Balfour case raises a bigger question of ethics
A common objection to certain ethics reforms, particularly a cap on gifts legislators receive from lobbyists, is that voters can judge for themselves if representatives cross the line.
House Speaker David Ralston used to argue thus against a gift cap. He reversed course and endorsed a total ban on gifts after voters in July’s primaries overwhelmingly rejected the no-limits status quo.
I think Ralston had it half-right before (the transparency of gift reports helps the public know who’s lobbying whom) and has it half-right now (transparency alone is insufficient, and a limit is necessary). I prefer a gift cap to a gift ban.
Once there’s a limit, it should be up to the voters to decide if a frequent gift recipient should serve in the Legislature. But serving in the leadership? That’s for legislators to decide — and to demonstrate their own ethical standards.
If you followed the news last week, you probably know where I’m going with this.
Last Tuesday, the AJC reported a Georgia Bureau of Investigation probe of state Sen. Don Balfour. The Snellville Republican is one gift-laden lawmaker: In May, the AJC reported he received tickets to more than 120 events, valued at more than $22,000, over the past six years. But the gifts are only indirectly related to the case.
The GBI said it is investigating Balfour for filing false expense reports, seeking tax-funded reimbursement of mileage between his home and the Capitol on days he was out of the state. Balfour has already agreed to repay some $1,100 in mileage claims, as well as a $5,000 fine levied by the Senate Ethics Committee.
Here’s where the gift angle comes in: Balfour was known to have been out of town because lobbyists reported paying for his meals and lodging while he was gone. Transparency was crucial in this case.
Now, Balfour is not just any senator. He’s the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. That committee decides which pieces of legislation may go before the whole Senate. That role makes the committee very powerful, and its chairman one of the most powerful people under the Gold Dome.
The ethical question in Balfour’s case is not limited to false reporting. One of his other duties as Rules chair is to form a subcommittee to audit senators’ expense reports, including his own. He never did so.
The value Balfour places on being Rules chairman was evident in a fundraising email last month, as reported by PeachPundit.com (a campaign consultant did not return a phone call to confirm it). Balfour mentioned the role, then asked donors to consider giving at an “investment level” ranging from $250 to $2,500. The dollar figures aren’t as noteworthy as the word “investment,” which of course implies a possible return. I’m just brainstorming here, but maybe that return is knowing legislation you support has a better chance of making it to the Senate floor, while legislation you oppose stands to be stalled.
Gwinnett voters can decide in November whether to send the, ahem, gifted Balfour back to the Senate. But Senate leaders must decide whether to foist him, his “investors” and their priorities on the rest of the state by keeping him as Rules chairman.
They could decide congressional Republicans are right to limit how long one of their members can chair a particular committee. (Balfour has chaired Rules since 2003.) They could be more direct and decide Balfour is unfit to continue as chair. Or they could leave him in place.
Their decision will tell more about them than about Balfour.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
129 comments Add your comment
Pizzaman
September 17th, 2012
8:42 pm
Again the Repubs show they’re just as good as the Dems at being crooked, bought and paid for!
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
8:45 pm
Towncrier @8:25 pm
“Got it now?”
Yes, I got it that you did not get it, and apparently never will.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:45 pm
HillBilly D
Good point. Outside of a bubble he can’t promise 12 million jobs. Well he can, but he has no commitment ofrom companies willing to hire that many people, no more than Obama promising shovel ready and green jobs.
Consumer demand makes up 70% of the economy. Yes certain tax breaks might spur investment here and there, but in end if there is no increase in consumer demand, we will be stagnant. And seeing that consumer debt across the board has only risen over the last 30 yrs, I see it being awhile before we are back to 6% or less unemployment.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:47 pm
Del
For the record, the military did met their 2011 retention goals, but to your point, that doesn’t in itself mean they kept everyone they would have liked.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:48 pm
The real problem is with combat experienced military personnel. When we see SOCOM troopers expressing dissatisfaction , leaving the military and writing books critical of command in the upper chain you should know there’s indeed problems. I’ve been there and know how politics drives good people out.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
8:51 pm
I see it being awhile before we are back to 6% or less unemployment.
I think we’re screwed for quite some time, yet. I expect it to be about like it is now, four years from now.
