Print This Post Print This Post

Nov

2

THIS is a conflict: “Industries paid for top regulators’ travel”


While the Plain Dealer wants to convince people that the pittance we received as remuneration under a freelancer contract (as opposed to employee-employer contract) was enough to cause anxiety over possibly compromising the paper’s reputation, this article from the Washington Post describes the kind of conflict that really matters, to you, me and the newspapers:

The chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and her predecessor have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children’s furniture industries and others they regulate, according to internal records obtained by The Washington Post. Some of the trips were sponsored by lobbying groups and lawyers representing the makers of products linked to consumer hazards.

The records document nearly 30 trips since 2002 by the agency’s acting chairman, Nancy Nord, and the previous chairman, Hal Stratton, that were paid for in full or in part by trade associations or manufacturers of products ranging from space heaters to disinfectants. The airfares, hotels and meals totaled nearly $60,000, and the destinations included China, Spain, San Francisco, New Orleans and a golf resort on Hilton Head Island, S.C.

Notable among the trips — commonly described by officials as “gift travel” — was an 11-day visit to China and Hong Kong in 2004 by Stratton, then chairman. The $11,000 trip was paid for by the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory, an industry group based in an office suite in Bethesda whose only laboratories are in Asia.

Ethical?

Several ethics experts and lawyers say the two administrators’ travel records, some of which they reviewed at the request of The Post, suggest a conflict of interest.

“This is a blatant violation of the ethics code,” said Craig Holman, an expert on governmental ethics law for the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The rules allow nonfederal sources to pay for trips, “but not if you’re a private party with business pending before the agency,” he said.

So where’s the line?

Some say the [Consumer Product Safety C]ommission’s approach to gift travel points to a Bush administration philosophy that favors engaging corporations in policymaking that affects them. “This administration apparently has taken the position that speaking and appearing before the regulated community, even where there are enforcement matters pending, does not create the appearance of a conflict,” said Kenneth Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps.

“These are difficult and subjective lines to be drawn,” he said. “Prior administrations have drawn that line in a different place.”

Oh, so, you mean, everything isn’t black or white. Ahhhhh….

We’ll give the last word to:

F. Gary Davis, who helped establish the Office of Government Ethics in 1978 and served as its general counsel and deputy director until 2000, said the government-wide regulations were imposed “to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety when you’re dealing with a prohibited source.” He said that it is conceivable that some of the CPSC’s industry-sponsored trips were justified but that in those cases, the agency should be prepared to make its decision-making records available.

Sigh. I could be really snarky but frankly, I don’t [fill in the blank with your best shot].

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:57 pm November 2nd, 2007 in Blogging, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Wide Open 

Comments

4 Responses to “THIS is a conflict: “Industries paid for top regulators’ travel””

  1. 1 Keith on November 2nd, 2007 8:42 pm

    Jill. . .

    c’mon this is America. Ethics are for the little people.

    Snarky enough?

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on November 2nd, 2007 10:27 pm

    I deleted what I’d originally written. I shouldn’t be writing at this time of day anyway – I say things I wouldn’t say after a good night’s rest. :)

  3. 3 Keith on November 3rd, 2007 10:36 am

    Heh, I never let a good night’s rest deter me from a good rant. :)

    C’mon, does it make ya mad? Does it make ya mean mad?

    New for Christmas: Thomas the Tank Engine figurines – now will less lead! You’re government is watching out for YOU!

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on November 3rd, 2007 11:12 pm

    Actually – the paying for the travel doesn’t bother me all that much on it’s own. What bothers me about these matters is that we can’t trust anyone to be able to decide independently. And that, for example, is what Susan Goldberg claims drove her to say that either Jeff not write about LaTourette or he stop writing for Wide Open – because SHE believes that OTHER people MIGHT believe that a VERY meager amount of money from the PD MIGHT mean…I don’t even know what – that anything he says can be imputed to the PD?

    Again – it just sounds more ridiculous every time I write it.

    Anyway – you get my point – and I’ve said this before about money to political candidates – the free speech side of it would be okay if the money was given without strings. And I believe a lot of American obviously give without strings.

    Why can’t everyone? Why does the quid pro quo have to be in the system? If we’re such an ethical, moral country to start off, then how did we, have we allowed that crap to seep in? That’s what makes me mad.

    Glad you asked? :)

Leave a Reply




"));