August 19, 2005

Right, But Unfair

Today's Tennessean editorial, "Hargett personifies need for 'revolving door' law," is right - but rather unfair.

Anyone looking for an example of why Tennessee government needs strong ethics legislation can find one in Tre Hargett.

Hargett, the Republican House leader from Bartlett, announced this week he is leaving his position to become a lobbyist for the drug giant Pfizer. His step from leading lawmaker to drug firm lobbyist shows part of the problem on Capitol Hill. Rep. Ulysses Jones, D-Memphis, called Hargett's step "hypocritical," and it's hard to find a better word for it.

For starters, Hargett is vice chairman of the House ethics committee and a member of a joint legislative panel now looking at ethics proposals. The joint committee is expected to make recommendations on ethics legislation before the next gathering of the General Assembly.

Hargett's departure, expected in September, comes right in the heart of that effort. One of the proposals that should come from that ethics debate should be a law that prohibits people in state government from leaving their jobs and going directly into lobbying the government. Yet Hargett is doing precisely what such a proposal would outlaw. And he doesn't see a problem with that.

But quoting Rep. Ulysses Jones calling Hargett's move "hypocritical" gives readers the impression that Rep. Jones favors closing the revolving door. He doesn't.

Rather than quoting Rep. Jones calling Hargett "hypocritical," the paper ought to have called out Jones on his own hypocrisy and challenged Jones to support the revolving-door bill he and most of his fellow Democrats oppose.

The editorial continues...

By his own admission, Hargett might well have first sought the Pfizer job while the General Assembly was in session, dealing with issues that affect the pharmaceutical industry. In that situation, any vote that he cast even remotely related to the drug industry or health care becomes questionable. Was he voting for the best interests of his constituents, or voting the best interests of his future employer?

But there is no evidence of that.

The legislation - which negatively impacted Pfizer by expanding TennCare's payment for lower-cost generic drugs - passed the House 93-0. Hargett did not against it - he was one of six representatives recorded as not voting at all, meaning he wasn't present for the vote.

As for the committee votes, the House website provides no easy-to-access records, though it should be possible to interview the bill's sponsor and members of those committees to determine how Hargett voted. Given his reputation for honesty and committment to his constituents and his job, my guess is Hargett voted in the best interests of the state rather than Pfizer.

Unless and until The Tennessean does the reportorial work to find out how Hargett voted, it is unfair to do what today's editorial does - intimate that he might have voted Pfizer's way in order to curry favor with a potential future employer.

The editorial concludes by saying that "Hargett has helped put a face on" the need for legislation "to rid state government of a 'revolving door' between public service and lobbying."

They're right about that.

UPDATE: The Nashville City Paper's editorial, "Hargett's move regrettable, but can't blame him," gives the right perspective - and also notes the hypocrisy of some of Hargett's critics:

Meanwhile, political hay is being made. On Tuesday, Democratic Party Chairman Bob Tuke blasted the GOP for being in the "back pocket of the drug companies." Wednesday, House GOP Chairman Charles Sargent fired back that it was Democrats who defeated a measure to prohibit the "revolving door" issue last session and called Tuke "out of line."