State law-enforcement lite: Proposed ethics commission is an idea without enough substance

WE DOUBT we're alone in having reached our limit on tolerating another season of indictments, corruption and contempt for public integrity that have made handcuffs the official state jewelry, especially among powerful people in state government.

So a proposal to create a Public Integrity Commission to investigate corruption should have us more excited than it actually does.

That's not to say that state Rep. Curt Shroder of Chester County, who is pushing the idea, shouldn't get credit. His idea, a worthy response to years of indictments, would be modeled on the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, established in the 1970s to investigate organized crime. It would focus on investigating misdeeds within state and local government. The agency would have a budget of $4 million and a staff of investigators.

We're not worried that the commission would lack for work, especially after the federal corruption case against Sen. Vince Fumo, the successful state prosecution of former Rep. Mike Veon for using tax dollars to fund political activities, the upcoming trial of Rep. Bill DeWeese and the ongoing scandal involving judges in Luzerne County who sent minors to private detention facilities in exchange for cash payments.

However, it's worth noting that all of these cases were brought by already established law-enforcement agencies. It's not clear why the state needs yet another government body to duplicate work that's already supposed to be done by local, state and federal prosecutors. The current apparatus should be sufficient to investigate misdeeds by public officials, especially since only state prosecutors rely on the Legislature for funding. If they can't handle the work with existing staff, why not give prosecutors the $4 million directly?

A few other problems: The proposed commission would lack power to prosecute. It would be able only to investigate corruption and to make recommendations to law-enforcement officials.

That means we'll still be dependent on elected or appointed prosecutors to make decisions about what types of corruption cases are pursued. There's also a question of how far such a commission could go in investigating the court system.

Ultimately, our biggest problem with the commission is that it could actually hamper true reform. That's because the kind of corruption that we've seen is the fruit of a system built to allow it. So, without changing the system, this commission will round up suspects, but won't have any impact on how many suspects there are.

There are big ideas that would fundamentally change the culture in Harrisburg. For example, we desperately need campaign-finance reform. There are currently no limits on campaign contributions, and lax reporting guidelines shield donations from the public for months. That means a special interest can donate thousands of dollars to an elected official in the middle of a legislative debate without anyone knowing until much later.

The same can be said of redistricting, which is the process by which lawmakers draw legislative boundaries. Elected officials have been aggressive about creating districts that ensure no real competition between political parties. If we made state elections more competitive, it would do wonders to bring new blood into the process and shake up Harrisburg.

To be fair, most supporters of the commission also back many of these ideas. In fact, Rep. Shroder has sponsored legislation to call a constitutional convention, considered the most radical prescription for Harrisburg's woes. Still, at a time when

reformers have limited political capital, we can't help but wonder if the commission would ultimately be yet another excuse to avoid real reform. And that's the last thing we need.