Of Unhonorable Alliances

   I do not condone things John Swallow is accused of, nor those Mark Shurtleff might have wrongfully done. But, I do wonder if many of them should rise to the level of criminal, prosecutional offenses. I'm not decided. Though I have followed most every news break on this issue, I'm not remembering the specific laws Swallow is accused of breaking. I just wonder if we really went after them all, many a politician could be found in the same wreck. I remember from yesterday's news, a story saying one thing prosecutors are looking at is a pay-to-play history. A person pays something, and they get better treatment.
   Hey, depending on where you draw the line, many a politician could be accused of pay-to-play. Yes, that is wrong. Yes, we should object when we see it. But, I don't know that we are talking criminal offenses.
   But, we should raise our voices against wrongful actions even when they do not raise to the level of criminal conduct.
   Today's Paul Rolly column in the Salt Lake Tribune notes State Rep. Ken Ivory was one of the just three representatives who voted against funding the Swallow investigation. At that time, Swallow got Ivory invited to make a presentation at the Conference of Western Attorneys General (CWAG). Ivory made a presentation for his American Lands Council, which is an organization from which he derives some of his income.
   Inviting Ivory was not a criminal offense, of course.
   But, the thought that Swallow would reward Ivory with a sort of favorable payback (or vice versa, depending on which came first, the vote on funding the investigation or the CWAG conference) is offensive. Someone might say what is offensive is that I am assuming one favor was being granted in reply to the other. I simply think that if you want to avoid an unhonorable alliance, you can see both events going on, so you steer clear of the casting a political favor for the other person. The timing of these two events is too close to discard.
   Our votes and actions as public officials should be based on what is right or wrong, not on an exchange of favors. It would keep us very busy if we were to go after office holders every time they broached an unhonorable alliance, but that does not mean such relationships are not wrong.
   They are.
   There are times when I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine is fine, but often it is inappropriate in the realm of making public policy. Our votes and actions as public officials should not be held out as barter.

(P.S. -- "Unhonorable" is not an official word in many dictionaries. The word is "dishonorable." I knew this when I posted this and left it as is. The word "unhonorable" seems natural enough to me, whether recognized by most dictionaries or not.)