Avoiding Funny Money

t seems that when it comes to tax increases, the Tennessee House of Representatives likes to work in a fog of confusion. For example, this week the House Agriculture Committee "approved" the Governor's proposed tobacco tax increase...except no one is really sure what they passed. Depending on who you ask on the Committee, they approved a 20 cent, 40 cent or 60 cent tax increase, and they think they approved some kind of reduction in the tax on certain grocery items. So no one is really sure what they passed nor does anyone even know how much new revenue, if any, was generated by the bill that was approved. As the House Republican Leader said, "It was truly embarrassing....It [was] a hodgepodge, hackneyed attempt by the Bredesen administration just to get the bill out of the committee. " Even Finance Commissioner Dave Goetz said "what the bill does" will be "sorted out" in the next committee.

Keeping it in Perspective - An historical sidebar

Unfortunately this is not the first time this has happened in recent House history. In Governor Sundquist's last year, at the height of the income tax debacle, the House Budget Subcommittee and House Finance Committee approved the infamous income tax bill without the bill even being in written form, sending legislative legal staff to actually write up what they thought had been voted on.

Back to the Present...

To have watched the committee was to realize that the majority of the committee was uncomfortable with the Governor's proposal. In fact, the degree of discomfort was so high that the Speaker of the House had to exercise the right we mentioned last week, the right to be a roving committee and subcommittee member. Apparently he felt it necessary to sit through the subcommittee meeting to keep the "flock" from voting down the bill or adjourning without approving at least something. In fact, he told the members that they would work through lunch and, if they had not voted on the bill by then, he'd bring them back Thursday afternoon (when everyone goes home) and again on Friday if necessary. Amazing, is it not, how just one person's presence can so influence people into doing something they might not otherwise have done?

Of Sausage-making and Pork

As Tennessee Eagle Forum President, Bobbie Patray, recently reminded us, there are two things you do not want to see being made, sausage and legislation. Had you been in that subcommittee meeting last week, you'd have thought that Jimmy Dean was in there making Tennessee "Unpride" back on Uncle Rudy's Farm. Who knows what kind of "pork" the Governor had to promise to get enough votes to get his proposal to the next procedural step. Fortunately, the Speaker has promised that the Finance Committee that approved the unwritten income tax proposal in the Sundquist years will clean the thing up for us. That should allow us all to sleep better.

Amending the Constitution

Speaking of politics, a bill is working its way through the Senate that would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot for people to vote on. If approved by the House, it would let the people decide whether the Comptroller, Treasurer, Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor should be elected by popular vote. Right now, the Comptroller and Treasurer are appointed by the General Assembly, the Attorney General is appointed by the State Supreme Court, and the Lieutenant Governor is elected by the state Senate.

But it's the popular thing!

I know voting on everything is popular and part of a growing populist movement, but I think most of us would agree with what my own political experience showed me and that is that money is a corrupting influence in government.

Two years ago, the FBI took a few of our legislators to the Tennessee Waltz because they had found, according to the FBI and now a couple of juries, that their office could be bought. When it comes to campaigning, money is necessary, and money usually comes from people who have an interest in the office being sought.

So, when every professional accounting organization says that auditors need to be "independent" from those whom they audit and when public investors have seen what can happen when they are not (think Enron), do we really want our state auditor, our Comptroller, soliciting huge sums of money to run a state-wide campaign where only those he audits will know what the Comptroller really does? My guess is that those agencies who get state money, who the Comptroller audits from time to time, will have a real interest in who the auditor is. And, unlike other races between Republicans and Democrats, there is no real "other side" to point out the differences in "accounting philosophies." In fact, there should not be any differences.

The same can be said of the state Treasurer who is responsible for investing the state's money, including the several billion dollars held in the state's retirement funds for state employees. Who would be most willing to contribute large sums of non-tax deductible dollars to a "political" race for a position that does not affect public policy? Might I suggest that it would be investment companies who want to curry the Treasurer's favor in the hope that their investment products would "beat out" their competitors that did not give as much money to the campaign or, God forbid, gave to the other candidate.

