Trent Seibert reports that McMillan’s Loophole may have just become a highway. (Remember, I warned of this just yesterday.)

A change of a few words in the proposed ethics bill could mean that another dozen lawmakers might again be allowed to consult for firms that do business with the state — broadening an exemption written into last year’s ethics bill.

The roughly 13 real estate agents in the legislature could join the 26 lawyers who are already exempt from last year’s "House Bill 1." That bill and the resulting law were crafted in response to the controversy over then-state Sen. John Ford’s consulting work.

There are also some serious complaints about how amendments get into legislation.  (BTW, we could stop a lot of these shenanigans with my earlier, very simple suggestion.)

But the specific impact of that rewording was unclear last night: Several House members said that though they voted on the change in the bill’s language, they weren’t completely sure what it meant or what it would do.

The fact there was little debate on such an issue — and so much confusion — shows how easy it is for potential loopholes to creep into a massive piece of legislation, such as the ethics bill pending in the legislature now.

. . . Amendments, more than 60 in all, were in play that day, some placing intricate language in the bill, others ripping it out. Some in the House implored Speaker Jimmy Naifeh to slow down.

"Oh my gosh, you’re kidding me," said Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet, recalling the breakneck pace of the debate. Some amendments were attached to the bill without the fine print being shown to some members during the debate.

"You do realize, we didn’t read much of this. This is what is so bothersome," Lynn said.

Read the whole thing.

Share This