News-Record.com

Some of the honorables, mostly Democrats as well as a few Republicans, will talk about … let me channel my inner speechwriter here … oh, yes, the “major strides in ethics and lobbying reform that will weaken the corrupting influence of money on the legislature.” They’ll be telling the truth, to a point.

Expect challengers and a good many Republicans to scoff at the “fake ethics reform that allows the same old same old to go on.” And they’ll be right to a point as well.

The truth about all the ethics and lobbying bills passed this year – as with a great many things – lies in the middle. The reforms will make the influence of money on politics somewhat more transparent. They will force the players to obey some new rules.

But the players and their methods will remain largely the same. Lobbyist will still fund raise, even if they can’t handle the checks. Interest groups will still dump a great deal of money into campaign coffers. Creative soles will find new and interesting ways around the gift bans.

All of the reforms that are most talked about are aimed at diluting the influence money has on politics. But money is still going to find its way into politics as long as those with the cash believe those with the power are a good investment.

I say, let’s use some good ol’ capitalist know-how and make the investment less attractive. Here are five ideas for making the stock market look like a better play than the campaign trail. They are far from original. Each has boosters in its own right, even if proponents aren't yet thinking of their corruption-fighting possibilities.

Pay the honorables are real salary: Trust me, it’s worth mulling over. I know, I know, the thought of paying more for what the public sees as a bunch of self-interested rapscallions seems kind of crazy.

But that’s just it. Rank and file legislators make $13,951 a year. Consider that during most of the recent two year terms, legislators end up spending about a year of time in session.

That’s not only a year away from their families and whatever social pursuits they may have, but a year away from work. The average North Carolinian can’t afford to spend what amounts to at least three days off the job every week for a year.

That’s why you end up with a bunch of folks who are either retired, independently wealthy, or engaged in occupations in which they can set their own schedule such as lawyers. To boot, you have to be pretty darned motivated about something to make your way down here. At least a few legislators come ready made with their own agenda before a lobbyist ever gets a hold of them.

Meanwhile, all these folks are making laws that affect fry cooks, school teachers, police officers and cubical dwellers.

If you want a legislature more responsive to the state’s average citizens – and less responsive to special interests of all stripes – then you need a legislature that looks more like the state’s average citizens. And the only way you’re going to get that is to make service in the legislature financially feasible. Public service is great, but pursuit of the greater good shouldn’t mean going bankrupt.

Create a viable third party: The Libertarians, Greens, Constitutional, or a player to be named later; it really wouldn’t matter. But if there was an effective third party in the legislature, the dynamics would change immensely.

Why? It goes back to money and influence. Businesses interests don’t spend gobs of money on lobbyists and campaign donations just for chuckles. They spend where they think they’re going to get results. And while sometimes money just flows to the person a businessman thinks will do a good job, money also flows to power.

Right now, in both chambers, as has been the case for more than a century, decisions can be made by the caucus of one party. It happens to be the Democrats now, but it wouldn’t matter if the Republicans were in charge. Once the majority party makes up its mind about something, it can shove what it wants down the throats of everyone else in the room. That makes the members of the majority party, and their leaders in particular, worth an investment.

An effective third party would dilute that power. Even a small caucus of about eight or nine would be enough to deny and effective majority to either party in the House, given voters’ recent penchant for closely dividing the chamber.

If no one party held a majority in a chamber, issues would have to be debated more openly. A good idea (or a bad one) would not only have to win over the caucus of one party, but legislators from across a broader spectrum of ideas. Suddenly, the investment in the leaders of the majority caucus just took a hit in value.

Televise the proceedings: Let the folks back home hear the debates on the floor and from the committees. Let them hear exactly what their representatives are saying, or not, about a particular topic. Let them see the sausage being made in all its inefficient glory.

No, it wouldn’t be the most exciting television to watch all the time. But maybe knowing that Jane and John Public might be tuning in would keep legislators on the path of the straight and narrow. Maybe knowing that their vote would not only be recorded, but witnessed by their constituents might have a sobering effect from time to time.

Hire a couple of parliamentarians: This is sort of inside baseball, but it’s important. Right now, the members of each chamber police their debates themselves. Essentially, members of the majority party determine if they’re playing by the rules or not.

Those rules can be used to stomp out unpopular notions but ignored when the will of the majority is more favorably inclined. While that may be expedient, it’s no way to run a railroad.

A parliamentarian, hired by the agreement of both the majority and minority leaders – or some other equitable formula – could serve as an impartial referee. No longer could the rules be used as a cudgel one minute and waved like a matador’s red flag the next.

Again, if the majority party can’t bend the rules at whim, there’s a lot less incentive to invest in its leaders through campaign donations.

Mark your calendars, and stick to them: A tip of the hat to Greensboro Rep. John Blust on this one. Blust has griped, rightfully so, that legislation can float on and off calendars at whimsy. Legislation scheduled for debate can be ignored if it’s something leaders don’t want to pass but members won’t reject. Meanwhile, a measure favored by the leadership can rocket to passage without opponents getting a heads up.

The fungible nature of the schedule leads to the fungible nature of the reins of power.

If you had a parliamentarian, or just a little backbone, you could enforce some rules with the calendar that would make a difference. If something is scheduled to be heard on the floor, by gosh let it be heard on the floor unless a majority of those present vote to delay it.

And no more scheduling committee meetings without at least 24 hours notice. Yeah, it will require patience and a little planning. And yes, it might keep the honorables in town a few extra days. But if you’re interested in debating an issue, hearing both its merits and drawbacks, that shouldn’t matter.

So give notice, and again, stick an agenda in those committee meetings. If a bill isn’t on the committee’s (well publicized) calendar, it’ll just have to wait.

So there your have them. That’s my two five cents on making power a little less corrupting.