by Jack Lee, member of the California Republican Assembly
(PS EXCLUSIVE)
On 2 October, 2010, the Northern California chapters of the California Republican Assembly met in an old school house to consider a few bylaw changes and something else…an ethics contract and statement of ethics for the entire organization. Now on the surface of it, this is not exactly a knock your socks off kind of subject, but it has profound implications on how we elect candidates and it could be the beginning of a new wave of reform to restore trust and improve effectiveness in government. Please read on.
Currently the California legislature has a 9% approval rating, thanks in no small measure to a record late budget that is still bleeding with red ink, all that past over-spending and the usual waste, fraud and abuse issues that are so pervasive from Sacramento to Washington. 9% if a horrible number! In 1775 King George had three times that approval and you know what we did with him. Look, I don’t know where are this distruct, frustration and disssention will lead us, but I do know those of us who trying to fix a dysfunctional government have never been needed more and it’s a monumental task!
by Jack Lee-R, member Calif.Republican Assembly
To say that voters are desperate for honest, ethical and accountable representation may by one of the greatest understatements of the decade and yet the list of names in scandal continues to grow. Under investigation in Congress is Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, William Jefferson…21 members of Congress from the 109th Congress have been or are pending indictment by the Justice Department. In California our own Ex-Rep. Duke CunninghamR pled guilty to accepting bribes from two defense contractors in 2005. He’s currently serving a sentence of eight years, four months in prison.
This is the backdrop for what happened on Saturday when I introduced an ethics contract for candidates. My pitch was simple, if any republican candidate wants our support and endorsement they must first agree to our core principles and sign a contract that holds them personally accountable for any ethical breaches that would bring public discredit upon themselves, the legislature and the party. Introducing an unpopular bill wouldn’t qualify, cheating on your wife with a female lobbyist seeking favors would. Raising large amounts of money from big corporations wouldn’t qualify, proposing legislation on their behalf after taking bribe would.
We separated acts that come with the office from acts that we hold as blatant unethical acts and against the public good. And if an ethics panel finds them in violation they must resign from office and forfeit their last year’s pay and all future retirement benefits.
Maybe this is what all candidates should do, not just republicans?
You have to know that very little is said about what might happen to you (as a candidate) should you stray into corruption. Most candidates never stop to think about that part, they are too busy looking for hot button issues to resonate with voters and make promises to fix them all, even when they should no it’s an impossible task.
Sure, there are laws on the books to deal with corruption once it happens, but nobody sit’s a candidate down early in the game and says, “Look pal, you will hold the public trust if you get elected and because of that we have some very high expectations of you. We want you to be a good example of what it means to be an America. So don’t screw it up. Don’t let yourself backslide for your own personal or partisan advantage, because you will be held accountable and let me tell you exactly what the penalties are….” Imagine that the very first thing a candidate would be exposed to would be a declaration of accountability in the form of an ethics contract. What a powerful tool for public to have and what a great reminder to candidates what is demanded of their character and that accountability is a word they are going to hear throughout their life in politics.
The republicans in the CRA are the first to consider this proposal and it’s right that they should. They are called the conscience of the Republican Party. And from there it will go on to California Republican Party for their consideration and with any luck it could wind up at the national party as an integral part of the party system – or it may go absolutely nowhere because we lack the integrity to pass it within the CRA.
We have discussed this before, and my position is that there is no need for a lengthy list of commandments, with the inevitable arguments over what to include and what to leave out. Even beyond that, there is no way to determine whether the candidate has or will obey the rules. What I propose is a polygraph test, with only a couple of simple questions, such as “Have you lied in your campaign?” I know that some people reading this will immediately be thinking, you can’t force someone to take a poly; a poly is not reliable; it cannot be used as evidence in court, which is legally untrue by the way. But you know better, since you and I are both former police officers. Polygraphs are routinely used as a condition of employment for law enforcement or any sensitive government position needing a security clearance. Every FBI Agent, every member of Obama’s Secret Service protection detail, and so on through a long list, have had to take and pass a poly as a condition of employment. Yet the person himself, the man in charge of our most sensitive national security secrets, the man in charge of our nuclear weapons, the most powerful man in the world, has never had to take a poly.
Of course, the candidate would not be forced to take the poly. He could refuse. Then his political opponent could take one and point out the difference. Most would refuse. Do you think Jerry Brown would agree to take a poly? Do you think Meg Whitman would? I bet we would see a lot fewer incumbents and a lot more third party candidates, who don’t stand a chance now in what has become a fixed race.
