A standard for his colleagues
I had decided to do that a long time ago. We're just too close to it.
--GOP Sen. Luther Olsen, telling WisPolitics he will recuse himself from voting on the pending ethanol bill due to business ties.
Perhaps Sen. Olsen should talk to Rep. Gunderson sometime about ethics and explain conflicts of interest. Rep. Gunderson is not only voting on bills to increase gun sales, he has introduced and is actively pushing bills on the matter. How is that is not a conflict?
posted by whatsleftwi @ 4:47 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Perhaps you could review the ethics standards and consider the substantial difference between Olsen’s and Gunderson’s circumstances.
I presume you do know the difference and are merely taking political pot shots, but just in case you don’t, I will waste a few minutes and explain it anyway.
The threshold you lay out is far too low and completely unrealistic. The members of the state legislature come from a variety of walks of life. There are farmers, restaurateurs, lawyers, doctors, and many more. Most of them continue in their chosen vocations while holding office and all of them at one time or another will vote on legislation that has some impact on them personally. Sheldon Wasserman is in no way precluded from voting on bills that affect doctors. Lawyers like, Jon Richards and Lena Taylor can vote on things like liability reform or medical malpractice caps even though it may be argued that they could benefit financially.
Thankfully, the threshold is simple and based on common sense. State officials may vote on legislation as long as:
- The official's action affects a whole class of similarly-situated interests;
- Neither the official's interest, the interest of a member of the official's immediate family, nor the interest of a business or organization with which the official is associated is significant when compared to all affected interests in the class; AND
- The action's effect on the interests of the official, of a member of the official's immediate family, or of the related business or organization is neither significantly greater nor less than upon other members of the class.
Obviously, to whatever extent concealed carry increases gun sales, Gunderson may benefit but so will other dealers throughout the state. If the bill specified a particular type of weapon, ammunition or holster and Gunderson was among a small group of dealers authorized to sell that item – that would probably be a conflict of interest.
Olsen’s situation is dramatically different. There are … what … three or four ethanol plants in the state and Olsen’s brother is an owner of one of them. That is a very narrow class and very demonstrably presents a conflict.
The ethics guidelines are practical and easy to use. Best of all, they are just plain common sense. They begin with this simple premise:
“In a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without all personal and economic interest in the decisions and policies of government. Standards of conduct for public officials need to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society and those conflicts which are substantial and material.”
I can see the difference – it is perfectly obvious. I think you just wanted to throw bombs.
One of your examples is Wasserman voting on bills that affect doctors. However, there is a world of difference between voting on a issue and promoting it by introducing bills and advocating for them. Especially when the majority of WI residents don't seem to be asking for these bills like concealed carry or allowing eight-year-olds to hunt. In fact, the Consevation Congress voted down a proposal to let ten-year-olds hunts. So, it's not a problem for a legislator to introduce and pass a bill that would benefit his business simply because he can even though residents don't want it? It doesn't pass the smell test.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
If you really believe that a conflict exists. File a complaint. My guess is that it will be dismissed in about five minutes.
Post a Comment
<< Home