A bit of constructive criticism to my friends who share my opposition to SB 671, a bill that, as proposed, would allow a whole new level of gift-giving: Time to cool the rhetoric, especially the unfortunate tendency to attribute nasty motives to legislators without evidence. Talk stink about the bill and the unfortunately effects it would have? Fine. Talk stink about legislators while attributing all kinds of personal motivations to their actions? I think that’s out of line.

It’s a bad bill. That’s not the issue.

The issue is the tendency of some critics to say, “it’s a bad bill, and that’s because the people pushing it are (greedy, hungry for freebies, looking for payoffs, prostitutes, etc, etc…).”

I think this is wrong on many different levels.

First, there’s simple civility. It just isn’t nice, and isn’t necessary, to be personally nasty. I think it’s uncalled for. We often complain about the meanness of so many who leave comments on blogs, so why adopt the same nasty tone? It’s unbecoming. Remember the Golden Rule? Do unto others…. We are talking about ethics, aren’t we?

Second, it blocks understanding and analysis. Jumping to conclusions about the motives of legislators makes it impossible to see where they’re really coming from or what they’re actually trying to accomplish, things we really need to know in order to be an effective part of the dialog.

Third, many of the criticisms are just plain wrong. That’s not good. And it’s not fair to those involved.

Fourth, we cast ourselves in a bad light with this kind of personalized argument. Suddenly its critics of a bad bill who appear arrogant and display a “we know everything, they know nothing” attitude.

Fifth, it’s very bad politics. If you really want to be part of the legislative process, then you’ve got to deal with those you disagree with in an ongoing process. Burning bridges through personal attacks just isn’t smart.

Sixth, the overblown rhetoric contributes to the public’s cynicism that, in other moments, we all lament and wish we could overcome.

Let me say something about the substantive issues.

First, there’s nothing “simple” about the existing gift law. It’s the phrase shown in bold that causes the problems.

§84-11 Gifts. No legislator or employee shall solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, any gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing, or promise, or in any other form, under circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence the legislator or employee in the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or is intended as a reward for any official action on the legislator’s or employee’s part.

That’s all there is. The Ethics Commission has never adopted rules to further refine when it is “reasonable” to infer that a gift is improper. There’s no “bright line” to refer to.

Even the much cited $25 limit for generally safe gifts is questionable. What cost $25 when this guidance was first given is probably worth $100 today, given the increase in the cost of living over three decades. Should that make a difference?

Check out out all the fine print that goes with the comparable Congressional rule on gifts. There’s a simple, “no gifts” rule that is followed by exceptions spelled out in considerable detail.

By the way, here’s how the House handles those tickets to charity events, which are generally allowed as gifts.

Subject to the restrictions noted below, a Member, officer, or employee may accept an unsolicited offer of free attendance33 at a charity event (House Rule 25, clause 5(a)(4)(C)). This provision extends to charity events such as lunches, dinners, golf or tennis tournaments, races, and cook-offs. The purpose of the charity event provision of the gift rule is to enable Members and staff “to lend their names to legitimate charitable enterprises and otherwise promote charitable goals.”

The restrictions that modify the rule run on and on, but do give a good idea of the kinds of issues that are considered. None of this is as simple as it might first appear.