Saying "NO" To The Special Interests

Recently, a bill I authored, HB 2444, was approved by the House Rules Subcommittee on Elections and Redistricting. HB 2444 would ask the state Ethics Commission to create and maintain a voluntary "No Gifts List." Under the bill, lobbyists would be prevented from giving gifts to lawmakers who voluntarily place themselves on the list.

When I asked for your vote to be your State Representative, I did so because I wanted to spend time in the Legislature working for the people, not taking lobbyists gifts and certainly not going through the hassle of returning unsolicted items.

Refusing gifts has proven harder than I expected, as lobbyists kept delivering unrequested items to my office. This became a logistical challenge, since some were left with office staff or even sent in the mail. Other lawmakers have told me of similar frustrations, as they did not want to receive gifts either, and yet items are left at their offices.

Thus, the need for House Bill 2444. By creating this "No Gifts List," not only will the time and money involved in returning gifts be saved, but I believe the list will put pressure on legislators who do not want to refuse gifts. I believe constituents will demand their lawmakers place themselves on the list. This could be a fantastic tool for minimizing the influence of special interest without having to create a complicated new law.

Several other officials have gone out of their way to make it possible for this bill to have a chance at winning approval. Representative Trebor Worthen, who chairs the committee that approved the bill, courageously agreed to hear and support the bill. Without Worthen's support, the bill would have had little chance of success. In addition, Senator Anthony Sykes is one of the leading advocates of minimizing the influence of special interests over legislative policy. Sykes has agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate.

And, at the request of Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland, I plan to amend House Bill 2444 to allow statewide officeholders to be placed on the "No Gifts List."

"Even a small token of appreciation can be misconstrued, so this legislation gives us the opportunity to avoid misunderstandings." Holland said. "We need to continually affirm to our public that the work of the Insurance Department is impartial and that our regulatory duties are carried out in a manner that is above reproach. The 'No Gifts List' is simply one more way to demonstrate that commitment." Holland implemented a department-wide "Things of Value" policy upon assuming office, prohibiting the receipt of gifts or meals from anyone regulated by the Insurance Department. She said the "No Gifts List" would complement the agency's internal efforts.

Holland's predecessor in office, Carroll Fisher, was impeached by the Oklahoma House of Representatives, due in part to soliciting and accepting gifts of art work, furniture and kitchen equipment.

Is This Why College Tuition Costs Keep Going Up?

Can you imagine a situation in the private business world where one part of the business was allowed to issue millions of dollars of debt without approval from the board of directors? Certainly it would not be long before that business would simply cease to exist. No doubt it would be driven into bankruptcy by out-of-control employees who spend without check or balance.

Yet that is exactly what is occurring in state government. The Regents for Higher Education are issuing millions of dollars of bond projects without the approval of the legislature. The projects not only indebt state government to paying off the principal of the debt, but the unnecessary interest as well.

In fact, it appears that in the last 8 years, more than 250 million dollars have been issued by the Regents in debt. Currently, around 180 million of this is still waiting to be paid back. The money has been requested for use on projects as varied as athletic score boards to golf course maintenance equipment.

Recently, a courageous member of the Council of Bond Oversight asked his board to seek an Attorney General’s opinion on the constitutionality of the Regents to issue this kind of debt. Unfortunately, not enough members of his board voted to support his effort, and it failed.

I believe this is yet another step by a run-away big government bureaucracy to continue to indebt the people, while placing the tab for these expenditures on the backs of future generations. Those who spend our money will immediately benefit without having to give thought to the consequences of dealing with the interest that will accumulate over time on the debt they issued.

When dealing with their personal budgets, many people realize the important concept of going in debt only for emergency circumstances. This common sense principle should be applied to the government as well.

The government should certainly not be placing us in debt for score boards and golf course maintenance equipment. And most definitely, those who should be making the decision of whether or not to incur this indebtedness should be the elected representatives of the people; not unelected bureaucrats.

Perhaps this “spend-happy” attitude explains why Oklahoma’s college tuition has been increasing so rapidly over the past few years.

I will be the House of Representatives author of a Senate Bill by Senator Patrick Anderson to greatly limit the ability of the Regents to issue this type of debt. Anderson has worked hard to expose this inappropriate spending and I certainly appreciate being able to sponsor his bill in the House.

