Over the past week or so, the Brian Moran for Governor campaign has taken some heat for employing Del. Lionell Spruill and paying him $7,500 per month. According to the Virginian-Pilot:
Moran and Spruill have the opportunity to spare Virginia that future. The pair ought to sever the financial ties and collaborate on a new project: co-sponsoring legislation making it illegal for any elected official to serve as a paid political consultant.
Well, today Mame Reiley has responded in her capacity as Director of Virginians for Brian Moran.
In light of the concerns raised, Moran plans to introduce a change to the General Assembly rules that expands the current ban on fundraising during the legislative session to include a ban on employment of any legislator by any candidate for public office or political committee during the same time period.In addition, whether the House adopts our proposed change or not, Spruill will take unpaid leave from the campaign during next year's regular General Assembly session. Moran has given careful thought to the points your editorial raised and hopes these actions alleviate any immediate concerns while recognizing Virginia has a part-time legislature.
Admittedly, I'm not expert at this stuff, but my first reaction is this response seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'd add that what's really needed here is strong ethics rules (including stringent restrictions on receiving anything - even lunch - from lobbyists) in general for our part-time legislators, combined with salaries that allow them to survive without so much pressure for outside income.
I talked to Jesse Ferguson of the Moran campaign, and he emphasized that none of Brian's bills were designed to enrich either himself or Lionell Spruill. More broadly, according to Ferguson, this whole issue has never come up before in Virginia. Ferguson stresses that everything the Moran campaign has done vis-a-vis Del. Spruill has been legal, so the issue here is simply potential appearance of impropriety and/or abuse of the system. Something like this apparently happened in Kentucky, although I'm not aware of the details off the top of my head.
Anyway, according to Ferguson, Del. Moran feels that in the interest of laying down a path going forward, "let's put together a compromise." In the end, "people have a point, although nothing was done wrong, why not avoid even the potential for wrongdoing" going forward? As I wrote earlier, this sounds reasonable to me, but I'd be interested to know what you all think?
P.S. One more thought: maybe this is a case where full disclosure worked, where "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
2 - Would Moran be introducing this legislation if no one had brought up the issue? If there was really nothing improper about doing this, then show some leadership and stand up for what you believe.
I don't want to sound too naive, but I wish Del. Moran would make his case on the merits, rather than with his campaign funds. His campaign smacks of buying support across the state, when I don't think it is necessary. Del. Moran has a decent and honorable record.
Then there is the related issue that Del. Moran would not have the political antennae to realize this would be an issue in the first place, that everyone would just think this was okay. But, again, I suspect this is more a function of the way Del. Moran has chosen to do business as opposed to any actual ethical lapse on his part.
I never really saw any merit to the actual charge of conflict of interest here, which I believed was first levelled by Brian Kerwin and picked up on at NLS. The idea that Moran paid Spruill $90K to secure his vote on pieces of legislation that enriched neither is ludicrous, and the kind of scandal that only a Republican, in this era of a corrupt DOJ, and an indictment-a-day ethical posture in the GOP-led government, could imagine. (I would note that NLS's concern was well-placed and sincere, and focused on the appearance>)
And I think Democratic Central is also asking the right questions: http://www.democraticcentral.c...
Look, do we have a situation where a Democratic leader - a member of the DNC and a leader in the GA - is basing his endorsement decisions on who sends him the biggest checks?
Or do we have a situation where one of our gubernatorial candidates - possibly my gubernatorial candidate in June 2009 - is spending $90,000 a year in the belief that one man can deliver the African-American vote?
Democrats and progressives in Virginia are better than this.
I'm not calling for people to not support Moran over this issue. I'm calling for Moran's supporters to point out to Brian that he can win votes without putting up with extortion.
My issue is with Spruill, not Moran.
Your discussion is much more extensive and meaningful. But one point. Here, you state:
My issue is with Spruill, not Moran.
How is that the case? I agree with every point you raise, but Del. Moran is an active participant in this nonsense. This doesn't define Del. Moran for me, but he should not be absolved (not saying you are doing this, just saying he should not be as a general matter) from actively and cynically engaging in this game.
People can make their own minds what, if anything, it all means.
Second, my beef with Moran has been his spending, which is too high - but that's more of a campaign mentality than anything substantive. I think he's wasting money early, and I don't like to see Democrats wasting money. Nothing major.
Spruill, however, is demonstrating the "pay-to-play" mindset made famous by DeLay and Abramoff. It's wrong when Republicans do it, and it's still wrong when Democrats do it.
I'm a progressive first and a Democrat second, which means when I see something wrong in the party I will not sweep it under the rug. Spruill's actions are a problem, and they need to be addressed now.
I have to assume Moran is perhaps the "John" in this scenario. He's getting something for his money, but he's paying far too much for someone who shouldn't be charging at all. There's a reason I entitled the original diary "Delegate's Club VIP."
Having said that, as a resident of South Hampton Roads I want to make a couple of things very clear for our Democratic neighbors to the North and West:
1. Lionell Spruill has a long and distinguished history of supporting other Democrats he believes in without expectation of any financial or political benefit in return. A lot of candidates who won couldn't have done so without his support, and a lot of candidates who lost would have lost by a lot more. Spruill is not a pay-to-play politician.
2. He's also one of the most humble opinion makers in the state. He's one of the three most influential black politicians in Virginia (the other two being former Gov. Wilder and Rep. Scott), but relative to the amount of influence he wields, he has probably the lowest profile in Virginia. This is probably why so many people have leaped to conclusions about him this time; since he's not in the habit of being a headline-grabber, people don't really know who he is well enough to make an informed judgement.
3. Finally, I'd invite all of you to check out his VPAP page and notice that Spruill has donated more than $75,000 to Democrats over the years. Contrary to the misconception that he's for sale, Spruill is actually a key donor for Democratic causes in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I'm perplexed as to why Spruill decided to accept payment for something he's given freely in the past, and will continue to believe that it undercuts the value of his support for Moran. But even though I disagree with him, I know him and his work well enough to say that people who want to compare him to Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff are simply misinformed or underinformed about Lionell Spruill.
The question remains, why did it take money from Moran to get him to work hard on his behalf?
I think that question gets to the heart of the issue:
For Moran, could he not get Spruill to work for him without the payment?
For Spruill, was Moran's candidacy not worthy of his time and effort without some additional compensation?