He is correct that I was one of only two to vote against the "ethics reform" bill. The "ethics reform" bill is about politics, not reform of ethics.
He quotes an article in the Journal Gazette that claims my quote was defending the golf , Pacer and Colts tickets I accepted during the year.
That claim is absolutely false.
I answered a direct question from the Indy Star last summer and the question was not asking me to defend my taking of the tickets. Pretty lazy reporting by the Journal and the 26 other papers and blogs that used that quote. I agree that that quote applied to a question about defending my actions would seem arrogant.
The bill lowers the threshold for reporting from $100 a day down to $50. This is a step in the right direction but won't change anything other than more paperwork for some.
Another provision is a cooling-off period of a year for a legislator before he is hired as a lobbyist. This also won't change a thing in reality. The big firms will hire a qualified legislator and have him work in the office for a year, then send him over after a year.
The third point bars any vendor who has a state contract worth $100,000 or more from contributing to any state political candidate. Vendors who win state contracts under the bidding process should not have their rights to engage in the political process banned. This bars service providers, asphalt contractors, building contractors and thousands more from the political process.
There were 29 amendments offered to the bill. If this were an ethics bill, some of them should have been discussed. Why should universities be excluded from lobbying reports?
The athletic tickets and trips their lobbyists hand out are no different than the others who must report them.
The hiring of several legislators by Ivy Tech should have been discussed. Who can or cannot pay for out of state travel for conventions or speaking gigs should have been discussed.
The Republicans and Democrats all got together and agreed not to discuss any of them as some would have been uncomfortable discussing them.
Do you still think the "ethics bill" is about ethics?
When a true ethics reform bill that gives transparency to the process appears, I'll be on board.
The public deserves full disclosure of what we do, what we accept, and how we vote. Only then can they make a good decision as to retain or replace us.
This bill is intended to get the media off our case and convince the public we are ethical.
It will fail on both counts as it does little in the way of transparency. I welcome your comments.
