|
|
|
The views expressed by the student-powered Free Market Think Tank exercises do not represent the views of the University, nor does the University endorse any of the views so expressed.Note 2
|
|
Conflicts of Interest in Government
|
|
A. Think Tank Conclusion Summary
It should be against the law for any person in a government position to have a conflict of interest with their duties and responsibilities. Should a conflict situation arise, the person should recuse themselves and someone else should take over their duty and responsibility ad hoc and handle that situation.
No person in a government position, especially an elected or appointed position, should accept, either directly or indirectly, anything of significant monetary value*, including campaign financing, from any person (or organization of persons) which would represent (or appear to represent) a conflict of interest.
* i.e., costing more than thirty silver dollars.
These restrictions should apply to:
- The Executive Branch (including departments and regulatory agencies)
- The Legislative Branch (House and Senate)
- The Judiciary Branch
They should apply to:
- Elected officials,
- Appointed positions
- Hired staff
- Anyone paid to work on behalf of the above.
These restrictions should apply to state and local governments as well as to the Federal government.
These restrictions should apply:
- While the person is in office or government employment.
- For a minimum of two years after leaving office or employment by the government.
- They should also apply for the two years prior to running for a political position or accepting an political appointment.
Otherwise,
- there can be,
- there may appear to be,
- there will likely actually be
... a conflict of interest.
|
B. Background Analysis:
- There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which provides for, or allows, government employees (politicians and others) to receive money either as personal gifts or in payment for favors.
- Historically, conflicts of interest have repeated led to bad behaviour on the part of public servants. (Conflicts of interests also lead to problems in the private sector.)
- Note:
The courts are not allowed to rule on something just because it might be immoral or un-ethical. They can only rule on whether or not it is against the law.
- -
- -
|
C. Examples:
- Bribed in Advance
| John Scalliwag accepts a large sum of money to fund his subsequent run for public office, after which the donor expects favoritism on the part of John Scalliwag.
|
- Campaign funds from "non-profit" organization
| Ole' Foggybottom accepts a large sum of money for his campaign fund from the "Brotherhood of Chief Executive Officers" prior to a vote regarding taxes on multi-million dollar executive compensation packages.
|
- Double Indirect
| Ole' Foggybottom Jr. accepts a large sum of money from the "Brotherhood of Chief Executive Officers" prior to his father's vote regarding taxes on multi-million dollar executive compensation packages.
|
- Retirement Fund
| Retired General Easyhouse accepts a high-salaried job with his favorite defense contractor (whose lucrative defense contracts had been his oversight responsibility for the past decade).
|
- Look the other way
| Rusty Limbo, a key member of the state insurance committee, makes a bargain real estate purchase. (The property carried an appraised value of $8,000,000 but only cost her $1.2 million.) The sale was arranged by the real estate subsidiary of a large insurance company.
|
- Every Member
| Each member of the banking committee have received large campaign contributions from most of the larger banks and financial institutions.
|
- Revolving door
| Senator Roundwego, returned to his former employer, Mega Industries, after losing re-election to a third term, accepting a position of Executive Vice President of Government Sales, making many times more than his Senator's salary.
|
- Invested Indirect
| Judge Olypants, who has a large portion of his retirement savings invested with a mutual fund which is one of the largest investors in Big Petroleum, Inc., issues a ruling favorable to Big Petroleum.
|
- --
- --
|
