THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 12, 1997 TAG: 9701120068
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ROBERT LITTLE AND DAVID M. POOLE, STAFF WRITERS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: 113 lines
A blank expression fell across Joseph Benedetti's face when a reporter asked if the General Assembly would consider a package of ethics reforms this winter.
``Evidently,'' said the Senate Republican leader, ``you guys don't have anything else to write about.''
The call for ethics reforms - sounded by Gov. George F. Allen and the media - has gotten a mostly underwhelming response from lawmakers who gathered in Richmond last week for the start of their annual law-writing session.
Members of the General Assembly are planning a voluntary, 2 1/2-hour workshop Monday to discuss campaign disclosure laws and the ethical responsibilities of public office.
But where legislation is concerned, Allen likely will become the second consecutive governor to discover that the General Assembly leaders are content with ethics laws that are among the most lax in the nation.
``They're already convinced they are doing the right thing. They are insulted by the suggestion that changes are needed,'' said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist who served on then-Gov. L. Douglas Wilder's ethics committee in the early 1990s.
``Without public demand for change, ethical standards will not be raised.''
Virginia lawmakers say that their ethical house is in order but that they are being tarred by scandal in Washington - be it House Speaker Newt Gingrich's ethical lapse or President Clinton's fund-raising techniques.
But momentum for Virginia reforms is also being driven by revelations of loopholes in state disclosure laws, which are intended to let voters know whether lawmakers are being influenced improperly or using public office for private gain.
``Our commonwealth has some of the weakest disclosure laws in the country,'' Allen said during his State of the Commonwealth address Wednesday. ``We can certainly do better. In fact, we have an obligation to do so.''
A special subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee will recommend this week that lawmakers be prohibited from accepting campaign contributions while the General Assembly is in session.
The ban would cover all 140 state legislators, and would also extend to the governor, the lieutenant governor and the attorney general.
Those lawmakers would be barred not only from accepting money but from soliciting it as well. That would mean lobbyists and special interests could not write checks to the political parties while their issues are on the table.
And the governor, who keeps a full schedule of meetings during much of the legislative session, could not let Executive Mansion receptions become fund-raising events.
Critics say politicians are no more influenced by contributions in January and February than in any other months. But the perception of a problem is enough for some lawmakers to call for reform.
``Accepting contributions while we're in session simply reinforces the public's cynicism about politics,'' said Del. John J. ``Butch'' Davies III of Culpeper.
``People do not believe we can take someone's money and then vote on legislation that affects them with an objective eye. It's that appearance that creates the impropriety.''
On Thursday, Allen submitted two proposals that would require lawmakers and lobbyists to disclose more of the meals they share and gifts they exchange.
When lobbyists disclose entertainment expenses under current law, the lobbyists can exclude the most illuminating piece of information: the names of lawmakers who receive free food and drink.
Allen wants lobbyists to name names when they entertain fewer than 10 lawmakers or administration officials at a time. Any gift worth more than $25 would have to be disclosed.
Legislators, in turn, would have to report any gift they received worth $25 or more, down from the $200 cut-off imposed now. Harrisonburg Sen. Kevin G. Miller, chairman of the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, predicted the measure will pass, but probably with a threshold of $100 or more.
Also under Allen's proposals, lawmakers who are paid to represent businesses before state agencies would have to reveal the amount. Under current law, legislators simply have to check one of two boxes: ``$1,000 to $10,000'' or ``$10,000 or more.''
The proposed change is in response to the uproar caused last year when Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield disclosed it had paid more than $350,000 to the law firm of House Majority Leader C. Richard Cranwell. Cranwell represented Trigon in its bid to become a for-profit company.
Cranwell - the target of criticism even though he had correctly filled out his statement of economic interest form - said he would support the measure.
Another proposal the legislature will consider this year would require the state Board of Elections to accept computerized campaign finance reports. Supporters say the change would not only reduce paperwork but also make the reports less cumbersome to monitor.
The bill would require the elections board to take between $70,000 and $100,000 from money it already has available to buy the necessary software, but using the service would be voluntary for candidates.
``I think most people will start using it instantly anyway,'' said Davies. ``There are some who just aren't comfortable with the technology, though. This will give them some time to get used to it.''
No reforms suggested so far in the 46-day session would increase scrutiny of how lawmakers spend their campaign funds.
Some lobbyists say they suspect that a handful of legislators use campaign money to subsidize their private business ventures, or that some even pocket a $9,000 taxpayer-funded office allowance.
``Members of the General Assembly are like any group. Are they going to inconvenience themselves unless they really have to? Of course not,'' said Sabato. ``They might throw a bone here or a bone there.''
But some members, like Botetourt Sen. Malfourd W. ``Bo'' Trumbo, fear that press emphasis on disclosure laws will only reinforce the public's distrust of elected officials. Requiring additional disclosure, he said, would entangle lawmakers in paperwork, without any clear benefit to the public interest.
``People have a poor perception of politicians anyway,'' Trumbo said. ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
THE PROPOSALS
THEIR PROSPECTS
[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY ETHICS