All this stuff is 40 or more years in the making and there’s no telling how long it will last.
cc
September 17th, 2012
8:55 pm
Del@8:15 pm:
I have never understood the announcing of military withdrawals, and Afghanistan is a perfect example of why I think it should NEVER be done. The timetable for the drawing down and eventual withdrawal is known to the enemy. As we now see, as our troop strength there declines, attacks killing and wounding our troops increase. Neither Obama nor Clinton are lovers of the military. Any respect for the military shown by either of them is strictly for the camera. Obama does not listen to the military leaders because their recommendations conflict with his agenda. I am curious to know if the military is experiencing a reduction in force through attrition?
One additional note unrelated to this; there appears to be massive redeployment of Israeli military forces and much movement of military equipment going on in Israel right now. I would not be surprised to learn at any time of major news in regards to this.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:55 pm
” that doesn’t in itself mean they kept everyone they would have liked.”
TBS, that’s my whole point. The only residual positive for all the stupid wars we’ve fought is retaining a combat experienced military. No other country has been able to accomplish it as we’ve done from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and our war against terror. Don’t ever think it doesn’t make the difference.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:57 pm
HillyBilly D
Agreed. I am of the contention that if you take away the tech boom that started in the early to mid 80s, the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble, we would have been seeing this trend for longer than we have been seeing it.
Theses “booms” made a lot of people a lot of money and I do not begrudge them one bit. But with debt rising and jobs going overseas “the chickens have come home to roost”.
Easy to blame the right, left, blah blah blah. I am guilty for getting in that mix as well, but it isn’t just union manufacturing jobs that are going overseas. As many or more IT / programming, engineering, customer service jobs have left these shores as well.
The service economy which as been building for years and will continue if current trends persist, along with newer and more efficient technologies does leave some folks behind.
I surely do not have the answer
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
9:05 pm
it isn’t just union manufacturing jobs that are going overseas. As many or more IT / programming, engineering, customer service jobs have left these shores as well.
Most folks didn’t really care when it was blue collar jobs we were bleeding. They only started to care when it started to affect their sector but by then, the die was already cast and it was too late.
At this point, I’m not sure there is an answer. Every empire, for lack of a better word, usually gets 200-300 years. That may be where we are now.
cc
September 17th, 2012
9:06 pm
They BOTH suck@8:35 pm:
YOU provided the link to me, and I actually READ and quoted to you what YOUR source article stated. What is your problem? I’m grateful to you for the information YOU furnished that verified MY post! Your statement. “Army Times while not the DOD or tricare by any means is not validating your numbers.” Was incorrect. If you had READ the article you furnished me, you would know that the article did, in fact, verify my original post.
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:07 pm
CC, My sense is that it would be an undertaking beyond Israels capability to launch an air attack against Iran’s nuclear development facilities. Having said that, however, Israel has proved the world wrong many times over.
cc
September 17th, 2012
9:16 pm
Del@9:07 pmL
If that happens, my prayers will be with them. There was a time when the Iranian people wanted to overthrow their ruling authority, but we did NOT support them. I guess that the reason we didn’t support them was that they (1) were not radical, and (2) didn’t hate us. That seems to be the requirement to gain U. S. support these days. Iran poses a very real threat to us as well as Israel, and we should be working with our ally (soon to be FORMER ally?), Israel.
TruthBe
September 17th, 2012
9:21 pm
Obama the Muslim Traitor we have for a president is going to release the “Blind Sheik Terrorist” to Egypt one of the Muslim Brotherhoods Countries that just killed Americas and attacked our embassies. Remember this man was the mastermind of the first attack of the trade centers in NY leading up to 911. Just like O’s message to Putin, that he would have more “flexibility” after the elections as if O knew/knows that he will be re-elected. A sitting member of Congress blocked the release of funding to the Palestinian Authority, yet Hillary had them released on humanitarian basis and Congress sat on their hands. The DOJ had video evidence of voter intimidation, but the DOJ decided not to prosecute. Our consulates and embassies are attacked, flag burned, soldiers attacked, and personnel killed, yet our government funnels billions of taxpayer dollars in aid to all these countries. Now the oh, so intelligent people in this administration feel that releasing a convicted murderer that it will appease the Muslim world. Really, did none of them see how effective the release of the Lockerbie bomber, on his supposed death bed, was?! When the blind sheik‘s release doesn’t quell the violence, will they then release all the detainees at Gitmo? How much more sovreignty and leadership are they willing to give up in the hope of appeasement?
