Who Killed Political Reform and Ethics?

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
–John J. Kennedy, Inaugural speech, January 20 ,1961

“It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” –Donald Trump, (Fortune, April 3, 2000)


The political reforms of the Watergate era are over. And it was not Trump alone who killed over the reforms.  Obama did his fair share, as well as Democrats and Republicans across Minnesota and the country who have done it over at least a decade if not longer. It is less of a surprise that this has occurred than it is that no one–neither the public nor the media–seems to notice or care.
Watergate political reforms is a shorthand to refer to a collection of laws and policy initiatives at the federal, state, and local levels meant to combat political corruption and open up the  political and governing process to more transparency, fairness, and political accountability.  These reforms includes the Ethics in Government Act that addressed problems such as conflicts of interest.  It also included sunshine, open meeting, and freedom of information laws meant to ensure government decisions and data are open to public inspection.
Additionally, there were a host of campaign finance laws such as the Federal Election Campaign Act, McCain-Feingold, and at the Minnesota level, the 1994 Marty reforms that build on 1970s laws that banned lobbyist gift giving,  provided for public funding for campaigns, and otherwise created a scheme for disclosing the solicitation and expending of money for political purposes.  Collectively these laws, along with other mandatory and voluntary acts by candidates, such as statements of economic disclosure and release of candidate tax returns, went a long way to opening up the political process to more scrutiny.
Certainly there were problems with many of these reforms, but the biggest criticisms were two.  First, they may not have even gone far enough in terms of rooting out the impact that money has on the political process or in terms of extending disclosure and transparency as far as it needed to go.  In effect, the laws felt short of the reforms truly needed to be effective, or even if once effective, they failed to keep pace with efforts to do end-runs around them.
Second, many insiders–especially many  elected officials, the political parties, and lobbyists  simply did not like the reforms.   They saw them as costs of doing business, simply distasteful laws  that limited or restricted the quiet, comfortable relationships they had developed overtime.  They voted for these reforms because they had to, in part because of strong public support for these regulations in light of the Watergate abuses.  In many cases these reforms were internalized by elected officials at the time, but with the passage of time, the lessons for why these reforms were adopted has faded.
Yes the Supreme Court has not helped.  It has struck down many campaign finance reforms as violations of the First Amendment, equating money with speech.  The Court has narrowed the scope of what is considered legitimate forms of corruption regulation, limiting it to only classic forms of quid pro quo bribery in exchange for an official act (money give to buy a vote), while also ignoring the broader ways that money and power create a structural bias in the political system that political scientists repeatedly describe as one that favors the rich.
But even without the Court stepping in , both Republicans and Democrats at all levels of government has demonstrated indifference if not cynicism toward political reform.  Obama talked a great game about money in politics but he was the first major presidential candidate to reject public funding when he ran for president.  He complained about Citizens United but never took executive  actions that he could have that would addressed some aspects of it.  Now he has sold out completely,  giving $400,000 speeches to Wall Street that follow Hillary Clinton’s $500,000 speeches.
Trump flouts ethics in ways too numerous to count.  His conflicts of interest between his government role as president and his private business dealings are too numerous to count.  The same extends to his family and many of his billionaire appointments.  He has broken a presidential traditional of releasing tax returns, and in general, despite “draining the swamp,” he seems to be expanding its scope.
At the state level, Minnesota has not enacted a significant political reform since 1994.  While once a national leader, the Center of Public Integrity assigns Minnesota Ds and Fs for ethics and openness in government.  Bipartisan support eroded some parts of the gift ban law, supported increases in the amount of money that can be contributed to political campaigns, and now, as John Marty has pointed out, the legislature is poised to eliminate public funding for campaigns.   As the recent story about Dai Thao demonstrates, local officials and their surrogates are embolden in pushing the boundaries of acceptable political behavior.
And why all this happens the public seems indifferent.  Democrats dismiss the improprieties  against Obama and Republicans the same with Trump.  Corruption seems accepted, and few now seem upset by the idea that American government is up for sale.
So who  killed political reform and ethics?  Maybe it was the elected officials who walked away from reform as inconvenient, except when used as a cudgel to further partisan gains and fuel polarization.   Or maybe it was the media, much of which no longer saw promoting good government  as an issue.  Or maybe it was public who came to accept the status quo as acceptable and which no longer seemed to expect government officials to act with honesty and integrity.

