The Tacoma News Tribune's intrepid Peter Callaghan reports that State Sen. Don Benton (R-Vancouver) is pitching a Web-based daily round-up of political news called todayinpolitics.com, for just $565 a year, to potential buyers including.....
......lobbyists who represent clients in front of the Legislature, including committees that Benton serves on. Legislative ethics generally restrict lawmakers from soliciting business from lobbyists. That’s because you can never be sure if they buy because they want to or because they feel like they have to.“What will it cost you NOT to subscribe?” Benton wrote. “That could be a princely sum indeed!
“If you want to continue to be the best informed and highest paid,” he continued, “frankly y’all better pony up quickly, to ‘put your money where your livelihood is.’ Otherwise, I’ll have to say: I told ya so, and you’ll be back to wondering why you were the last to know everything.”
State legislators work part-time and are entitled to earn a living apart from their official duties in Olympia, certainly. But the line is fairly blurry here, even if there is no determination (yet, at least) that Benton is doing anything illegal.
Benton sought advice from the state's Legislative Ethics Board, and says he even purchased certain e-mail lists he could have gotten for free.
Callaghan notes:
...board counsel Mike O’Connell wrote to Benton in December. “...as you know, you must be sensitive to any perception that you are overreaching or somehow trading on your legislative position.”O’Connell advised that Benton “erect firewalls” between his legislative duties and his business.
....But Benton did not follow at least two of O’Connell’s suggestions. The senator signed the solicitation himself and referenced his legislative experience.
....He dismissed as ridiculous and “asinine” any claims that lobbyists might feel pressured to buy or might think they are buying his vote, not the service.
“I think it’s naive for a lobbyist to think something differently,” he said.
At least one lobbyist decided not to subscribe for a different reason. The lobbyist thinks Benton will soon be before the ethics board and didn’t want his clients’ names included in any complaint and hearing.
It wouldn't be the first time Benton, a former state GOP party chair, landed in hot water with state officials. In late 2001, the Public Disclosure Commission fined Benton for accepting seven separate campaign contributions in 2000 that were in excess of the $2,500 per contributor limit.
Benton also continues to wear egg on his face, as recently as this Jan. 4, 2005 Seattle Times story - for insisting in 2002 that senators keep their private chef and private dining room during a Capitol remodel, and state budget pinch.
In spring 2002, the senate's private dining arrangement made news when 36 of 49 senators signed a letter complaining that, during the remodel, they would have to share a small lunchroom in the state library with House members. And they would have to get their food from the same kitchen that would be serving the public."This is unacceptable," Sen. Don Benton, a Republican, wrote in the letter. "We as members of the Senate have come to look forward to the quality food prepared by Jean-Pierre and Kerri, as well as the quiet camaraderie of our fellow Senators in a private setting."
The letter drew a flood of angry responses from the public. People were especially miffed to hear senators complain about losing their private dining room at a time when the state was facing one of its worst budget shortfalls in history.
Benton could not be reached for comment late yesterday.
Benton's the fiscal conservative's subscription e-newsletter is to debut Feb. 1.
Hey, Senator: ya gonna include news stories like the two above? I guess since you're claiming to be "absolutely non-partisan," that means "Yes." I see in this pitch from your site there'll be no editorials or opinion pieces included in your daily links. That's probably smart, given stuff like this.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 17, 2005 10:49 PM | Email ThisPeople like Benton make it harder to be partisan.
And it was soufflé,not egg, on his face.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 17, 2005 10:54 PMIts tough to believe he's going to have anything not found on google, soundpolitics, or HorseAss which are free.
Posted by: Erik on January 17, 2005 11:02 PMPay sites RARELY get the visitors -- and thus won't get the publicity (except bad, like this)
And it's not like you started this site to get publicity. Just to fill a hole here!
Oh and Orbuxmax for more solid news as well.
*shakes head* I think it's time that his district find someone else to run.
Posted by: Sarah of WA on January 17, 2005 11:05 PMMaybe this is all just a big joke? We can only hope he is not truly serious!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 17, 2005 11:35 PMI think Benton might say yes and say he is competing against Orbus Max as well. Its hard to believe though. The free news services such as google are tough to beat. Manually linking new items like Drudge isn't going to allow one to charge money.
The allegation against him though is that he is going to charge lobbyists for this which
[h]e dismissed as ridiculous and “asinine” any claims that lobbyists might feel pressured to buy or might think they are buying his vote, not the service.
Make up your own mind.
In the Army we were taught the same thing. Perception becomes reality when it's perceived by enough people.
