« Behind the Headlines: A Healthy Relationship with the Governor | Main | Review of 2005 Legislative Session »
February 21, 2005
To Gift or Not To Gift
According to the Deseret Morning News/KSL TV survey conducted by Dan
Jones & Associates...
According to the Deseret Morning News/KSL TV survey conducted by Dan
Jones & Associates (click here
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600112470,00.html), most Utahns
think legislators should not take gifts. And they think lawmakers
should do something about it. That seems reasonable enough. But does
something like a gift ban really work?
My answer is: NO.
Let's cut to the chase. Why do most people dislike "gifts" to
lawmakers? Because they feel like gifts = influence. This is a
popular opinion encouraged by the media but lacks support. While I've
seen a lot of news reports on how gifts are bad and how they unduly
influence legislation, I have not seen the evidence of this. Can
someone show us when Company Y has spent X amount on Legislator Doe
which in turn meant he/she voted their way? As a lawmaker, I can tell I
have not seen this happen. And as far as I'm concerned, eating rubber
chicken lunches sponsored by some company or association does not
influence my votes (have you ever eaten at those things?)
But even though I do not believe "gifts" (and what we're talking
about here is mostly lunches, dinners and for some - the occasional jazz
tickets and round of golf) influence votes, I still think there is a
public perception problem. And that is what we need to address.
Instead of banning gifts and driving the process underground, like what
has happened in states like Massachusetts, let's OPEN IT UP by having
full disclosure laws. Then, every penny spent on a lawmaker - from the
taffy the Firefighters supply in bowls during the session to ice cream
the USU brings down to the Capitol one afternoon - could be seen by
Utahns.
Hey, information is power. I think when people have the information -
all of it - they'll be able to make their own, more educated decision
about so-called influential gifts.
Posted by Jeff at February 21, 2005 09:14 AM
Comments
I agree. Ok to accept "gifts", but with FULL disclosure. When I was in business, salemen took me to lunch, but it never influenced my buying decisions. If we say "no gifts", it just pushes them underground. Hope you win on this one. Thanx for a good job, Gary
Posted by: Gary Carlson at February 21, 2005 01:39 PM
This is in reference to HB 223 Driver Licenses to illegal aliens: Vote no on this bill. The problem as I see it is that non citizen or illegal aliens can register to vote with a Utah drivers license. The bill that should be before the house should address requirements to vote, not requirements to get a drivers license. To get a US passport you need to show proof of citizenship, but to vote as a US citizen you merely need some form of identification that has commonly been a drivers license and a signed affidavit that your are a citizen. The fact is that illegal immigrants and legal residents (who are able to get social security numbers) drive. A legal resident can get a drivers license and also fraudulently vote as a US citizen.
Bottom line..don't start a separate system of drivers licenses that will not solve the problem of illegals voting and that labels that person as illegal although they may not be. Lastly you will start a whole new round of legal litigation because of the possible unconstitutionality of "labeling" people.
One more lastly...If this bill passes illegals will not register to get drivers identification cards and label themselves illegal...are you kidding?? They will drive without a license and will not carry auto insurance because they do not have drivers licences.
Thank you, Otto R Nuila Provo, Utah
Posted by: Otto R Nuila at February 28, 2005 12:14 PM
I agree with full disclosure, which means what was given to who and what organizations or bills does the doner support or represent. This way you can really track gifts vs votes. Let's get real, people don't give money away for no apparent reason. Yes we know some people give as a charitable event, and this is this what you are saying is happening? Full disclosure, now I can make a decision instead of lawmakers hiding behind no disclosure or me having to rely on news reports. LET ME MAKE A INFORMED DECISION.
Thank you
Blair Dean
Posted by: Blair Dean at February 28, 2005 06:28 PM
If the person or company offering the gift has no hope of some kind of "payback" why are they offering the gift? I have a bit of trouble with the belief that no gift has ever influenced any legislator to favor a certain policy, bill, or idea. But I'm nopt sure banning all gifts is the right thing either. Those who want to buy influence will still find a way. I believe that the full disclosure idea is the best way to go. It would be nice to actually see something done. The prevailing attitude seems to be one of entitlement and of "don't worry you can trust me on this one." Something needs to be done that will bring some accountability to the process or the public opinion will favor banning everything.
Posted by: Jan Levi at March 1, 2005 12:39 PM