Time for ethics overhaul.

Byline: The Register Guard

Oregon relies mainly upon disclosure to ensure that public officials don't abuse their offices for private gain. Seven state legislators who went to Hawaii courtesy of the Oregon Beer & Wine Distributors Association, for instance, got in trouble recently for failing to report the gifts, not for having accepted the $2,000 trips. It's time Oregonians gave their ethics rules, and the systems for tracking and enforcing them, a good shake-up.

A number of key officials agree. In 2003, Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked the Oregon Law Commission - a bipartisan group of lawmakers, academics and lawyers - to review Oregon's Code of Ethics. The commission's work group, chaired by Attorney General Hardy Myers, offered a set of recommended changes to the 2007 Legislature. Jeff Merkley, the incoming speaker of the House of Representatives, has said he'd like to see Oregon's ethics rules updated.

With all those stars in alignment, real progress should be possible. Yet it's never easy to get lawmakers to impose restrictions on themselves.

The ethics code remains essentially unchanged since 1974, when it was put in place by the voters, not by the Legislature. Most changes since then have been legislatively approved exemptions to provisions of the code. The Government Standards and Practices Commission, the agency charged with monitoring compliance with the code and investigating violations, has been steadily weakened by budgetary neglect.

The Law Commission proposes a number of helpful reforms: restrictions on the use of campaign funds, more frequent reporting by lobbyists, increased fines for violations, and better funding for the Government Standards and Practices Com- mission.

Disclosure of public officials' financial interests and of lobbyists' gifts would remain the central feature of the ethics code. Disclosure can be a powerful deterrent to behavior ranging from outright corruption to quid-pro-quo deal-making. Its power would be greatly enhanced if disclosures were more frequent, and if the information were posted on a searchable Web site.

Bringing Oregon's 1974 Code of Ethics into the 21st century, however, is not enough. Public officials should also be barred from accepting most gifts from lobbyists. The line between permissible and impermissible gifts should be drawn somewhere not far beyond a cup of coffee.

Public officials can pay for their own meals and buy their own tickets to Portland Trail Blazer games. Certainly, legislators should not be allowed to accept out-of-state trips to resorts. It's clear that the organizations underwriting such junkets as the one to Hawaii expect something in return.

Hardy Myers said that one of his work group's guiding principles was that public officials should not use public office for private gain. That's a sound principle, one that should be embedded in the Code of Ethics.

The code should bar public officials from accepting valuable gifts of travel, meals, entertainment or merchandise. At best, such gifts are attempts to buy a degree of influence and access not available to ordinary citizens. At worst, they are indistinguishable from bribes.