The Death of Political Reform and Innovation in Minnesota Politics

Whatever happened to the spirit of reform and innovation in Minnesota government and politics?

            At one time this state was a leader in reform of all types.  We were once at the forefront  of government ethics and campaign reform, a leader in education innovation, and an agent of change when it came to health care policy among other areas.  But for a generation or more the state seams stalled, devoid of serous reform and instead caught in the grips of either incremental, none, or a reversal of course.  Why and how it did happen?

            First, think of the innovation and progress that marked the state from the 1970s on.  The state was at the center of creative ideas for education reform.  Open enrollment, charter schools, and magnets, many of these ideas originated in Minnesota.  While yes, some of these reforms have turned  out to  be less successful than hoped, but they did represent bold experiments with education.  Similarly, Minnesota was at the center with the creation of managed health care and HMOs as ways to increase access and decrease health care costs.  The state was once also a leader with programs to extend health care to children and the poor.

            Another area where the state was a leader was in addressing fiscal imbalances across a rapidly growing metropolitan area.  We know that nationally and in Minnesota there are huge fiscal disparities across the cities and suburbs when it comes to funding many services, especially education, and there are also many problems regarding unplanned growth and the siting and placement of low income housing and the residential discrimination that comes with that.  Measures such as the Fiscal Disparities Act and the creation of the Met Council were supposed  to address these problems.

            And then there is the basic area of campaign finance, ethics, and political reform.  Yes recently the state did pass legislation expanding early voting, but with this notable exception, serious reform  ended a generation ago.

             The high point was 1994 when the Senator John Marty pushed through a package of reforms that placed Minnesota at the political forefront.  Minnesota had a first-in-the-nation ban on lobbyist gifts to legislators, limits on contributions from PACs, lobbyists, and big donors, spending caps tied to participation in public financing, a political contribution rebate system, and among the best disclosure laws in the country for political spending, lobbyist, and legislator conflict of interest.  The state attracted interest from across the country as a model for how to run clean government.  But then something funny happened–reform ended.

            Legislators, lobbyists, and special interests hated the Marty reforms.  They missed the lobbyist paid-for-parties and junkets, contributors did not like the disclosure of their activities, and legislators hated having to disclose all of their personal financial dealings and not being able to accept gifts in return for doing people favors.  It seemed all the politcos just did not like the idea of  a democracy where the voice of the people ruled and where public officials were accountable to voters.  So the legislature and the governors since then have simply ignored reform.

            It first started in the late 1990s when Democrats in the Senate fought hard to repeal or modify the gift ban law.  It began with “You really can’t buy a vote with a cup of coffee” statement and continues today with assertions that the lack of civility and increased partisanship at the Capitol is caused by the inability of legislators to get drunk together at lobbyist-sponsored soirees at the Kelly Inn.  It then came with refusals to act on other reforms being enacted in other states.  Proposals for  conduit fund disclosure, limits on contributions to parties and caucuses, increased lobbyist disclosure  both in terms of dollar amounts and regarding what specific legislation lobbyists were talking to legislators about.  The tobacco settlement and disclosure of their documents revealed a vast circumventing of ethics laws, showing how special interest money found its way into the private businesses and charities of legislators.

            Proposals to create a non-partisan redistricting commission were rejected, as were laws to declare it a conflict of interest for legislators to sponsor or vote on bills that favored parties they accepted contributions from.  Revolving door legislation to restrict  legislators from cashing in on their connections and friendships for a year after leaving office was also defeated in 1999, despite the fact that then Speaker Sviggum sponsored the legislation.  Later in 2005 then newly elected House member Tom Emmer introduced a package of campaign finance and ethics reform laws that I had drafted back when I was with Common Cause.  The Senate Democrats under Roger Moe refused to give any of the bills a hearing and in the House Republicans and Democrats worked together to kill them.  Consistently and in a bi-partisan fashion political reform was ground to halt.

