Iowa - House Ethics Panel Dismisses Bribery Complaint

[xBiffx]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...ouse-ethics-panel-dismisses-bribery-complaint

Back story:

Basically, a state representative here that is running for re-election offered a job to his opponent so that the opponent would drop out of the race. The opponent, along with others, filed a complaint with the State House Ethics Panel saying this amounted to bribery. The panel met and finally issued a decision disagreeing with the complainant and said this didn't amount to criminal bribery.

I agree with this decision since it wasn't like the Rep offered money free and clear. It was a job, the opponent would have been paid for services rendered, not for dropping out of the race specifically. Plus, the job would have kept the opponent working for the state and serving the community, just in a different role. FYI this happens to be my district.

Just wondering what the P&N crowd thinks of this situation/decision.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's pretty horrible. Generally these laws prohibit offering anything of value, not just money specifically. Clearly a desirable job is something of value. To me that's clear bribery.

That being said, the fact that legislative bodies are woefully inept at policing their own ethics failures is hardly news.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I agree with this decision since it wasn't like the Rep offered money free and clear. It was a job, the opponent would have been paid for services rendered, not for dropping out of the race specifically. Plus, the job would have kept the opponent working for the state and serving the community, just in a different role. FYI this happens to be my district.

Just wondering what the P&N crowd thinks of this situation/decision.

A job offer still has an effective value. It doesn't matter if he's payed for services rendered, he may have not been the best person for the job.

Also:

The committee — comprised of three Democrats and three Republicans — found that the candidate bringing the complaint did not fall within a list in state law of officials for whom bribery is illegal.

The ruling wasn't that there was no bribery, but that there was no illegal bribery. Apparently it's ok to bribe people as long as they haven't been elected yet.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

There is much more nuance to this story than has been reported. It was not an actual offer. I know it was really tough on the people involved in the panel discussions and unfortunately it is likely that all the details will never see the public eye. That is all I will say on this matter.

 

[zsdersw]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...ouse-ethics-panel-dismisses-bribery-complaint

Back story:

Basically, a state representative here that is running for re-election offered a job to his opponent so that the opponent would drop out of the race. The opponent, along with others, filed a complaint with the State House Ethics Panel saying this amounted to bribery. The panel met and finally issued a decision disagreeing with the complainant and said this didn't amount to criminal bribery.

I agree with this decision since it wasn't like the Rep offered money free and clear. It was a job, the opponent would have been paid for services rendered, not for dropping out of the race specifically. Plus, the job would have kept the opponent working for the state and serving the community, just in a different role. FYI this happens to be my district.

Just wondering what the P&N crowd thinks of this situation/decision.

Would you have agreed with the decision if it was a Democrat who did the bribing, all things being equal?

 

[Bowfinger]

As I understand it, they didn't rule that it wasn't a bribe. They ruled they had no jurisdiction since it was an alleged bribe BY a legislator rather than a bribe OF a legislator. Still seems like a cop-out to me, but perhaps their rules are that poorly conceived.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

lol, f'n liberals and their "seriousness of the charge" BS.

“I voted no because of the seriousness of the complaint,” said Thede, D-Bettendorf.

How about you vote based on the fact you had in front of you maam. This isn't a place for you to "send a message" nor is it something you base your decision on based on how "serious" it is. It's an allegation - if it warrants further action - fine, say so. But this "seriousness" is nothing but nonsense.

 

[woolfe9999]

lol, f'n liberals and their "seriousness of the charge" BS.


How about you vote based on the fact you had in front of you maam. This isn't a place for you to "send a message" nor is it something you base your decision on based on how "serious" it is. It's an allegation - if it warrants further action - fine, say so. But this "seriousness" is nothing but nonsense.

This was an ethics committee proceeding, not a criminal complaint. One could consider the conduct unethical even if it does not fall under the criminal definition of bribery. For example, breaching attorney-client privilege is a serious breach of legal ethics that can get an attorney disbarred, yet it isn't a crime.

Absent from the article is a separate discussion of what falls under the purview of a legislative investigation into alleged unethical conduct. The article suggests that the two are co-extensive, but without knowing more, I wouldn't draw any firm conclusions about the vote in the ethics committee.

