State’s ranking is not surprising

The national Center for Public Integrity says Idaho is tied for worst in the nation when it comes to public disclosure laws. Washington’s laws are the best, but enforcement is another matter.

Idaho’s ranking is unsurprising given the Legislature’s penchant for secrecy. Idaho is one of three states where lawmakers do not have to disclose the source of their personal finances. That, coupled with the fact that legislators get to decide whether they will vote on legislation that has a direct bearing on their income, should raise warning flags.

Thus, Wayne Meyer, a Rathdrum grass-seed farmer, could push for a law inoculating field burners from lawsuits and vote on the legislation. And Sen. Curtis McKenzie of Nampa, an attorney for a firm that represents Qwest Communications, could vote on a bill that would deregulate that company’s rates without declaring a conflict.

The disregard for transparency also shows up in how the Republican caucus shields the public’s business from the public. Idaho politicians will continue to get away with this, because there are so few Democrats in opposition and the public has not raised a sufficient clamor about it.

If it weren’t for a voter initiative in 1974, it’s doubtful the state would even have the bare-bones disclosure requirements that are now in place.

Idaho lawmakers have demonstrated that they can’t be shamed into passing reasonable rules about secrecy and disclosure. As it did 30 years ago, this task must fall to the public.

Meanwhile, Washington state can be proud of its public disclosure laws, which require that candidates, officeholders and lobbyists divulge the source of their income. All credit goes to the citizen activists who drafted and promoted a 1972 initiative requiring such openness and to the voters, who overwhelmingly passed it.

But lawmakers have hamstrung efforts to enforce the law by only grudgingly funding the Public Disclosure Commission.

Plus, the maximum fine the PDC can levy is $2,500, which is why it has increasingly turned cases over to the attorney general’s office. But those lawsuits are often protracted affairs, where punishment is meted out long after the original offense.

As with the Idaho case, it will be up to the public to demand that the Washington Legislature follow through on the clear mandate of the voters.

We understand that conflicts of interest are an inherent part of citizen legislatures. Lawmakers come from a variety of backgrounds and have different areas of expertise. It would be foolhardy to expect the most knowledgeable lawmakers on particular subjects to recuse themselves.

But the best defense against the abuse of that arrangement is to require the full disclosure of financial interests. Washington state understands that. Idaho does not.