Defenders of former state Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson--and there are many, owing to his likeable nature--tend to acknowledge that a culture of greed has existed at the state Capitol.
These defenders, possessing nostrils, do not deny the odor.
But they resent federal law enforcement abuse--as will almost always be the case. Feds play tough.
These Hutchinson defenders complain, not without a point, that Hutchinson has been charged with assorted wire- and tax-fraud violations in Little Rock and now with bribery in Springfield, Mo., and that the two-flank attack seems to be a heavy-handed attempt to weaken his defenses (and finances) into the despair of a plea.
These defenders also tend to ask, on the bribery flank, that we pretend for a moment that Jeremy was, say, a car dealer instead of a lawyer.
Let's say the outfit calling itself Preferred Family Healthcare, a major recipient of state Medicaid money for behavioral health services, such as for mental health problems and drug addiction, came to Jeremy's Auto Emporium and signed a long-term lease agreement to secure company vehicles from the state senator's business.
The firm's big shots need cars, and its services require delivery vans. The senator is in the car business and has cars and vans for sale. The health services concern pays him money privately. He, in exchange, delivers cars and vans privately.
Let's then say the state Human Services Department proposes a bill that would give it new investigative and enforcement authority to contain its Medicaid disbursements for the services that Preferred Family Services gets lavished providing. And let's say the firm's big-time Little Rock legislative lobbyist reports to his executive superiors that good ol' Senator Jeremy--he of the company's car-lease deal--is putting a hold on the bill along with anything else related to Medicaid while he runs an amendment to sap that new enforcement authority.
"Jeremy rocks," the lobbyist writes by email to his bosses.
Hutchinson's defenders ask: Is that--while smelly, yes--a bribe? Is it illegal or merely unethical by probably wide opinion?
"Only unethical" is the best defense they have.
They argue: As long as we have a citizens' legislature instead of a full-time one, as seems to be our preference, won't these kinds of issues inevitably arise?
More disclosure? Sure.
Outright prohibition of such dealings? Have that debate if you wish, Jeremy's pals say, but beware. A good person might not run if he had to vet every private commercial exchange for a potential legislative interest, they say.
Hutchinson's defenders point out that, while there is a new Senate ethics rule in place requiring disclosure of policy-related business associations, there was a much vaguer rule in effect at the time of Jeremy's taking on a $7,500-a-month lawyer's retainer from Preferred Family Healthcare. At that time, the rule was that disclosure of a business interest was required on issues unless those issues were "general," which rendered the rule utterly devoid of clear definition and, thus, of practical application.
But, more basically, here's the question: Should we send a lawyer/senator like Hutchinson to jail for what we wouldn't send him to jail for if he was in the car business?
So many questions, so much faux complexity, when the answers are simple.
One--We need a law saying that legislators, once elected and while in office, may not newly engage in remunerative associations with lobbyists or firms employing lobbyists, maybe with some sort of financial exception that would permit such things as a lobbyist ordering eggs, hash browns and coffee occasionally at a legislator's diner. The exceptions would be the hang-up. That's always the case. You just do the best you can in an imperfect world.
Two--Absent such a law, there is a simple ethics maxim that applies: When in doubt, don't. If a legislator has no reservation about helping himself to enrichment that arises from lobbyists or their concerns, especially those that seek direct senatorial service, then he is without conscience and there's nothing you can do other than hope the Feds indict him or his constituents vote him out.
Three--Absent any legal prohibition, and odor aside, Hutchinson's taking a lawyer's retainer from a lobbyist's company and then doing friendly legislating for that company is arguably the same as a senator/car dealer selling cars to the lobbyist's concern and then doing friendly legislating for the company ... except that there are visible physical goods--cars--in one transaction, and, on the other ... what?
Lawyer Hutchinson ought to be able to defend himself legally--though never ethically--with clear, solid records of legal work. The absence of any such records would be like a car dealer taking money for cars without providing any ... you know ... cars.
It just seems easier to route influence money through cars than a $7,500 check each month to a lawyer to keep him ... retained, I believe is the word.
------------v------------
John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.
Editorial on 06/02/2019