Best behavior

The 11th-hour passage of a state ethics reform bill is good news for cleaner government, one more responsive to the people

It will take several months, or longer, to tell just how effective this year's state government ethics reform will be. But the drive by the state's lawmakers to pass some measure of reform is proof that the General Assembly listened to North Carolinians who wanted to shield their government more securely from special interest groups and their lobbyists. The effort was led in particular by Sens. Dan Clodfelter of Charlotte and Tony Rand of Fayetteville, and by Reps. Joe Hackney of Chapel Hill and Deborah Ross of Raleigh in the House.

Long-needed improvements came in the form of individual laws passed as the legislative session proceeded this year. But the most important changes were folded into the the State Government Ethics Act, an omnibus bill passed in the final hours before adjournment early Friday.

Separate laws forbid legislators from using campaign funds for personal use. They end the unsavory practice of campaign donors handing over checks with blank payee lines, and require political donors of $50 or more to publicly disclose their gifts. Those and others provide a better scrubbing of the state's political process.

The ethics act (Governor Easley must sign it into law) creates a set of ethics rules and an independent Ethics Commission covering the three branches of government. That is a first for North Carolina, although the legislature and judiciary retain ultimate control over their members.

The act stiffens conflict-of-interest and disclosure rules for public officials and lobbyists. It restricts lobbyists' gifts and campaign contributions to public officials. And it imposes sanctions for violators.

The flurry of reform springs in large part from controversies that ensnared House Speaker Jim Black, a Mecklenburg County Democrat. Black figures in several investigations touching on campaign fund-raising and the activities of his former political director, as well as the passage of the state lottery.

But reform was overdue, as special interest groups had gained too much influence, and too many legislators seemed to have a feeling of entitlement with regard to the perks of power.

The task remains incomplete. Lawmakers didn't see fit to restrict lobbyists from holding fund-raisers for them -- and yes, there are legitimate questions about the constitutionality of such a measure. (Not that legislators couldn't voluntarily swear off lobbyists' fund-raisers if they wished.) And Ethics Commission hearings will remain closed until the last step, a poke in the eye to the state's tradition of open meetings when matters of clear public interest are on the agenda.

The fact is, much of this reform was needed not because of lobbyists, but because of lawmakers' escalating solicitation of money, and willingness to listen to those who gave it to them. They created the problem, and they can solve it.

It's unfortunate that they failed to make a stronger effort to create a public financing program for legislative campaigns, or at least a pilot project to test the approach. That ought to be on someone's agenda when the long session convenes next year.

It shouldn't have taken a House speaker with high-profile problems or intense pressure from public interest groups to accomplish these changes. But at least they were accomplished, and any loopholes will surely be exposed in time. They should be fixed quickly, if legislators mean what they say with regard to reform.