I posted earlier today about a CNBC discussion of financial reporting requirements for federal legislators. I’d not abandon those disclosure requirements, although some libertarians might contend otherwise. (There’s also a difference, by the way, from a reporting requirement and a requirement that legislators divest assets.)
I’m sure of two things. First, legislators and bureaucrats meddle too often in private economic and personal activities. Second, conflict of interest principles are recognized and enforced selectively to the benefit of incumbents.
One need not look to Washington, D.C. to find how officials reap rewards from deals and dealings to which ordinary voters would not able able to participate.
In the Wisconsin State Journal, there’s a special report entitled, DOT official’s company rings up hundreds of thousands of dollars in state business.
(Note that in the Wisconsin situation, there’s not simply an issue of holding assets in a field one regulates, but awarding contracts that favor one’s business. The former implies a possibility of gain; the latter is predicated on it.)
Here’s a description of the story on Wisconsin DOT conflicts:
A company co-owned by a state transportation official has done hundreds of thousands of dollars in business with the state – some of it with the official’s own agency – raising questions about whether he used his government job for private gain, a Wisconsin State Journal investigation has found.
Carl Guse, who manages the radio channels used by emergency responders, and a partner have for years bought rights to frequencies that were later sold to the state, some at an enormous profit.
Several experts questioned the sales, saying the type of frequencies the state buys are normally available to public safety agencies for free.
Guse’s outside work has had the blessing of his bosses at the Department of Transportation, who have made some efforts to insulate him from state purchasing decisions.
But it’s unclear whether his superiors were aware of the extent to which Guse – privately dubbed by some associates “the god of radio” for his considerable knowledge and expertise in the arcane world of emergency communications – profited from state actions over which he had some influence.
The state and a private group charged by the Federal Communications Commission with coordinating public-safety radio frequencies are reviewing Guse’s official actions in light of his extensive private business interests. Guse, whose salary is $59,833 a year, has been the State Patrol’s frequency specialist since 1997.
If you had a business, and wanted to sell your services to the state, how would you feel if a competitor was advising the state on the choice of a supplier?
Over three-quarters of a million dollars has been spent on radio spectrum for projects over which Guse had influence.
Some of Guse’s supervisors may not have known he extent of his businesses interests, but others surely did. This isn’t a matter of mere disclosure; it’s a matter of alleged misuse of influence, amounting to large sums for radio-frequency purchases.
One other point — a conflict or the appearance of a conflict can be damaging to the public interest and the public trust. That’s why abandoning disclosure requirements strikes me as mistaken idea — better to see officials’ interests openly.
Insiders typically say the same things when confronted with a possible conflict: That’s not what I intended, I would never do that, of course I would always exercise good judgment, etc. They assume that they should be trusted based on their self-professed rectitude. (It’s mostly self-professed, by the way, and often professed vehemently at the slightest challenge.)
Explaining an arrangement like the one Guse had — explaining it with a straight face — is almost impossible. That’s one good sign that he never should have had such an arrangment.