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:23 pm
cc, Israel needs us but so do we need Israel. The Obama administration dismisses that need and it’s to our peril as well as to Israels.
cc
September 17th, 2012
9:31 pm
Del@9:23 pm:
100% agreed, or to put it another way. “effing A”!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
9:34 pm
Line of the night from Hannity: “Valerie Jarrett has more security on her vacation to Martha’s Vineyard than our ambassador to Libya did on the anniversary of 9/11″.
If that isn’t a sad and sorry statement about how screwed up our priorities are, I don’t know what is.
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:38 pm
Tib, that is indeed sad.
Del
September 17th, 2012
9:42 pm
Okay to CC, Tiberius and my other conservative friends, pleasant evening…Taps
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
10:18 pm
cc
Apologize for the delay. The Army Times articles list increases, but not at the percentages your post cited.
If I am missing something, let me know
Thanks
bluecoat
September 17th, 2012
10:21 pm
Balfour for Governor.Seems he is well qualified.
bluecoat
September 17th, 2012
10:26 pm
Since the state has defanged its watch dog.he may be over qualified by gov.election time.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
10:36 pm
“Yes, I got it that you did not get it, and apparently never will.”
If that is all you can muster in response, I would say let the other readers judge for themselves. At least I provided a detailed rationale for disbelieving your initial defense which you have yet to counter, except with the above.
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
11:35 pm
Towncrier 10:36 pm
Against my better judgment, because I do not believe you can get it, I will give it one last try.
Here we had somebody (Finn McCool), addressing a question of whether Obama promised lower than 8% unemployment, or if it was a projection. And he quoted Politifact, who had presented their case for projection. You responded to this post. How? By recalling that the same person who had criticized what Medved had written about another subject, now in a different post has quoted Politifact, and Politifact had been called wrong on various subjects.
So we have a first class inanity right there. According to you, to quote a source, which you call unreliable, somehow says something about what that person wrote about a completely different subject.
When I then pointed out that the other post by Finn McCool, the one regarding the 8%, made sense because it was factual, regardless of what the source quoted there was, what was your response? A rant against Politifact and then accusing me, falsely, of defending Politifact. Again both an inanity and distortion of the truth.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
11:44 pm
“When I then pointed out that the other post by Finn McCool, the one regarding the 8%, made sense because it was factual”
It’s only factual if you ignore the English language.
cc
September 18th, 2012
12:18 am
Tiberius@11:44 pm:
If Clarence Darrow was alive today, he would change his famous quote, “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.” Darrow would now say, “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I believe it.”
As far as Obama is concerned, if his lips are moving, he’s lying.
cc
September 18th, 2012
1:30 am
Del@9:07 pm:
I can’t see that Israel has much choice in this matter. Iran continues to threaten the very existence of Israel and its citizens. Why would any rational person doubt that Iran will use their soon to be available nukes against Israel? They have made very public their tests of the delivery system, and done it in a way so as to attempt the intimidation of Israel. Apparently Netanyahu and Israel have correctly concluded that Obama will not aid them, and could plausibly support Iran – if only by his refusal to aid Israel.
“(Iranian) Defense official Jalali says destroying Israel is the only way to liberate Palestine; Israeli gov’t official: The fact that Iran makes such comments despite increased int’l pressure shows they really believe it.” With the US sending clear public signals to Israel that it is opposed to military action now against Iran, and a cacophonous debate on the matter in Israel, senior Iranian officials continue to threaten Israel with destruction.”
“Israel’s existence is an “insult to all humanity,” Iran’s president said on Friday in one of his sharpest attacks yet against the Jewish state, as Israel openly debates whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. “The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity,” Ahmadinejad said.”
yuzeyurbrane
September 18th, 2012
10:14 am
Cons, the subject is Republican State Senator Balfour’s deficient ethics.
Del
September 18th, 2012
11:13 am
It’s ball four time to take the next base.