This is a total fail from the start. The GOP always talks about taking the highroad and it always without fail screws us. Now if you want to talk about laws that make it illegal to change your party affiliation after you get elected, I am all ears. If you want to talk about being able to remove elected officials for not living up to what they ran on, I am all ears. I and I think many others are sick and tired of these stupid do nothing mean nothing “contracts”, maybe I am wrong. How about a party contract to grow some testicles! The GOP has become a party of nutless wonders.
Toby, actually an ethics contract will remove them from office and fast! And it carries significant fines. In addition if it is a criminal ethics violation they can go to prison. The civil part is new and it’s a start in the right driection to hold them accountable! That’s what its all about – accountability and staying true to your promises as a candidate. We need that.
I’m all for a poly…the president should be able to pass a background at least equal to employment at the FBI. if he can’t…NEXT…
Here’s something that might shed more light on the reason for this proposal…this is the actual speech given asking for this ethics contract:
“I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Why do we say that? Most of us would simply say, because its a restatement or reaffirmation of our most basic beliefs why this nation was founded. And we say that pledge in public because there should be no ambiguity who we are and why we are here. Were Americans and as faithful, patriotic Americans this is what we believe. This is our moral bar and it can not be lowered because you cant remove any of those words without affecting the value of all of those words.
The GOP has a mission statement for 2010 and it addresses the – Issues
National Defense
Courts
Healthcare
Energy
Economy
Education
This mission statement sums up our political philosophy on each of these core issues.
What is not on our GOP website is a statement of core ethics. Its somehow absent, but we do have a 43 page pledge for America and one might argue thats its more or less the same thing, but its really not. Its definitely a pledge how we want to conduct business and goals, but its not really a statement about who we are and what we will tolerate or not tolerate in terms of corruption and low ethics in candidates or in our party or our elected officials in government with an R behind their name.
We know ethics are important to republican representatives because we have an ethics panel in Congress and the Senate. Most recently republicans in Congress have been pushing for an ethics trial on several democrats, such as Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. So ethics are important to us.
But, I dont see a statement of ethics, an ethics clause or an ethics contract specifically for republicans.
I see individual CRA organizations with their own ethical code or standards and thats a good start, after all we are the conscience of the Republican Party so in general terms we say we believe in the following issues and mixed in are some of our ethics. . .
Inalienable Rights: We believe that man’s “rights” flow from the Creator and the rights of life, liberty, and justice cannot be legitimately granted or rescinded by men.
Judeo-Christian Foundation: We believe in the guiding force of moral law as expressed by the Judeo-Christian ethic and contained in the Holy Scriptures of these historic faiths.
Self-Government: We believe that the only answer to the current moral decline that our nation now faces is a return to the beliefs and standards of morality, which our founding fathers placed, into the Constitution. We believe with the framers of that document when President Adams stated, “This Constitution will not work except with a religious people.” We understand that the concept of self-government begins with governing ones self-first, then family, community, state, and nation.
Education: We believe in the rights of parents to a quality education for their children. We support parental choice to create competition among the schools. We must insure that no school or teachers union can compromise the education of our children or advance a particular political agenda at the expense of our future generations educations.
Taxes: We believe that the federal tax system is abusive to the American people while discouraging investment and growth. We believe in growth-oriented tax policies that would gradually eliminate punitive income taxes and move our tax system in the direction of use taxes and sales taxes only.
Free Enterprise: We believe in the free enterprise system as the best hope for men and women to fulfill their economic hopes and dreams. We know that the free market is the most efficient and the least costly system to deliver the highest quality goods and services at the lowest price to the consumer. We will support only those who support the free enterprise system through legislation to reduce or eliminate intrusive government intervention in the marketplace.
Family: We believe that the traditional American family, defined as any persons related by blood, marriage of a man and a woman and/or adoption, is the cornerstone of our American society, and the government is duty bound to protect the integrity of the family unit through legislation and taxation policies.
Sanctity of Life: We believe that the preborn child is a human being deserving the full protection of the law.
National Defense: We believe in a strong and consistent national defense. We believe in victory over, and not accommodation with, tyranny in any form or philosophy.
Right to Bear Arms: We believe in the unqualified right of our citizens to keep and bear arms without the intrusive hand of government.
Victims Rights: We believe in the concept of victims rights over the rights of any criminal. We support a system of restitution as a deterrent to crime and recidivism.
Term Limitation: We believe that public service is a privilege. We support term limits for public officials, not as an ideal but as a necessity to dissuade career politicians. It is the people who should rule, not an elite with little accountability.
National Sovereignty: We believe in an America first program in which Governments first concern is the welfare and protection of the American people. We do not believe in trade protectionism but support political leaders who will adopt policies that create fair and competitive trade.
Decentralized Government: We believe in the power of the individual over the power of the state. We believe that only small government truly serves the needs of the people.
