(Because I think passing SB 165 is such an obvious move, I’m attaching a clip from the Mr. Obvious Show. In this example, try to guess who the caller represents and who represents Mr. Obvious.  Don’t be afraid of the Bob and Tom picture.  It’s a clean and very funny skit.)

Now for the commentary.

“How out of touch can they really be?” – Julia Vaughn, Policy Director of Common Cause/Indiana

I think that’s a logical question to ask of our legislators. In fact, it’s the very question Julia Vaughn, asked when legislators shot down SB 165, a bill which would have required legislators to wait one year after leaving office before lobbying the Indiana General Assembly, because it gave the impression that legislators were on “the take” from lobbyists. Again, it’s a logical question.

Now I personally have no problem with legislators becoming lobbyists. If there are people who know the system and how it works (and how to work it) it’s former legislators. But come on! Are legislators really that shocked that people actually think less of them or don’t even trust them? And with the recent rash of retirements of State Representatives to become lobbyists, legislators shouldn’t act so surprised that suspicion of elected officials exist.

(Read more below the fold)

I believe what really grinds the gears of many a voter is that you see officials not even completing their term, jumping ship on their elected duties to collect more money and trying to act as if it’s normal and nothings wrong. Truth is, there isn’t. But when the Governor, and even Congress has guidelines for how long a former elected official and their staff can lobby their old colleagues (it’s one year for both), you have to wonder why those in the General Assembly have such a hard time with it. Don’t they understand that perception, sadly, is everything?

When the Democrats took over Congress in after the 2006 midterms, they had campaigned to bring “reform” (who doesn’t campaign to bring reform anymore) and transparency to Congress. Well, they’ve failed miserably at that and Congressional Quarterly was nice enough to catch up with some of the lobbying reform that they campaign on in 2006:

But it hasn’t been good for the party leadership’s efforts to enact stricter lobbying legislation that might, in the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in January, “close the revolving door between government officials and lobbying firms.”

In particular, the Democratic joining of the K Street gold rush has helped to undermine Pelosi’s bid to create a two-year “cooling off period” before departed members of Congress and senior staff members may begin directly lobbying their former colleagues at the Capitol. The current waiting period is half as long, which ex-lawmakers find annoying but not debilitating to their lobbying careers.

So much for ethics reform in Congress. Does the Indiana General Assembly want to be caught in a similar predicament except that in trying to enforce a two year “cooling off period” they can’t even establish one?

My guess is that our lawmakers (though not all) feel the same way the Congressional House Democrat Leadership do:

…the House spurned the idea last month after a chorus of Democrats balked, with many of them stating openly that they did not want to harm their prospects for a lucrative career after lawmaking.

Just remember, those State Senators who turned their noses up to SB 165, I believe you’re not on “the take” when you say you’re not, but in politics, perception is everything, whether you like it or not.