There’s a bit of a soap opera taking place in the leadership of the Democratic Party in Madison that raises all sorts of ethical quandaries. It all came to light in the last week of January when rumors began swirling around Madison that the there was an attempt at a bloodless coup taking place in the Assembly leadership. An undisclosed, but substantial, cadre of Assembly Democrats allegedly wanted the Speaker of the Assembly, Mike Sheridan, ousted. The rumors said the reason was Sheridan’s alleged affair with a lobbyist. On Thursday of that week, Sheridan, who is in the process of divorcing his wife, initially denied any romantic relationship. By the weekend, he admitted that he had been dating a lobbyist 20 years his junior. Making matters worse, the lobbyist in question works for one of the companies in the payday loan industry – an industry that draws conspicuous ire from the Democratic Party for their alleged predatory lending practices. It gets even worse for Sheridan. The speaker used to be in lock step with his party regarding payday lenders, but recently softened his stance on passing legislation to cap the interest rates for payday lenders. To the casual eye, it certainly appears that the speaker of the Assembly changed his public stance on a public policy issue regarding a specific industry because of his relationship with a lobbyist from said industry. Tawdry, at best. Unethical, at worst. You can see why many of his fellow Assembly Democrats would be angered by Speaker Sheridan’s actions. Many of them are passionate about having the government crack down on payday lending and are angered by Sheridan moving away from them on the issue. Many of them are angered that the ethical concerns around his relationship with a lobbyist damages the public’s perception of their leadership during an election year. But in the end, Sheridan has apparently put down his opposition and remains the speaker of the Assembly. Currently, it is not illegal or considered an ethics violation for an elected official to date a lobbyist, but the appearance of impropriety is strong enough that it is frowned upon. It wasn’t that long ago that Assembly Democrats raised a furor when the Republicans elected Scott Jensen to be their majority leader given the fact that Jensen’s wife was a lobbyist. Jensen’s wife resigned from her job when Jensen his leadership position. The question remains, is it unethical for an elected official to date a lobbyist? Not necessarily. Most people can keep their private affairs from affecting their public duties. It becomes unethical when a public official seeks to affect public policy based on that private relationship. It is here that Sheridan appears to be running askance of ethical behavior. This entire fiasco also serves to highlight some of the absurdity of how our ethics rules are structured. It would be illegal for a lobbyist from a payday loan company to sit down at a bar with the speaker of the Assembly, buy him a beer and try to convince him to change his view. But it is perfectly legal for that same lobbyist to offer up all of the accouterments of a romantic relationship to accomplish the same objective. In this case, we know not whether the relationship between the speaker and the lobbyist is an innocent personal relationship or whether there is something unethical going on. We will probably never know. The ethical concerns, however, are so blatantly obvious that one of them should change their job role to alleviate the appearance of impropriety. Citizens have a right to petition their government and lobbyist are a part of that process. But the citizens also have the expectation that our public officials approach their public responsibilities based on thoughtfulness and their own values. It undermines the credibility of government when elected officials appear to be making public policy decisions based on the exchange of … well, you get the picture. (Owen B. Robinson, a West Bend resident, is a blogger who publishes at www.bootsandsabers.com. His column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)
