Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane is addressing some questions for the Senate Ethics Committee now. He said Senate Assistant Minority Leader Les Bock was correct that Mason's Manual, which lawmakers follow for rules of order, "does refer to both personal and pecuniary benefit" when determining if a conflict of interest exists. However, Kane said, "I think that when you get into trying to define a personal interest, it gets very tricky." That's because it can be difficult to distinguish between personal interest, public interest, a constituent's interest, and other factors, he said.

"With Mason's, it refers to a private personal benefit as well, so they are looking for that more singular connectivity. ... It think it's absolutely, as Sen. Bock pointed out, ... appropriate ... for the committee to weigh the extent of personal interest as opposed to private pecuniary benefit," Kane said. Whatever the ethics committee decides, he said, then sets the new standard for the Senate under its rules. Kane cited a Nevada case in which a city official voted for a casino license for his campaign manager; that case involved a personal, rather than pecuniary, benefit.

Sen. Dan Schmidt, D-Moscow, said, "So I think what you said is: The bar for disclosure is lower than the standard for voting." Kane said that's "certainly true," noting that the presumption is in favor of a senator voting, even after disclosing a potential conflict, to ensure that the senator's district doesn't go unrepresented on the issue.