Cheapskate football fan Rep. Sam Hunt has introduced a bill to raise the limit on gifts to state officials and employees from $50 to $75
"You can't even buy a dinner around this town for $50 for two people anymore. You can't go to a Seahawks game," said Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia.Actually, Sam, I think you can still go to a Seahawks game, you just have to buy your own ticket.
Raising the gift limit is a bipartisan cause. Rep. Mike Armstrong (R-Wenatchee) is a co-sponsor of the bill. Armstrong is a good guy, but this quote is too tempting a target for me to pass up:
"If anybody thinks they're going to buy a vote on something in this place for $75, they're crazy," he added.Uh, how much does it cost to buy a vote over there? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 03, 2005 12:19 AM | Email This
Reminds me of a joke about prostitutes, lobsters and crabs!
So, our represenatives want to wined and dined!
That's scary...........
The purpose of such statutes is to make it harder for our representatives to be bribed or influenced by those with deep pockets. Considering the rise in cost of living over the past decade (I'm not sure when the $50 bar was set), it seems reasonable to me to raise the limit on individual gifts to $75.
Shark, to be harping on something like this just looks petty. And, I agree with about 95% of what you say in here. This would just be about part of the 5% I don't !
Posted by: RevHaughee on March 3, 2005 05:58 AMAs to the broader point raised by Stefan, having lobbied the legislature before, a raise in the limit is actually long overdue. One doesn't have to like it, but lobbyists buying meals, tickets, and the like for members of state legislatures and Congress is reality right now that isn't going to be changed.
Moreover, as many flaws as I see in legislative performance, our state’s legislators are essentially doing a full-time job - not necessarily well - for part-time pay. That makes it very difficult for people that don’t have an entrepreneurial type job (such as owning a relatively self-sustaining small business, being a real estate agent, etc.), are independently financially secure, or have a well-earning spouse, to run for office. I would argue that contributes to the weakness of the legislature by creating a reduced candidate pool.
They likely appreciate the gift, but having not only lobbied the state legislature but worked for Congress, I can vouch for the fact gifts don’t buy votes in the least. To argue for impractical gift limits, or outright bans, strikes me as a little too Jeffersonian: all idealism, little practicality.
Obviously you want all this stuff disclosed, and you want the right balance between what is a reasonable gift versus what is unacceptable, but I don’t think you can naively expect an outright ban or a monetary limit that is so small as to be purely nominal. If we want that, we should start by paying them a reasonable salary for the work they are elected to do…and then by all means hold them accountable at the ballot box.
Sam Hunt
D-Olympia
District 22
Office: Legislative Building 438
Phone: 360-786-7992
E-mail: hunt_sa @leg.wa.gov
There's the Outback, which my husband and I have gone to for less than $50 and Emperor's Palace which is easily under $50 for two. Olive Garden only costs about $30 for two dinners ... minus the alcohol of course. What's wrong with these places?
But those places might not be hoity toity enough for our supreme leaders...*cough*
I don't think it's a small or petty thing to bring this up. I think it's ridiculous at this point in time when they are complaining about the supposed budget 'shortfall' that they want to allow gifts of more than $50 to come in. It's irresponsible and poor timing.
Posted by: megs on March 3, 2005 08:27 AM I don't think pay legistlators more money
will entice better people to run.First of
all there none better than pam roach and
dino rossi.No amount of money will ever
change that.
What has to change is the mentality of state
republican party leadership that says only
moderates can win.That's what is keeping good people from running.The mudslinging doesn't help
either.
from running.
For any of this to happen chris vance
has to go.He has divided this party
to the point of no return.
We don't need professional politicians in those rep positions. If they want a political career, they can use the rep spot as a jumping off point, and then aim for becoming a state senator. If nothing else, that helps to keep some competition going in the state senate as opposed to senators for life, as we appear to have now.
As for the raising the gift limit, I don't have a problem with that either. $75 isn't much and, like Armstrong said, bribery takes place outside the reporting system. Just as the idiots on the Seattle Silly Council.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 3, 2005 09:10 AMHow about sharing the joke?
