Commentary: Level the gubernatorial fundraising playing field

This past weekend, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey made clear that his intention is not just to clear one of the major hurdles in his path to the Executive Residence. He aims to knock it down. The lieutenant governor is openly questioning the wisdom of the law that prohibits legislators from raising money during the legislative session.

The lieutenant governor explained to WPLN the case that he will soon make to his fellow legislators.

“To tie someone’s hand when they’re in the legislature when they’re running for another office doesn’t seem fair. The governor himself can raise money, if you’re a sitting congressman you can raise money, why shouldn't someone in the legislature, if they’re running for an office also be able to raise money? So that’s something we need to look at seriously,” Ramsey said discussing the law.

It shouldn’t be that hard a case to make, not to his fellow legislators anyway. Republicans, many of whom are personally loyal and/or politically beholden to him, will go along based on partisanship alone, and one has to imagine that there are more than a few young Democratic legislators who someday wish to make the same jump to the big chair is currently pursuing. This is to say nothing of those legislators who are tired, year after year, of seeing challengers raise war chests of their own to mount campaigns against them as they toil away at the Capitol doing the peoples business.

The question then, is not whether Ramsey can politically get this change made. That much is clear. The question is whether this change should be made and whether it is worth the political capital Ramsey might have to dump making it happen.

Unlike much of ethics and campaign finance legislation, the ban on fundraising during the legislative session was not passed in the immediate aftermath of either Operation Rocky Top or Operation Tennessee Waltz. The ban was passed in 1996, included in a reform bill at the insistence of Senator Ben Atchley. The provision sought to end the longstanding practice of fundraising during session, which many saw as rife with opportunities for corruption. Lobbyists and special interest, it was said, could be hit up for donations (or vice versa) at the very moment legislation was to be crafted and voted on.

The ban takes away the immediacy of all these theoretical potential quid pro quos. But does it really change the reality? Does the ban during the session really give us a cleaner legislature or does it just make us feel like our representatives are statesman while they are in Nashville rather than the political operators they so clearly are?

This ban, just like much campaign finance and ethics legislation, is mere window dressing. While basic laws and rules must be in place, those predisposed to proffer their office and influence are going to find a way to sell their souls and get their pieces of silver. Culture and character combats corruption far better than any piece of code.

As for the public relations damage Ramsey may have to withstand for proposing a change to the law that so clearly benefits him, any hit will be worth it. While it is certainly possible that he could remain competitive without a steady stream of dollars pumping into his political machine year round, his chances improve exponentially if his team can avoid a mad scramble for cash before the legislative window closes. The man is going up against Bill Haslam, a man of extreme personal and family wealth. He is at disadvantage from the word go.

Ramsey may be seen as changing a law purely in pursuit of self interest by some, but the amount of cash he will raise will allow him to make up that support elsewhere. And, if we are honest with ourselves, we will realize that this change presents no clear and present danger to the Republic.

If anything, it will simply awaken us to the fact that the best ethics reform is the election of honest men. Period.

See more from Kleinheider at NashvillePost.com's political blog, Post Politics.