< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Let it be known that I am no fan of Newt Gingrich, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. But he should not have had to borrow $300,000 from Bob Dole last week.
The $300,000 isn't exactly a fine. In theory, it goes to repay Congress for the part of the cost of investigating allegations that Gingrich used tax-exempt foundations to advance political campaigns.
The House Ethics Committee found that this had happened,
and concluded Gingrich should be punished. Gingrich noted
that the laws were hideously complex, but did not offer the
sensible response: We write those laws, and if we don't
understand them, how can we expect other people to? Let's
work on simplification.
If the House had voted to censure, reprimand or even expel Gingrich, it would have acted within its proper powers. But this $300,000 fine that isn't exactly a fine is troubling.
For one thing, it aggravates a modern trend that you can buy your way out of a predicament. In essence, the $300,000 is a sort of legalized bribe -- just slip $300,000 to the treasurer, and we'll let this slide.
For another, it sets a dangerous precedent. Suppose Congress decides to investigate you tomorrow morning, for whatever reason, and after destroying your career and reputation, it then sends you a bill for the cost of the investigation, so that Congress can bankrupt you if your lawyers didn't.
Congress can investigate anyone it wants to investigate, and if it can bill you for the privilege of being investigated, it can destroy you financially without any pretense of due process.
Finally, the Gingrich fine appears to violate the separation of powers. Congress can levy taxes, and write laws to specify fines for various violations, but isn't the assessment of fines properly the function of the judicial branch?
As long as we're dealing with the separation of powers, there's the separation of Powers from our state government.
Saturday morning, I read that our state senate had rejected Gov. Roy Romer's nomination of Linda Powers, our former state senator, to the board of the Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority.
Saturday evening, I was in Gunnison and ran into Linda.
She was not heartbroken about this rejection. Can you
believe this?
she asked. I don't think the state
senate has ever rejected one of those nominations
before.
The ostensible reason for the rejection came from Sen.
Dave Wattenberg, who said Powers might not be as
favorable to business as she could be.
Linda owns and operates a small retail business in Crested Butte, and on several occasions I have heard her speak just like other small business owners, with fervent complaints about payroll taxes, unemployment-insurance premiums, growing paperwork burdens and the like.
It's really hard to imagine her as
anti-business.
Further, it isn't the state government's job to represent business.
Our state constitution begins with We, the people of
Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of
the Universe ...
It does not open with We, the
business owners, subdividers, highway contractors and
real-estate developers of Colorado, with profound reverence
for the Almighty Dollar ...
I suggested to Linda that it might be a badge of honor to be rejected by this state senate. She agreed, and we started speculating as to who might gain approval as sufficiently favorable to business.
How about Sherman Bell? He took command of the state
militia in 1903, marched into Cripple Creek where the
miners were on strike, and illegally arrested the union
leaders after he shut down a pro-labor newspaper.
But he was sort of squishy -- he did release the
miners after a judge ordered him to. That could mean
confirmation trouble these days. I'd go for John Chase, who
commanded the militia during the strike at Ludlow in 1914.
He actually opened fire with machine guns, and had more
than a dozen bodies to show for it.
That was done at the behest of the Rockefellers,
though, who owned the coal mines and the state government
then. 'Rockefeller Republican' is hardly a compliment these
days on that side of the aisle.
That would be a problem. You know, it could be that
the governor will never find anybody who's sufficiently
pro-business to suit this legislature.
But who knows? Maybe Newt Gingrich will be available soon, and he's pro-business.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >