Flying high and free
THEY SHOULD know better. And they should ''no" better.
On the Sunday after last Thanksgiving, US Representative Michael Capuano took off for Brazil on a trip that was paid for indirectly by corporate sponsors and that included at least seven representatives of those companies.
The next day, Governor Mitt Romney flew to California for a meeting of the Republican Governors Association on a private jet provided by
Of course, Capuano and Romney both deny selling their souls, and there is no evidence either altered his policy for a plane ride. But there is also no question that, while virtually all public officials meet with lobbyists from time to time, granting hours of exclusive face time gives an unfair opportunity for influence, particularly when it is given for services rendered. In neither case was the gift illegal. But politicians should not accept largesse from lobbyists, especially large largesse. It looks bad, and it is bad.
Romney should not have been committing himself to several hours with advocates for one drug giant, certainly not when his major priority is healthcare legislation that could affect the way Massachusetts residents pay for medications. It is true that both political parties are up to their nostrils in corporate favors, but that doesn't make it right. If there was no commercial flight to California that fit Romney's schedule, he could have looked in the Boston yellow pages, where 24 air charter companies are listed. The GOP could afford it.
Capuano's traveling companions included representatives of American Airlines and two aircraft manufacturers, creating an obvious appearance of conflict -- and probably a genuine conflict at some level, since Capuano has made air transport policy a specialty in the House. Capuano is forthcoming about the quandary he feels confronts congressional Democrats, especially those with little seniority. Codel (congressional delegation) trips, publicly paid for, are offered to many Republicans and some ranking Democrats. But others have limited options, and Capuano asserts with reason that ''foreign travel is a good thing for a member of Congress." But surely the answer here is for Congress to loosen that budget so that taxpayers can supply the influence.
In the current scramble to reform congressional ethics, triggered by the Jack Abramoff scandal, Congress should make certain it doesn't tarnish itself further by adopting laws and rules with huge loopholes, such as forbidding gifts by lobbyists but not by their clients or allowing outsized gifts as political contributions. In the meantime, politicians should know to say ''no" to influence-peddling.