            Not only has Minnesota refused to reform but it has moved backward.  At one point Governor Pawlenty killed the political contribution rebate fund and Republicans have consistently sought to abolish it permanently.  The gift ban law has been weakened, and in 2013 in a bill pushed by then legislator and now Secretary of State Steve Simon, campaign contributions to candidates were dramatically increased and disclosure laws weakened.  And there has been a bipartisan defunding and weakening of the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, rendering it statutorily one of the weakest and arguably least effective in country, despite the best intentions of its staff. 

            Of course, we should not forget the fact that the House and Senate Ethics Committees are largely partisan and ineffective and have long since lacked the will or desire to police the behavior of their members.  And we should not forget that we have a state legislator who  is also chair of the Iron Range Resources and Recovery Board, taking a job with a group that lobbies the legislature.  The IRRRB is also being investigated for making partisan patronage decisions in making economic development loans.  Finally, we should not ignore, as the Pioneer Press reported, that since 2002 60 ex-legislators have served as lobbyists or that across the state of Minnesota many local governments do not have binding ethics laws that regulate the behavior of local officials.

            What is all of this result of this assault on political reform?  First, Minnesota has fallen to the back of the pack when it comes to reform and ethics.  The best accounting of the current sorry state of Minnesota’s political ethics laws comes from the non-partisan and well respected Center for Public Integrity.  In its 2009 study on legislative financial disclosure laws, Minnesota receives an F grade, coming in 40th among the 50 states.   In 1999 the same study ranked Minnesota 35th and in 2006 39th.  A steady fall.  Minnesota is deficient in the range of disclosure it asks of legislators and also in terms of them updating that information.  A second 2012 study by the Center measured political accountability and risk of corruption in the state.  Minnesota received a D+ grade, finishing 25th among states.  Notable in this study, Minnesota receives a D- when it comes to effective conflict of interest laws, a D on political financing, and an F on lobbyist disclosure.  Minnesota simply stinks when it comes to political reform. 

            The second result of this failure to reform is an entrenching of special interests in state politics.  Both the Republicans and Democrats have their donors and special interests that entrench political positions, exacerbate polarization, and make political compromise near impossible.  In 2014, $64,000,000 was spent by lobbyist principals to influence legislation at the Capitol.  Combine that with political contributions to candidates, parties, and caucuses, and independent expenditures, and in excess of $80,000,000 or nearly $400,000 per legislator was spent in 2014 to affect legislation or state elections.  No wonder nothing can get done at the Capitol, it is locked down by special interest money that makes it impossible to act.  This is why Minnesota has had two shut downs in the recent past and why it now appears possible that the state is hurling toward another.

            The collapse of political ethics and government reform in Minnesota is directly connected to its failures in governance and why it is no longer a reformer in other areas in the way it once was.  MNSure might be a success when it comes to the number of people who get insurance, but its rollout was a mess and the only reason we have this reform is because of Obamacare.  The old education reforms of charter schools and open enrollment had produced new racial segregation and failed to address the achievement gap because they were not improved upon.  The Fiscal Disparities Act has been gutted and the Met Council weakened and turned into noting more than a patronage tool for governors and a developers.  Minnesota has a failed budget process that is again repeating itself.  And it is unable to make badly needed reforms to infrastructure funding and  local government aid.

            What reform has come down to in Minnesota is money. Republicans seem to think reform is simply cut taxes or spending.  Or in the case of education, Republicans, along with Terri Bonoff, attack teachers' seniority or unions or otherwise bleed schools or other institutions with the idea that less money will force reform.  Contrary wise, often Democrats think that simply more money is the solution.  More money  for education, for example, is needed, but how that money is spent and for whom are more critical issues.

            So reform and innovation is largely dead or un-creative.  Dead because reform got caught in a partisan  crosshair and dead because the reforms most needed--government ethics and money and politics--stalled.