The Deseret News reported yesterday that Representative Phil Riesen has been accused by Representative Greg Hughes of ethics violations. Hughes alleges that Riesen unethically leaked the possible ethics complaint to the media and using outside attorneys to draft ethics documents without listing them as in-kind contributions on his financial disclosure statements.
Before I continue, allow me to state a few facts: one – Greg Hughes has been accused of rather damming ethics violations with five weeks before the election; two – Susan Lawrence, the former Representative who lost to Riesen, signed a letter stating that Hughes offered her $50,000 for her vote on vouchers; three – Riesen was the only candidate to gain a seat for the Democratic party in the 2006 election; and four – Riesen is in a leadership position for the Democratic caucus.
With these facts in mind, let us analyze the situation.
I do not know if Riesen did or did not use lawyers to draft bills; I don’t know if Hughes offered $50,000 to Lawrence; what I do know is that this all comes at a very interesting time. Let us analyze the actions of each individual.
If Riesen did in fact unethically leak possible ethics question to the media, this would, of course, be wrong. But how, exactly, does one do this? Is it unethical to inform citizens that their elected officials are representing them in a manor that is less than legal? I propose that it is perfectly acceptable to inform citizens about the government they are, in theory, the creators of.
Why would Risen do such a thing at this particular junction? Risen has not contributed Hughes opponent, Lisa Johnson, and, aside from typical squabbles Hughes and Risen have no obvious reason to be out for each other. Furthermore, aside from being a Democrat, Risen has no particular reason to try and swing the election Johnson’s way. What is interesting is that Risen has been a public face for ethics reform since his inception in 2006.
Is it possible that Risen made these allegations did this to give the advantage to the Democrat? As of right now the answer is no; KSL reports that Representatives Democrats Brad King and Roz McGee, along with Republican Sheryl Allen, brought the allegations before House Speaker Curtis. Let us also note that Lawrence lost to Riesen in the ’06 election and was eliminated in the Republican primary in ’08, what does she possibly have to gain by giving information to Riesen so that he could leak it to the media? It simply does not make sense.
Hughes, the leader of the Conservative caucus on the other hand, has plenty to lose if Democrats start gaining ground. Because Riesen pushed the ball forward for liberals, it only makes sense that he would target him in an attempt to elect more conservatives. Hughes would have little luck trying to unseat a Democrat such as Jen Seelig or David Litvack. By striking out against Riesen, Hughes is effectively trying to deflect attention away from himself and towards a potentially vulnerable Democrat; the fact that he is part of leadership is just gravy in his mind.
If Risen failed to note something on his financial statement, he should be reprimanded, but let us think of the full situation. On one hand a legislator allegedly offered another legislator $50,000 to change their vote in order to push through politically contentious legislation, on the other we have a legislator who allegedly failed to report in-kind donations from lawyers while attempting to draft (of all things) ethics reform legislation. Both are wrong, but I would argue it is like putting murder and jaywalking on the same level.
Both men deserve to have the opportunity to be heard and all are innocent until proven guilty. But let us not forget that this is a contentious political atmosphere where ethics reform has been blocked time and time again because it would greatly harm certain legislators.
Hughes responce is posted on his campaign website, however the link is dead.
What I don’t understand is the complaint about reporting … there is *always* a lag in reporting, as candidates report what’s happened since the last report date.
If we peek at elections.utah.gov, we see that the nearest report dates are 31 Aug and “seven days before the general election.” Candidates report “Expenditures and contributions since the last report as of 5 days before the due date.” Thus, anything between 26 Aug and sometime next Nov isn’t yet subject to reporting requirements. So, I’ll ask again, even if we agree that having a lawyer friend help with a supposedly non-campaign issue is something that should be reported, when exactly did he fail to report it? (Or is Rep Hughes alleging this assistance occurred several months ago?)
I suspect that Hughes is alleging that this all happened a while ago.