Let's avoid the same song and dance we've sung and danced before.

I fear it will be nothing more than a race to see whether the Democrat Comptroller or Treasurer or the Republican Comptroller or Treasurer can win. And, unfortunately, a lot of that may depend on who can raise the most money.

While the two men holding these positions today are honorable men, is there a person who is above temptation? At least now any "payments" would be purely illegal kickbacks. But campaign contributions that can win favor with an official is perfectly legal. This all sounds like a recipe for disaster for those who know the Tennessee Waltz and for those who remember how Rocky Top played in the Secretary of State's office back in the 80's. Wonder what tune will be playing next?

Let's also not play the song on side two.

Of course, there is an important corollary here. If politics is not to be played with these types of offices, then those in these offices shouldn't play politics either. In this regard, there is another bill pending before the General Assembly that needs to pass, namely, a bill that prohibits the Comptroller and Treasurer from engaging in political activities on behalf of candidates for political office and, in particular, helping candidates raise money. No doubt the same concern applies – people may feel a need to contribute to a candidate the Comptroller or Treasurer supports in order to keep those officials happy.

We just don't need to permit this kind of thing. The Comptroller and Treasurer's office do not need to be made any more political than they already are in having to win the support of legislators in order to hold their positions.

An interesting political twist.

What is interesting in all of this is that pure party politics seem to be a bit reversed. Republicans, who are inching ever closer to controlling the election of these Constitutional officers, are the ones who voted to send the constitutional amendment for popular election to the Senate Floor over the opposition of the Democrats on the Committee. And Democrats are opposing a method – popular election - that would at least give them a shot at having a Democratic Comptroller or Treasurer should they ever lose control of the General Assembly. Hmmm.

Little things can make a big difference, but you may never know the difference.

All of us from time to time get tired of folks talking out of both sides of their mouths. Sometimes we do it unconsciously. But when we think someone is doing it on purpose, we generally don't like it. And we sure don't like it in our politicians. Sometimes there are important, but un-noticeable little things that politicians do that involve political sleight of hand that allow them to make everybody happy.

Here's what I mean. Recently the House Subcommittee on Local Government heard expert testimony about the negative impacts of sex oriented businesses in our communities. The proposed bill, which would create a buffer zone of 1000 feet between such businesses and schools, child care facilities, churches, and residences, recited almost 2000 pages worth of studies substantiating these negative effects. The reason for the recitation of these studies: to establish a basis for the legislation that would withstand constitutional challenge from the inevitable lawsuit by the sex industry and ACLU types. Without this evidence as a basis for the law, defending the law is an uphill battle.

Why would Strip Clubs and Adult Bookstores be okay with restricting their businesses?

Interestingly, the lobbyist for the strip clubs said that they were "okay" with the bill ... as long as it did not include the legislative findings. Of course, these businesses know full well that deletion of those finding helps build their case to get the law struck down. So, for them the law is fine as long as legislators give them the leeway they need to have it invalidated in court.

We don't know yet what will happen, but it sure appeared that some lawmakers were willing to pass the bill without the legislative findings, even though the lawyers told them it would make the bill much less defensible.

Trying to Dance on both sides of the Pole

Now why might some of these lawmakers do that? Why would legislators who say they support the bill take out language they know is critical to the defense of the law, at the request of the strip clubs? Why would they just not vote against the bill if they don't really want it to become law?

Perhaps it is so they can play political sleight of hand with us. Consider this, without the critical language, they can still win the favor of a majority of folks back home because they can say they voted for putting restrictions on these kinds of business. But they can also win the favor of the strip clubs and adult bookstores because, unbeknownst to their constituents back home, they helped pave the way for the law to be struck down. This defeat in the courts then give legislators a double bonus; it allows them to also bemoan the invalidation of the law with a wringing of hands and point their finger at those activist courts for foiling them at every turn.

Let's hope that's not the case when the bill is taken up this coming Wednesday, but you ought to know how some may choose to "play the game." We'll let you know on this one whether families and neighborhoods win or if the sex oriented businesses get the wink and nod they need to overturn the law.