Financial Disclosure: Power in Search of Policy
| Published date | 01 March 1981 |
| DOI | 10.1177/009102608101000105 |
| Date | 01 March 1981 |
| Author | John A. Rohr |
| Subject Matter | Symposium Article |
Financial Disclosure:
Power in Search
of
Policy
by
John A. Rohr
Virginia
Polytechnic
Institute
and
State
University
Enslaved
ourselves,
we
tried
to
enslave
the
others.
By force
subdued,
we
grew
by force too bold.
Bertolt
Brecht
ITI
he
purpose
of'
this
article
is to
attempt
to
contribute
to
the
puhlie
argument
over
finan-
cial
disclosure
(FDl so
that
it
can
achieve
its
goal of
detecting
and
deterring
conflicts of
interest
without
needlessly
compromising
the
privacy
of public officials.
At
the
outset
it
must
be
acknowledged
that
the
view
presented
here
is
that
of a
friendly
critic
of
much
of
the
current
discussion in
support
ofFD.
Friendly,
because
I
take
seriously
the
value
and,
at
times,
the
necessity
of some
form
of FD; critic,
because
Iobject to
an
exaggerated
righteousness
that
occasionally
insinuates
itself
into
the
case
for FD. Specifically, Iobject to
the
position
or,
more
precisely,
the
attitude
that
presents
FD
as
an
index
of civic
virtue-
the
"tougher"
a
jurisdic-
tion's
FD
regulations
are,
the
stronger
its
opposition to
corruption.
This
attitude
will
be
criticized in a
way
that
hopefully
will be of
interest
to
those
who
are
affected by
such
laws
as
well
as to
those
who
formulate
them.
1
The
article's
subtitle,
"Power
in
Search
of Policy,"
suggests
that
the
connection
between
specific provisions of FD
laws
and
the
purpose
of
such
laws
is
not
always
as
clear
as
the
constitutional
power
of
federal,
state,
and
local
governments
to compel FD.
Presumably,
the
primary
purpose
of
compelling
FD is to
detect
and
deter
conflicts of
interest.
It
is
the
relation-
ship
between
this
commendable
goal
and
specific
FD
mandates
that
is
at
times
quite
obscure. A
telling
symptom
of
this
problem
is
the
fact
that
the
federal
"Ethics
in
Government
Act
of 1978,"
though
in
many
ways
a
sound
and
sensible
statute,
has
neither
a
preamble
nor
a
statement
of
legislative
intent.
Whatever
the
problems
one
might
raise
over
the
ends
and
means
of FD,
the
power
of
the
several
levels
of
government
to
enact
FD
presents
few
serious
difficulties.
When
the
recent
federal
act
was
working
its
way
through
Congress,
the
House
Select
Committee
on
Ethics
dismissed
any
constitutional
scruples
over
compelling
disclosure by
simply
calling
attention
to
"the
overwhelming
state
court
and
Supreme
Court
precedents
upholding
financial
disclosure
laws."2
This
observation
was
absolutely
correct;
the
precedents
are
indeed
overwhelming.
In
the
extensive
litigation
over
FD in
the
1970's,
only
one
state
supreme
court
has
ever
found
an
FD
statute
unconstitutional."
In
City
of
Carmel-by-the-Sea
v.
Young,"
the
Supreme
Court
of
Public
Personnel
Management
Journal
29
To continue reading
Request your trial