Editorial: Gift limits are good policy | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: Gift limits are good policy

1967628_web1_GTR-LIV-REGIFT-BOX-121018

As Black Friday approaches, everyone is thinking about gifts. Kids. Parents. Department store Santas.

And state representatives.

On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee unanimously approved an annual limit on what a public official, employee or candidate can receive.

The value of limiting gifts should be obvious for anyone to see.

While Washington is embroiled in an examination of the ethics of giving and taking right now, it’s worthwhile to take a closer, smaller look at the idea of transactional relationships closer to home.

The words “quid pro quo,” for example, are getting a lot of airplay but what do they mean? The simplest meaning is “this for that.” The concept is the root of contract law. It isn’t a distant, shady idea. It’s the basis of everything from doing a job to buying a cup of coffee.

Where it can get sticky is when the quid is offered to an official to receive a public quo. Pennsylvania has seen that happen too often.

One of the most vivid examples was the conviction of state Treasurer Budd Dwyer in 1987 for conspiring to accept $300,000 from a California firm in return for awarding a state contract. Dwyer subsequently killed himself at a news conference.

It is by no means the only instance. Whether overt or implied, the idea of buying and selling influence is far too easy a proposition, and gifts can provide cover.

It is to be commended that the committee gave uniform and bipartisan approval to the proposed limits.

It is unfortunate that a provision to make an exception for lobbyists to give birthday or wedding gifts was allowed.

There are other exceptions. Up to $50 in gifts per calendar year from one person. Up to $500 in “hospitality” from a source in a year. Gifts from family members or between public officials “on a voluntary basis.” Prizes and awards. Training in the government interest. Educational missions.

“There ought to be some middle ground in order for us to conduct business, as long as things are open and transparent and that taxpayers know what we’re accepting and from who,” said Committee Chairman Garth Everett, R-Lycoming.

Openness is good. Transparency is good. But why does “conducting business” have to include elected officials or public employees accepting any gifts? Would the roads not get plowed unless someone gets a $30 gratuity? Would schools not be built without a $500 hotel stay?

Gifts — voluntary or otherwise — should not be the fuel that keeps the government generator running.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.