Reforming Virginia’s gift disclosure rules is all the rage again now that the McDonnell trial draws to a close. Terry McAuliffe, who recently divested himself of his problematic GreenTech holdings, is again pushing for a $100 limit:
That’s just great, and quite a change from McAuliffe’s former incarnation, in which large gifts and big checks from donors were “sexy” and “exciting.”
But perhaps he’s grown in office. Or at least grown a bit more since his dust-up with Boyd Marcus.
Others are jumping on the gift reform bandwagon. Tim Kaine is out there talking about reforms and with good reason (as the RTD’s Bob Raynor demonstrates).
Yes, gifts to Virginia politicians are problematic. Not illegal, but unseemly. They gifts are made only because of the elected position they hold. Take away the office, and the goodies disappear.
Perhaps there will be a new push to make the rules a bit stiffer. That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But would a limit on trinkets change Virginia’s political culture or prevent future spectacles like the McDonnell trial?
Not without going much further. Pay to play lives in Richmond for a host of reasons. And very likely it always will.
The McDonnells were hauled into court, in part, for dealing with Jonnie Williams, a person whose shady past already had him on the federal radar. The McDonnells’ dealings with others for loans and gifts raised no eyebrows — even those that, in the eyes of a genuine Inspector Javert, could have.
But those connections were not wildly different from the ones Mr. Rayner writes about in connection with Sen. Kaine. Unseemly? Sure. Illegal? No.
Perhaps the only real way to limit the corrosive influence of baubles and cashiers checks is to limit government:
Bob McDonnell may or may not go to jail, but he will certainly not be the last politician to defend himself from charges of cronyism. Because we show little apparent interest in limiting the influence of government officials. A government empowered to solve all our problems, to make our decisions for us, is one given greater potential to abuse power. A government that often says “that’s not our business” is less prone to corruption. Eventually, we get the government we desire.
Idealistic? Certainly. But the more government does, the more opportunities for mischief. We can debate the fine points of gift bans and the utility of disclosure. And those could be fruitful discussions.
They will also solve nothing in the long run, so long as the state has more influence over more areas of our lives.
