Abdul: Thanks for trying to tell us where the bodies are buried on this one. I wish you'd pursue similar contributions on other national topics, but am grateful for the ones you pursue.
.
I l o v e your disclosure mandate and “thawing” versus cooling. But, how would you implement banning local government lobbying?
.
I'm with you on sunshine as disinfectant, but differ in believing we have to have term limits for our “public servants”. Statistically, most of them become self-serving the longer they stay in office (see George Will book).
.
Re public funding of campaigns, I need source material for where it's a success story. England?

Everyone seems to be on the disclosure bandwagon – but I am not so sure. Why is a bribe okay if you tell people about it? Bribery is so rampant in our political system that we don't even notice it anymore. We take it as a given that lobbyists will through mega-bucks at our politicians and we don't even consider trying to stop it.

Congressman: Thank you insurance company for your thousands of dollars contribution to my campaign. I'll be sure to vote your way on any important piece of legislation. But it is alright – because I told everyone you gave me the money.

What I would love to see is a rule that says you can't give money to politican unless you can vote for him or her in the next election. In other words – companies, unions and lobbying firms can't give money. People from New York can't give money to Senate races in Indiana, or vice versa. I know it would require a Constitutional Amendment to be legal, but I can't come up with another way to stop the current system of legal bribery.

Abdul makes some excellent suggestions. It's hard to find sinister, back room deal making in Marion County, when something like 99% of the establishments are smoke free.

Here's a sunshine request: Where can citizens find an accounting proof or registry of the state's compliance with Article 13, an existing 2% cap or debt limit? It's prudent to consider the state's compliance with existing property tax caps, as we're asked to consider “new ones.” What / where is the compliance mechanism for existing caps & what assurance does it provide for the adoption of new “caps?”

Someone, please answer those questions.

How about making them full time for a maximum of 10 years. Same benefits as all other state employees not better no worse. With a limit of $100,000 per year in fundraising and no freebies. An annual Salary of $80k would be good.

Too little opportunity for greed, graft, ego gratification, and political ascension. Too close to the original idea of citizens rotationally representing their neighbors instead of it being a lifetime career or launching pad for being a lobbyist.
.
In other words it makes sense and would serve the citizenry well. Therefore, it will never happen.

What's wrong with you, Dawg? Been watching Fantasy Island reruns again?
.

In the first place, 'ethical lawmaker' is an oxymoron these days. (To Factchecker: an oxymoron isn't an idiot with a bad complexion.)

It doesn't surprise me, Abdul, that you are against tort reform. And I agree that the best reform is 'full dislosure'. Your hero Barry once touted tranparency as the theme to his administration. How's that workin' out for us? Lawyers, like yourself and most members of Congress, count on the fact that the average citizen won't make any attempt to inform himself. As an attorney, it is your job to obfuscate the issue and to confuse those with whom it should matter. Transparency is usually the lawyer's worst enemy. And we have another typical lawyer in the Whitehouse.

I appeal to you, Abdul, to be more a man of deeds than words. Every single thing you wish for on this blog is in diametric opposition to what your friend Barry Obama wants. Support a conservative, if that's what you proclaim to be. If conservatism is in fact an ideology to which you adhere, be a man and call our leaders out (both locally and nationally)!

So it is written, so let it be done!

Goodnight, and have a great year!

A lobbyist complaining about be shaken down for campaign contributions is like the Good Humor man complaining that kids want junk food. It takes a special kind of doofwad to make such a statement, especialliy if s/he is an ex-legislator. Abdul, that fool was playin' you.
Ban campaign contrubutions from lobbyists as a solution? Duh, ya think? Sounds good and it will work. For about 20 seconds, which is about how long it will take to set up a straw-man contributor/PAC.
Like the thawing-off idea, though, it has merit. Not much when cash is king, but some.
Putting limits on democracy is never a good idea? Once again, you demonstrate that you did not take much polisci in college. We are a republic, not a democracy. There is a big difference and not one of the Founding Fathers favored a real democracy, not one. The Bill of Rights is anti-democratic, that is why we have it. It keeps us somewhat removed from the tyranny of the masses.
People, collectively, are too stupid to govern themselves. Everybody trusts their own judgment, but nobody trusts others to do the right thing. This is why we have professional policy makers make our laws. They have the time & resources to reseach each topic in depth, and vote for their constituent's best interest.
Sorry, I couldn't help it. I figured if you swallowed that lobbyist's b.s., you'd eat this up as well. Actually, we are both right in theory, however in practice, the most powerful argument & lingua franca of politics are the big-head Bens & his green cousins.

Newsflash big guy, I'm not a conservative nor a liberal, I'm Abdul!

It is pretty funny to see the sausage makers raising the white flag on their modus operandi. Talk about ethics is cheap talk. If they had any balls they would make all of their ethics rules retroactive but, at any rate, don't emulate the Alaska model. TA likes that one as it elevates form over substance and makes it easier for liberals to lie. At the federal level they have all sorts of ethics, committees, panels, and no teeth, no bark, not even a nuzzle to keep dozens of democrat crooks out of jails.

