http://newsok.com/article/3136503/1191110866


Sun September 30, 2007

Cleaning up: Another crack at campaign reform

The Oklahoman Editorial

Republican state Rep. David Dank has chosen to take the lead on the issue of ethics reform, particularly as it pertains to campaign financing. It's a laudable goal, although generally the more rules that are enacted, the messier and more complicated it gets for everyone involved.

We've seen this on the national stage, where post-Watergate campaign finance reform muddied already murky waters and helped lead to the McCain-Feingold reform of recent years, which in turn has created yet another level of confusion and any number of ingenious efforts to bend or skirt the rules.

Dank, R-Oklahoma City, aims to build on modest ethics reform passed during the 2007 session. He has some sound ideas in his proposed legislation, among them a ban on accepting campaign contributions during the session (and during the 15 days before and after the session) and ending the practice of transferring money from one political fundraising committee to another.

The former would apply not just to incumbents but to candidates, which legislators may find more palatable than previous efforts aimed solely at incumbents. Those, they argued, would have put incumbents at a disadvantage, which is ridiculous. The power of the incumbency is immeasurable, for one thing. For another, candidates aren't in a position to vote on legislation — incumbents are, and we're for ways to eliminate the "pay for play” mind-set that's been all too prevalent through the years.

The Oklahoma Clean Campaign Act of 2008 also would:

•Tighten the definition of a "person” making a campaign contribution, to eliminate loopholes used by some companies and other organizations.

•Require detailed listing of all campaign expenditures on regular reports filed with the state Ethics Commission.

•Prohibit the use of campaign funds raised to run for one office in seeking another office.

•Prohibit the use of surplus campaign funds for personal purposes or donation to another candidate.

We're less enthusiastic about Dank's proposal to place a $40,000 limit on contributions by any person, lobbyist or family. That's sure to sit well with the public, but why that amount? Why not $20,000, or $50,000? This and his call to limit campaign contributions to campaign expenses, as opposed to such items as computers, travel expenses and food and lodging, seem an administrative nightmare waiting to happen.

That nightmare would likely fall to the Ethics Commission, which already is overworked and undermanned as it tries to keep pace with the myriad rules regarding public officials. Until something is done by the Legislature to fix that problem, and the commission is given the teeth to dissuade bad behavior, then Dank's wish to give Oklahomans "a clean campaign finance system” is likely to remain just that.