Should Anderson’s bill not meet with success this year, I am sure that either Anderson or myself will file the request with the Attorney General to provide an opinion on the constitutionality of the Regents’ ability to issue this debt without the approval of the legislature.

Violating the Constitution

One of the rites of passage for legislators is a vote that occurs near the end of each legislative year on what is known as the "spill-over" bill. This is a massive spending bill that is used as a way to dole out extra taxpayer dollars in order to placate those who did not get everything they wanted in the yearly budget. Last year's spill-over bill featured a massive one-time spending of $135 million of your money on everything from an unnamed private foundation to an aerospace industries training program in Oklahoma City.

The first problem with this bill is that it is an unconstitutional practice known as "logrolling." Logrolling is the process in which a spending bill contains a number of appropriations all rolled into one. This bill is presented to the legislature in a form that cannot be amended from the floor, thus forcing legislators to vote up or down on the bill without giving them the chance to vote for or against how the money is specifically spent.

This massive one-time spending also provides cover to future legislatures to increase recurring spending while telling the people that they are cutting the amount of spending in government. For instance, if your personal spending budget was $800 per month and you received a $200 bonus from your job, and you spent all $1000 in one month, would it be fiscally prudent to spend $990 the next month and then assert you had cut your personal budget by $10?

Twice prior to the legislature's consideration of this bill, the Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled this type of logrolling as being unconstitutional. Just a few days ago, the Supreme Court has again said that the legislature violated the Oklahoma Constitution by once again approving a spill-over spending bill.

I must admit to being shocked by this refusal to follow the law. The Constitution could not be more clear. But it looks like the legislature has continued to be engaged in it for years even though the Court has now said three times that this type of spending is unconstitutional.

I believe this proves the folly of big government. Because the legislators control billions of dollars, they are under tremendous pressure to give that money to certain special interests. Those who have the courage to vote "No," risk being seen as uncaring and opposing progress.

I feel it is important to downsize the size of government. By taking away the politicians' ability to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars, we will take an important first step in stopping these types of abuses.

Changing Leadership

This week the House of Representatives took action to elect a new Speaker of the House. While I look forward to working with new House Speaker Chris Benge, I think it is important to acknowledge the accomplishments of former House Speaker Lance Cargill.

When I sought your vote for State Representative, I did so for very specific reasons: I wanted to shrink the size of state government and the high level of taxes we are forced to pay to support it. As I visited with the people, they told me of their belief that there is much waste in government. They also helped me realize how important it is for strong leaders to attack that waste. In advocating for change, I wanted to reduce the salaries of Oklahoma legislators (the third-highest paid part-time legislators in the nation), adhere to a policy of refusing all personal gifts and political contributions from lobbyists, oppose pork earmarks, and advocate for legislation that turns up the heat on legislators who accept lobbyists' gifts.

Some have said that taking such controversial stands would make it difficult to work with the leadership of the House. Cargill saw to it that this was not the case. He honored my desire to work for change and asked me to join his study to modernize state government. This study has demonstrated that Oklahoma has 515 agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs), which is almost 2½ times the size of comparable states. The study also documented that up to 70 million of your taxpayer dollars could be saved in just one state agency! Imagine how much waste actually exists in state government when modernizing just one agency could result in such savings? Following Cargill's efforts, there are now a number of legislative efforts to incorporate the ideas of government modernization.

Cargill also expressed support for two other upcoming legislative initiatives that are important to restoring control of the government to the people. These include letting the people see what is going on in state government by allowing government proceedings to be televised, and shining the light of day on taxpayer-funded lobbyists (those who take our taxpayer dollars and use them to lobby for more taxpayer dollars).

Cargill also demonstrated that as part of reforming government, it is important to include the people. As part of this effort, he took the time to visit Guthrie to accept suggestions from Logan County residents as part of his 100 Ideas campaign. Last week he released the 100 Ideas book. Some of these courageous ideas include eliminating the abstract cost of real estate (a very important reform), expanding term limits to include all statewide officials, and modernizing county government to make it more efficient by making it more like city government. The 100 Ideas book provides a fantastic starting point for those fighting for reform.

There is no doubt in my mind that Cargill will continue to be an energetic force for the reform of government, despite his resignation as Speaker of the House.

It is my hope and belief that Speaker Benge will continue Cargill's work to reform Oklahoma government.