Editorial: Why won't lawmakers consider a gift ban?

Why can’t Pennsylvania just have transparent government?

Why is it so hard for the people to know who really is paying for the laws, the lawmakers and the influence?

For nine years, March on Harrisburg has been — quite literally — marching on Harrisburg. The organization has returned to the Capitol again and again, calling for greater accountability in state government. Their demand is simple: Let the people see the money. Let them see who is giving it, who is taking it and who might be bending the rules to accommodate it.

On Monday, they returned. More than 100 activists filled the rotunda. They chanted. They held banners. They called for a gift ban. They asked for limits on outside employment — the kind of moonlighting that can quietly blur ethical lines.

And 18 of them were arrested.

Let us be clear: Protesting is not a shield against bad behavior. If demonstrators cross legal lines, consequences should follow.

But it is long past time for the decision-makers in Harrisburg to give the public what it has been demanding: a government where taxpayers, not donors, hold the reins.

For years, we have advocated for a gift ban. It is astonishing that Pennsylvania still does not have a clear, explicit law that says no one should give expensive gifts, perks or trips to the people who write our laws. Maybe it isn’t bribery — but it is certainly its conjoined twin.

On Monday, the activists took their message to lawmakers’ offices, including that of Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana. If protesters overstepped, legal consequences are appropriate. But if Pennsylvanians cannot approach their legislators to ask for ethical reforms, who are they supposed to ask?

Perhaps they should have come bearing gifts.

It is frustrating to see such a straightforward request — “govern ethically” — ignored year after year. It is more frustrating still that some leaders refuse even to acknowledge the problem. There is no good reason for Pennsylvania lawmakers of either party to oppose a gift ban. There is no defense for maintaining a system where outside employment can skirt ethics laws. There is no justification for doing nothing.

There is simply no reason — unless, of course, there is.

Every lawmaker should be eager to prove to constituents that they are not accepting perks, favors, gifts or side jobs that compromise their loyalties. Why would anyone shy away from that?

The people of Pennsylvania should not have to pool their pennies to compete with lobbyists for the time and attention of their elected officials. And lawmakers who believe the public is not tired of being outbid should find themselves unemployed — and without a cushy landing pad at a lobbying firm or client.

Pennsylvanians aren’t rallying for expensive services or controversial laws. They want transparency and fairness. Shouldn’t our leaders want that too?