Hi Dave. Want to see how the Indiana Supremes have dealt with this issue? See HAWKINS v. CITY OF GREENFIELD, 230 N.E.2d 396; 248 Ind. 593, 17 October 1967

“We do not have a Democracy; ours is a Republic.” — Indiana Supreme Court, HAWKINS v. CITY GREENFIELD, 230 N.E.2d 396; 248 Ind. 593, 17 October 1967

Until We the Scorned have the power of the Recall, not much will change. We need the ability to 'fire' these scoundrels when they misbehave, not years down the road.

Any and all pay and perks for elected officials need to be approved by We the Taxpayers. Never, EVER, should these reprobates be allowed to set their own pay and benefits.

Term Limits = 6 years. Yep, that means ONE term for State Senators, and 3 terms for State Reps. Then, bye bye.

“Citizens, whether they belong to a local not-for-profit or big law firm, have the right to address their government with their grievances.” — Careful, Abdul…you are getting into OUR Constitution now:

1-31: “No law shall restrain any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their representatives; nor from applying to the General Assembly for redress of grievances.”

Let's see….what else do I want….

Bring back the 'County (Poor) Farm', a la Article 9 Section 3. “The counties may provide farms, as an asylum for those persons who, by reason of age, infirmity, or other misfortune, have claims upon the sympathies and aid of society.” We don't need 'Section 8' housing…build Quonset Huts, and move the welfare people into those until they are back on their feet. Heck, it's good enough for our troops.

Oh, I want those reprobates in the Statehouse to cite the Constitutional provision(s) where they believe authorize each and every law that they wish to enact. I also want them to supply a concise statement as to what THEY think authorizes their action — kind of like a 'signing statement', but without any 'authority' of its own.

Hmmm….I guess I could go on and on…but I would be on the mark if I just said that I wanted our government to obey the Indiana Constitution in language, spirit and intent. I do not need a Lawyer in a Robe (LiaR) to tell me what the plain words of the Constitution mean.

Pascal you really ought to read some of those Alaska ethics complaints. Not a lie in sight. It is sometimes difficult to sort out the nonsense complaints, but a good professional staff could do that.

Abdul, with all due respect, you haven't been here long enough to know what you're talking about. Or else you're duped too easily, which I doubt. If you're listening to the likes of Phil Hinkle, et al, well….broaden your base.

One person recently tried to re-organize lobbyists. That was Sec. of State Joe Hogsett in 1990 or thereabouts. He attempted to move the registration AND documentation of their activities, entirely within his office, where, at the time, statutes placed it. He sent a clear signal that he wanted to reign in their influence and stiffen the reporting requirements.

Powerful legislators, most of whom would later become lobbyists, pooled their resources with those same lobbyists. Within one month, the legislature had removed lobbyist registration and oversight, to a commission appointed entirely by, you guessed it–legislators. It was a bipartisan greedfest. Want names?

Mike Phillips, Bob Garton, Joe Harrison, Pat Bauer, Bill Cochran, Phyllis Pond, Jeff Espich…do I need to go further?

Harrison Ullman was right. Our legislature is awash in whorish peddling for campaign funds. Perhaps it's the Part time thing…I don't really know any more. I just find myself, every year about this time, hoping to god that Sine Die comes quickly. Because this Gang of 150 thinks amending the Constitution is good work, albeit a lazy solution to solve-able problems.

One symbol the system is badly broken: township trustees and assessors pay for a lobbyist with tax dollars. And those lobbyists choked township government reform. With horridly inaccurate stories of “the sky is falling” delivered via those expensive lobbyists and folks like your friend Becky from the southside.

Off with their heads. Yesterday. Se have too much government. It is too expensive and its volume distracts us from the real issues of efficiency and budgetary discipline.

TA, all those “ethics” complaints were fabrications, you know it too. And, they were all dismissed. You know that too. I read enough lies in the local paper and doubt that Alaska lies greatly exceed them in quality. Advice to Abdul is cheap but check the spinter in your own eyes before noticing the log in another's-a direct quote from the Carpenter who knew a bit about wood. X thousand ethic complaints, according to you, all had teeth. Do you still maintain that lie?

The Indiana legislature may not be the largest cat pan in the world but, the quality of the droppings in it seem to be consistent. They seem to have the uncanny ability to convince the electorate that the bits they leave behind, are actually Lincoln Logs, and well suited to build a Shangri La. Case in point: The tax c-r-aps. They are merely the furious polishing of the same turd, which has been presented as our dinner, since nineteen-seventy-three. Just as the sewer worker seems immune to the stench of his environment, we are so used to their fouled nest, that they believe we should find the aroma pleasing.

And, yes TA, you are right. Mike Phillips, Bob Garton, Joe Harrison, Pat Bauer, Bill Cochran, Phyllis Pond, Jeff Espich…are part of this undessicated cat’s mess. To which I add the “Feline Play Dough Fun Factories” of: Long, Bosma, Daniels et al. If feculence were currency, their wealth would be infinite.

