Bill O’Brien, the next speaker of the New Hampshire House, has drafted a bill for next session meant to resolve the conflict of interest that exists when state employees campaign for state politicians. Mr. O’Brien’s motivation, as reported in an article in the morning UL by John DiStaso, is Pam Walsh who collected thousands in political consulting fees from Teflon John Lynch while employed by the state.
The State Union objects to the bill on the grounds that the language in the proposed bill is too broad, that no state employee would be able to work for anyone running for office in the state. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing.
When you boil it down, there really isn’t any difference between a lobbyist and a public service union member who draws a taxpayer funded paycheck. These folks have an immediate financial interest in who is elected to office. They actually pay an entity (the union) to represent them in negotiations with the very government for whom they work, for the purpose of expanding their share of taxpayer patronage, a goal that is directly affected by who is elected to office. Their natural inclination will be to support politicians who will reward them with financial remuneration and/or expand union access or power to achieve similar gains. Not only is it a conflict of interest, it is a home field advantage that no other voter or taxpayer can hope to compete with, paid for by the taxpayers themselves from the dues paid out of taxpayer funded paychecks.
Why is this even legal?
There’s an Ad running that points out some facts. Carol Seiu-Porter voted for Obamacare. It will make costs rise. You will lose coverage. No body wanted it. It will affect seniors.
Comparing