The Rotarians have a national ethics clause that culminates with what they call the 4-way test and that involves 4 basic questions:
Of the things we think, say or do:
1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?”
I want to establish a moral line in the sand that reflects who we are and something that clearly states that if you are a republican candidate you have to abide by our basic moral code of ethics or we cant support you.
If you are anti-gun, against the 2nd amendment, for abortion and in particular you are for public funded abortions and you dont believe in God then youve already trashed 90% of everything we hold dear – theres no moral reason to support such a candidate unless youre just here to win elections. If thats all were about we might as well pack and go home and re-register as Democrats. Now if candidates who call themselves republicans want to run, thats up to them, but I think they should not be running with our support and endorsement.
Have you ever heard of the rule of the Three Ts? You teach people – how to treat you – by what you tolerate. If we are going to roll over and abandon our ethics for every candidate with an R behind their name because they happen to be high in the polls weve just sold out and again.then we might as well not even have a CRA. As the old saying goes, if we cant stand for something – then we stand for nothing.
Character countsit counts more now than ever! And by standing firm for good ethics in the midst of a society where only 9% trust our legislature to do the right thingwe set ourselves apart from and above the rest. Voters are desperate for honest representation and they will take note that were not here to buy their votes with gimmee programs, were here to offer a clear alternative to the status quo running Sacramento and Washington. We want to earn their trust and respect. So that eventually well earn their support and their votes.
But, we cant make any progress if were being led by RINOs with weak ethics. And this is where we must draw the line.
We have a historic opportunity today to consider not just an ethics contract for candidates, but a statement of core ethics and values as an organization so that anyone wishing to join or seek our support will have no doubt what were about. I would like to eventually see every meeting open with a reading of those core principles. And I would like to see every republican candidate for office know what we expect of them before they even declare to run. Because running for office as a republican should automatically imply that we represent the highest standards of what it means to be a free American and a patriotic defender of our Constitution.
This is why I urge you to consider and ethics contract for candidates and a statement of our personal ethics as a moral organization. The founders did thatthey called it the Bill of Rights and it was a powerful moral declaration. We should consider that a challenge and its what they would expect from us today.”
Boy, Jack you and I are sure on the same page here. I completly agree with you for the reasons I stated on the other post of being able to identify not only the organization/s I get involved with but also the candidates they endorse.
Good job, now great job. I hope this goes all the way to the top and is approved.
A very humble thank you.
I doubt you could get an official position from the canidates in the one month we have left.
BUT, we could call ’em and ask.
Tell me, Jack.
Who will you vote for if they don’t sign?
Please do not get me wrong, I am all for getting the dirt bags out of politics but I have lost faith in it ever happening. I have heard “we are going to drain the swamp” just one too many times. The swamp isn’t just deeper its way nastier now.
Go to the dictionary. Look it up: “Naive”.
When will you wake up to it? The rich have no political ideology beyond that which serves to preserve their capital. You must know where undocumented workers come into this. You must.
Meg went with the cheap agency. She could have gone with the expensive agency … the agency providing Jerry’s household help … but she CHOSE not to.
Do I have to listen to any more moronic denials?
Someday is it going to dawn on you plebian conservatives that capital is not your friend. But I’m not holding my breath.
LIbby: “The rich have no political ideology beyond that which serves to preserve their capital.”
Horsefeathers! You lefties pretend not to care about money but the truth is you don’t have any political ideology other than stealing and using other peoples capital!
“She could have gone with the expensive agency … the agency providing Jerry’s household help … but she CHOSE not to.”
You just made that up! You don’t have the slightest idea about what help either of them has or where they get them…typical leftist crap.
The pathetic pictures of the maid have publicity stunt written all over them. If you guys had any sense about money, or an idea or two that actually work, you wouldn’t have to resort to such cheap tricks in these elections.
Libby, I may be one of those conservatives you find so contemptuous and a blond to boot, but your statements are completely irrational.
First you criticize the rich for supporting the rich capitalist and then you criticize Whitman for using a less expensive agency. By your own liberal definition big businesses are the root to everything that is evil and wrong in America. Yet you find fault with Whitman for supporting a less expensive one, that I do assume is a small business and therefore not an elitist, exclusive one serving the very richest clients. And then you go and praise Brown for using the more expensive one.
So, in your own words you are finding fault with a conservative supporting a small business and praising a liberal for supporting a large fat-cat business. Make up your mind.
Until more facts come out I find Whitman did nothing wrong with expecting the agency to do their job and the housekeeper to tell the truth. The facts that Allreds suit is claiming unpaid hours worked and mileage reimbursement says this poor woman was thrown under the bus and is being used as a political pawn with all she has to lose verses anything she could gain. She has children born here and faces being deported. This is terrible!!!