They can fill the pan to heaping and, blame us for not emptying it. We seem to accept that our reward for feeding them, is a rather large smear on the rugs. But; we still offer them the finest cuts and choicest morsels, hoping against hope, that there is some illogical, diminishing relationship between consumption and excretion. The biggest problem I see, is that no one in the parlour will say that the stink came from the cat on their lap. As lap cats, so are the good folk of Indiana to their, supposed, representatives–Merely someone to blame when granny farts.

Pascal: I was referring to the Alaska state complaints regarding troopergate. Busybodies clogged the system, including some British soap actress, but the main body of the trooper-firing case had merit.

I located a list of all complaints filed gaainst her, including the FEC complaints, which never go anywhere:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html

I maintain what I said earlier: all complaints surrounding troopergate did and do have merit. Every dmaned one of those complaints had teeth, and still does. She behaved badly, which, unfortunately, is not exclusive to the GOP. Sadly.

Other complaints were the political equivalent of piling on. You know, kind of like the former Veep is doing with regard to Anything Pres. Obama Says.

Luckily, America is spared any long-term Palin nonsense.

I've read the Alaska Ethics Laws, and they're a model for any state that wishes to open up its process. After Palin, it looks like they need to weed out the piling-on effect. I'm not sure how you do that, if you truly want open government, except to give the nutcases their day in court to prove their cases.

But there is something refreshing about average citizens being able to walk in and file legitimate complaints against elected officials.

By contrast, Indiana's lobbyist and government official reporting requirements are laughable. In the extreme.

If you think Senator ABC or Governor X have a conflict with income and voting record, you have absolutely no recourse to address that. Except at the ballot box.

Wow, Pascal, thanks. You opened my eyes.

I hadn't read any of the ethics complaints except those surrounding Troopergate. All of those had/have teeth…there are Alaskan Republicans who contend this is the real reason she resigned. They opine, that if she'd stayed in office, the ethics staff would've pushed on these issues until it became unbearable.

She bullied a state employee, and pushed/allowed her husband to do likewise. Out of spite.

I had no idea the ethics office had bene overloaded with piling-on by folsk as far-flung as British soap opera actresses. here's a lis tof all of them so far:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html

I stick by my claim regarding Troopergate. Palin behaved miserably and should be taken to task for those. The other complaints cited above were news to me, as was the FEC stuff, which never goes anywhere.

But you really ought to take a walk through the Alaska statutes, Pascal. There is something very refreshing about avergae citizens holding their elected officials accountable via this ethics process. The nonsense should be weeded out. Which it seems they've done.

By contrast, if we think our governor or a senator did something improper, we have absolutely no redress except at the ballot box.

Alaska's basic complaint system is fantastic.

It's about time you admit you're not a conservative.

I never said I was big guy. That must have been your mistake. And based on what you post here, you tend to make quite a few of them.

As it is near the end of the thread and likely no one else is reading this old stuff I will remark that your shifting grounds from all complaints to just the one complaint is noted. That was not your original statement at all. Your later comments indicate that you lack reading comprehension as the Alaska version does not hold legislative elected officials to the same stupidity level as the executive branch. As I recally, you stated to one and all that you had read Palin's book wherein the “overload” issue was addressed. All compaints were dismissed, I think I read that, including the bs about the state trooper but you are entitled to believe any bs you wish about troopers. I've little doubt that Palin could run for any state office in Alaska and trounce any opponent there. As far as I know, Palin's book is the only source for her side of any story-a shortcoming of our media sorts I think most would agree. Whatever happened to the MSM team of factcheckers assigned to Alaska with copies of her book? I think they died from eating what jackthelad described so well.

I agree, pascal, that media should've followed up on ALL of those complaints. It was a herd mentality. I had to check multiple places, and when I got the McClatchey Newspapers source, it's usually good, so I went with it.

Re-read my link. The troopergate complaints were NOT dismissed outright. And once she left office, under Alaska law, the burden for pursuing the cases shifted to district attorneys who would have to investigate/prosecute for malfeasance or misexpenditure. That won't happen.

She blatantly misused her authority in troopergate. She egged her husband on, to do likewise, in her name. Those facts are not in dispute. I understand she was angry. It's family. But she demonstrated gross disregard for her authority and misuse therof.

I hope to God she does run for office again–in Alaska or elsewhere. She's a ditz. I say give her more rope to hang herself. Her book does a decent job of that.

You most definitely have described yourself as conservative. In fact, your attempt at a clever retort was …”I am a true conservative,.I want the government out of……..and out of my girlfriend's womb…..” You're redefining history as only a liberal can. keep it up.

You most definitely have described yourself as conservative. In fact, your attempt at a clever retort was …”I am a true conservative,.I want the government out of……..and out of my girlfriend's womb…..” You're redefining history as only a liberal can. keep it up.