Posted by: A on March 3, 2005 09:17 AMPublic service for "honor" as you put it is a bit too idealisitic. It's a nice idea, but only the wealthy can do it for "honor" in all fairness. The last thing I want is a legislature dominated only by one segment of society. Plus, it seems a bit odd to expect our legislators to support market-based solutions (as I presume many readers of this site do) but then not offer them a commensurate risk-reward benefit for their service.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 3, 2005 09:27 AMIf you really think the people in office are so morally despicable as you describe, that would be further evidence we need to find a way to improve the quality of persons willing to run for these offices.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 3, 2005 09:41 AMTimothy wrote,
I'm with Eric. Quite frankly, I think we should pay legislators more. That way we'd attract better people than those who are there right now. I know that's not going to be a popular opinion here, though, so I'll keep it to myself.
Timothy, your opinion is, as all opinions should be, welcome and open. Money is not the problem with getting a good people in elected offices. There can never be enough money for some office holders. Plus they will still want the extra perks. The problem is with the media and the opposing party. The lies, the hate, half-truths, digging it to the past for dirt. All this and more turns away really good people who can do the job. Long ago some of the founding fathers thought each citizen should take part in some of our governing offices. Each of us takes turns. But again good people are stopped by money. It only seems that only the very rich and or connected make it to the ballets. It is a shame. Besides a smart person can make better money in the private sector without the hassle.
While I would certainly be happy to make that much money, I understand that it's actually quite a bit lower than what a person could make in the private sector. That's why the legislature is filled with retired folks with no kids, they're the only ones who can afford to work there.
And they don't just serve a few months every year, in 2003 they were in special session wrangling out the details of the budget until early June. You say "it's a part-time job" and that's also incorrect, during the rest of the year many legislators spend lots of time every week on legislative-related business.
And really, what other job can you get to "fill in the gaps" during the rest of the year? Who wants to hire someone who will be gone half the time, and could be called away at any time if the governor declares a special session?
My point is that these people DON'T make enough to buy their own dinner every night when a lobbyist, an activist, or a concerned citizen wants to discuss matters over a meal. Most legislators work 12-hour days during the session, if they have to buy their own meals while meeting with people they just won't do it.
If I want to buy dinner for some legislator so I can bend his ear for a few minutes on my favorite topic, why shouldn't I be able to?
RM
Posted by: rmueller on March 3, 2005 10:36 AMHaving discussed this with people who have worked to recruit candidates, I can tell you that this is just not true. Money is a huge problem in recruiting candidates.
Phil--
This is completely off topic, but... Chris Vance has been reelected. There's no realistic way to get rid of him now. Those of us who opposed his reelection need to get past that and focus on the 2005 and 2006 elections. As the SecDef famously said, "you don't go to war with the State Party Chairman you want, you go to war with the State Party Chairman you have." Further attacks on Vance will only serve to hurt the party and thus the state. Vance is doing the right thing and holding town hall meetings this month throughout the state. Attend those, but remember--we're stuck with the man, so we need to talk about the issues.
As far as salaries for State legislators go they really are not in the range for the work expected. State legislators should have a salary schedule that considers their job as full time. That being said though, I certainly wouldn't want them to be in secession any longer though. They do enough damage in the time they are already there.
Posted by: Sixsigma on March 3, 2005 11:22 AM My friend I don't particularly care who it
hurts.Vance has done more to hurt the party
than I ever could.I will not stand by while he
systematically destroys this party.
It gives no me great pleasure to say this
but as long as chris vance runs the party
the division in the party will grow wider.
What it comes down to is I simply think that a
a leader should be honorable person.
We Don't have that now.
Consider the impact of free gifts to other state employees - to influence them to make purchase decisions based on free gifts, meals and plenty of stroking. It works to influence purchases or they would not be doing it. Some state workers make decisions to spend taxpayer money, in part, based on the subsidized influence of sales freebies. (I'm sure that many are ethical and do not engage in these activities but I have seen the abuse myself.)
If anything, the $50 level should be cut to $25. That's adequate for a few cups of coffee or lattes. Beyond that, its just out and out corruption. There is a reason that all private employers I've ever worked for had strict restrictions on accepting free gifts from vendors. The state would be wise to not only clamp down on the gift limit, but to actually enforce the rule (as best I can tell, its not actually enforced.)
Posted by: Ed on March 3, 2005 03:53 PM