The State Capitol will start humming tomorrow as staff start work on the 2010 session.

That nudged me into a brief digression into ethics issues in the news.

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld a portion of that state’s tough restrictions that limit public officials to accepting gifts from any lobbyist worth a total of more than $50, but struck down the reciprocal provision prohibiting offering such gifts to public officils, according to a story in the Statesman Journal.

I haven’t had a chance to read the full court decision, but some are saying the decision will have no practical impact.

“While it is good that the Court upheld the limits, that will have little or no effect in practice,” said Meek. “As our brief in the case demonstrated, the lobbyists can provide the same benefits to public officials and candidates (gifts, entertainment, and even honoraria in the form of consulting fees) in the form of “campaign contributions,” which the Legislature has chosen not to restrict. Some of the widely-publicized legislator luxury trips to Hawaii were actually paid for with campaign contributions, and today’s Court decision will not prevent such trips in the future. “Until the Secretary of State or Attorney General starts enforcing Measure 47, enacted by the voters of Oregon in 2006, lobbyists can continue to use big money to buy influence with government.”

And over at the Federal Election Commission, the issue of gifts from family members to candidates has split Republican and Democratic commissioners, leaving the commission unable to take action.

The Society of Professional Journalists issued a year-end press release criticizing NBC News for what it called “checkbook journalism” after the network conducted an exclusive interview with a man involved in a high-profile custody battle in Brazil while flying the man and his son back to the U.S. in a chartered plane.

According to the press release:

By making itself part of a breaking news story on which it was reporting — apparently to cash in on the exclusivity assured by its expensive gesture — NBC jeopardized its journalistic independence and credibility in its initial and subsequent reports. In effect, the network branded the story as its own, creating a corporate and promotional interest in the way the story unfolds. NBC’s ability to report the story fairly has been compromised by its financial involvement.

And then there’s the flap over ESPN football analyst Craig James and Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach.

According to a story in the NY Times:

“I think he used his position at ESPN to try to coerce me into allowing Adam to play more,” said Leach, who said he expected to coach again. “But the thing about it is as the coach, I watch every inch of film. I’m deferring to the judgment of 12 people as we look at the film on who should play and who should play when and then we make our decision based on that. I don’t feel like it’s fair to the other players and I don’t think it’s the right way to do business to allow influence and position to dictate when you play a young man.”