Just hearing the word conflict gives government watchdogs a warm fuzzy feeling and the media just can’t help themselves from writing a story ANY time someone suggests a conflict exists.
Few people, even those engaged in the business of government and politics and public policy can cite what, under the law, actually constitutes a conflict. Thus every time someone lobes an accusation of conflict, it becomes news.
Not being a member of the State Bar I cannot offer legal advise, but I do know that there is NO law that would put a political consultant who is not on the government payroll in the position of having a legal conflict.
So you can imagine my frustration when I read a story in the LA Times today with an Internet link that reads: Conflict of Interest for Gov.’s Aide?
Folks, I will let you in on a little secret. I use the same technique in political direct mail. The devise: framing the damning accusation as a question. This way you are not making an accusation–just asking the question. No harm there, right?
The LA Times ought to be ashamed with themselves for using such underhanded tactics.
Once you read the substance of the article, you realize that the ‘aide’ is a political consultant, not someone on the government payroll. Just a mercenary political guy.
The media might not understand the process well enough to make the distinction, so I will lay it out for them. Elected officials and candidates have separate organizations not affiliated with the government office they hold and seek. These organizations include candidate controlled committees and Political Action Committees and political parties. When a consultant is operating in his or her capacity on the campaign they are not subject to conflict of interest laws that are present in government service.
There is a distinct and specific danger in constantly accusing people of conflicts of interest and we need to push back at times when none is present. If we allow the media or so-called government watchdogs to bully us into changing our behavior, they win and the people lose.
Here’s an example: Mr. Smith is volunteer campaign chairman for candidate X. Mr. Smith signs up volunteers for candidate X, he tries to get his neighbors to vote for candidate X. Mr. Smith even appears at public forums as a surrogate for candidate X. The opposition finds out that Mr. Smith owns a business that is regulated by a state agency, perhaps Mr. Smith owns an auto body repair shop–plenty of permit and compliance issues for this industry. Does this mean that Mr. Smith has a conflict? Should he stop collecting volunteer cards for candidate X, Should he hide how he really feels and stop speaking publicly on the candidate’s behalf? I sure hope no one says yes. Because no legal conflict exists.
There is no material difference from the above scenario and that of Matthew Dowd? The fact that Mr. Dowd is paid for his efforts for the campaign and has outside clients should be of no consequence?
Anyone with even a short history in CA politics can point to numerous specific and real conflicts of interests, some that even sent people to jail, or Hawaii as it were. But these were clear-cut situations when those in government service were breaking the law or at least accused of breaking a specific law or series of laws.
It’s hard to wash off the stink of a ‘conflict’ accusation. It lingers for a long time even if a conflict was never really present.
So the next time you feel the urge to point, squint your eyes and say "Conflict", stop. drop and call an attorney versed in public policy and political law to check whether one is present. Chances are they will tell you to go fish.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.