 

[woolfe9999]

As I understand it, they didn't rule that it wasn't a bribe. They ruled they had no jurisdiction since it was an alleged bribe BY a legislator rather than a bribe OF a legislator. Still seems like a cop-out to me, but perhaps their rules are that poorly conceived.

Exactly. I don't understand how the ethics committee rules would allow them to only sanction a legislator who has violated a criminal statute. Ethics rules are generally not identical to the criminal code, though I suppose that may be the case in Iowa.

 

[xBiffx]

Would you have agreed with the decision if it was a Democrat who did the bribing, all things being equal?

Yep. I could care less what party was involved. I see no problem with offering someone a job to get them out of your way. Who is getting hurt here? It wasn't hidden from public view either.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yep. I could care less what party was involved. I see no problem with offering someone a job to get them out of your way. Who is getting hurt here? It wasn't hidden from public view either.

You are certainly correct that it doesn't matter which party it is.

As to who gets hurt, the public gets hurt when they are deprived of someone who might be a better choice to fill the seat. That is unavoidable if the candidate drops out for his own reasons, but we shouldn't allow elected officials to use their positions to offer tax payer money to bribe opponents out of a campaign.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep. I could care less what party was involved. I see no problem with offering someone a job to get them out of your way. Who is getting hurt here? It wasn't hidden from public view either.

The other people who would have been considered for that job for one.

Just an FYI, offering someone a job to influence an election is most certainly a violation of federal election law. I'm pretty sure it's a felony.

 

[xBiffx]

You are certainly correct that it doesn't matter which party it is.

As to who gets hurt, the public gets hurt when they are deprived of someone who might be a better choice to fill the seat. That is unavoidable if the candidate drops out for his own reasons, but we shouldn't allow elected officials to use their positions to offer tax payer money to bribe opponents out of a campaign.

The public still can choose not to vote for the guy doing the job offering. Plus the job is still serving the public, working for the rep.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This was an ethics committee proceeding, not a criminal complaint. One could consider the conduct unethical even if it does not fall under the criminal definition of bribery. For example, breaching attorney-client privilege is a serious breach of legal ethics that can get an attorney disbarred, yet it isn't a crime.

Absent from the article is a separate discussion of what falls under the purview of a legislative investigation into alleged unethical conduct. The article suggests that the two are co-extensive, but without knowing more, I wouldn't draw any firm conclusions about the vote in the ethics committee.

Yes, I know exactly what it was. The point here was that her "reason" for voting had zero to do with the case itself, but rather the "seriousness of the complaint"

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Serious question, doesn't this happen in presidential elections? Where a candidate will drop out if offered a position in another candidates admin (if they get elected, of course)?

Isn't there a lot of behind the scenes lobbying for peoples delegates and/or support?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yep. I could care less what party was involved. I see no problem with offering someone a job to get them out of your way. Who is getting hurt here? It wasn't hidden from public view either.

Not entirely accurate....


oh wait... I am going to step out of the discussion of actual details about the case as noted above - just keep in mind that the reporting on this is less than stellar(one learns not to expect much from the DMR though).

 

[woolfe9999]

The public still can choose not to vote for the guy doing the job offering. Plus the job is still serving the public, working for the rep.

Except he isn't being chosen for the job on merit. He may or may not be the best person to serve the public in that job. Also, the voters typically will not find out about these offers, particularly when the rival has chosen to accept it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Serious question, doesn't this happen in presidential elections? Where a candidate will drop out if offered a position in another candidates admin (if they get elected, of course)?

Isn't there a lot of behind the scenes lobbying for peoples delegates and/or support?

It isn't legal at the federal level, at least not where the person is being offered a paid position. The Joe Sestak affair brought out a lengthy discussion about that. The Obama admin (by way of Bill Clinton) had offered him some unpaid positions on advisory boards to not run against Arlen Spector for the Senate in Pennsylvania. It is apparently debatable whether it is legal to offer an unpaid position, but not debatable if it is a paid position.