with an ethics rule change that could alter business as usual at the Capitol. The leaders of both the House and Senate and Gov. Brad Henry have not committed to the change so it’s unclear whether the measure will move forward this session. We think they should commit to the change.

The proposed change, promoted by Ethics Commission member Ken Elliott, prohibits political action committees from contributing to each other. Currently, one PAC can give another one up to $5,000 per election cycle.

Donors to one PAC may not always align with the purposes and politics of the PAC that ends up with their money. Transparency is also a problem as the public may not know the ultimate source of the funds. Read more…