Posted by: Jason on January 18, 2005 12:01 AMImagine the time you’ll save! Imagine how quickly you can react to the news that will impact YOU the most! Imagine how valuable a tool is that will allow YOU to affect policy… YOU to affect legislation… YOU to get involved in a way that will magnify your impact on the process ten-fold!
Hmm. Ok. Sorry. Maybe we haven't been too hard on him.
Posted by: Erik on January 18, 2005 12:02 AMSomeone should explain to the dumb$hit that his office is not just about him.
Posted by: South County on January 18, 2005 12:03 AMMichele, yeah, seriously, heh, Jean-Pierre. He was/is the chef (along with his wife) in the Senate dining room, and apparently Benton was/is a big fan. Funny thing is, I have it from another legislative source that Jean-Pierre's cuisine was....
.....pas tres bien.
Posted by: Matt R. on January 18, 2005 01:11 AMObviously, price just can NOT be a barrier here.
The only legitimate question is – what will it cost you NOT to subscribe? That could be a princely sum indeed! Last year a lobbyist said to me after the defeat of an important bill...
Hmmm......
Posted by: Erik on January 18, 2005 01:52 AM---
Just too good to pass up.
Posted by: Sandy P on January 18, 2005 08:15 AMDon isn't the sharpest tack in the pile, but there was no other Republican running that was better and no way I'm voting for the Dem that ran against him.
Maybe next time. He is definitely a bit of a fringe player and is well known for exploiting the rules.
Quack, quack.
Jim
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on January 18, 2005 09:59 AMReminds me of a jury I was on a few years back: repeat felon confessed multiple times at the police station after being properly mirandized.
Duh.
Posted by: TB on January 18, 2005 11:01 AMPosted by Mike H. at January 17, 2005 11:48 PM
Mike H.,
"In the Army we were taught the same thing. Perception becomes reality when it's perceived by enough people."
Posted by Jason at January 18, 2005 12:01 AM
As a former Navy guy, I am not surprised to find my Marine and Army cohorts in agreement.
Pass the smell test? I've never smelled anything that failed so resoundingly...
Posted by: smegma on January 18, 2005 05:23 PMIt seems to me that it's easy for you to condemn based on a one-sided, slanted portrayal. It's quite another to act responsibly and to go out of your way to get his side of it.
Posted by: Condor on January 19, 2005 01:22 PMYou're not addressing the content of the news at all.
Posted by: Matt Rosenberg on January 19, 2005 01:41 PMHere are the facts:
Benton has offered this service to a wide universe of people that might be interested in it. That includes many people who have nothing to do with the legislature.
He ran the idea by an expert on ethics. He seems to have followed most of the guidelines.
There are no known complaints filed against him for this effort. There are certainly no findings by anyone, save you, that seems to condemn him for these actions, conclusions that you've provided with nothing more to back your assertions than innuendo and your unsupported conclusions on this issue.
There seems to be some other service out there, apparently free, that does the same thing. (Anyone have a link for that?)
The TNT article, where everything from the bogus headline to it's contents was either inaccurate or slanted, cannot be the basis for forming a conclusion based on whatever was presented.
Then, to buttress your unsupported position, you dredge up crap that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
You reference a bizarre endorsement of a carpet-bagging, don't-know-if-I'm-a-democrat-or-Republican candidate who has never even voted in Clark County, written by a man (Tom Koenninger) who hates Benton's guts; as if it had some level of credibility, which, based on the election outcome, it clearly does not. And you provide that bizarre piece of work from a sick mind as if it had ANY bearing on the "content" of THIS issue... which it inarguably does NOT.
I'm not addressing the "content" because there doesn't seem to BE any "content."
You dislike Benton (What... do you know the guy personally?) and you present absolutely nothing to indicate that his conduct in this matter is unethical, save your opinion. Others here, equally ignorant, attempt to compare legislative ethics with military impropriety and standards as if one had anything to do with the other. You dig around, putting up every negative thing you can about the guy, even a great deal that, to coin the phrase, has nothing to do with the "content" of the story; you slam the guy and yet you've done nothing to contact him and you rely on obviously slanted nonsense to arrive at your conclusions?
This service, which, as I understand it, is a service to provide rapid access to printed political news, would naturally be something to present to those most immersed in politics, i.e., those in or around the legislature, a fact you left out. What would you have him do, put a disclaimer discriminating against lobbyists... Restricting them from using this service?
Since when have you become an expert on ethics, legislative or otherwise? Do you have a degree in ethics? Have you ever been employed as an ethicist?
In short, you have a rod on against Benton, which is, of course, your privilege. The rest of it sounds like a came from a state democrat newsletter.
Well done, Rosenberg.... Well done.