Photo by Mr. T in DC

At yesterday’s D.C. Council committee hearing on a comprehensive ethics bill proposed by Councilmember Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), Max Skolnik aggressively criticized the legislation, saying that the “so-called reform bill” did nothing to limit corporate influence in local politics. If Bowser wasn’t willing to really take on the rot in local politics, he bellowed, then maybe she should clear the way for someone who could.

That person, coincidentally enough, would be Skolnik, who is challenging Bowser in the April 2012 Democratic primary.

Such was the tenor of yesterday’s hours-long debate (WAMU, WaPo, Times, Fox 5, DC Watch), in which a mix of councilmembers, good government advocates, regular residents and candidates for office debated the merits of Bowser’s proposal.

Apart from Skolnik, three other 2012 candidates testified — Sekou Biddle and Mary Brooks Beatty, both running for an At Large seat, and Ward 7 candidate Tom Brown — while two others, Ron Moten and Peter Shapiro, appeared in the audience. Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At Large), himself up for re-election next year, also sat through most of the hearing.

Either sensing a little political advantage or expressing honest disappointment with the bill’s provisions, few of the 2012 candidates had nice things to say about Bowser’s proposal, which would establish a new Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, increase reporting and disclosure requirements for candidates and elected officials, and hold legislators to a code of conduct that currently applies to all city employees.

Skolnik, who also testified at an October 26 hearing on ethics, reprimanded Bowser for a “weak, toothless law” that he said did nothing towards advancing real change — in his mind, the abolition of Constituent Services Funds, an end to outside employment and a prohibition of the bundling of campaign contributions.

Skolnik’s barbs were so direct that Bowser took time to defend herself against allegations that she had spent over $100,000 of her Constituent Services Fund on political consulting firms, advertising and staff reimbursements. “I don’t think anyone will be surprised that someone who wants my job would not be happy with something I’ve done,” she declared from the dais.

Biddle similarly stated that Constituent Services Funds be scrapped, saying that in the brief time that he served on the council — from January to April — he received more offers for donations than he did requests for help from constituents. Beatty Brooks, a Republican, argued against the funds too, and joined Skolnik in stating that councilmembers shouldn’t have outside jobs and that campaign bundling needed to be reigned in. (Former At Large candidate Bryan Weaver emphasized this point during his testimony, as did Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells.)

Only Brown said he favored the Constituent Services Funds, though he expressed disappointment with the ethical lapses in the D.C. government.

And though Orange appeared as a member of the committee, his role was similarly noteworthy. Since being elected in April, Orange has kept a low profile on the council, spare on one issue — ethics. In September, Orange introduced legislation that would have banned outside employment by councilmember and imposed term limits on them. In October, a measure he sponsored that would establish an ethics taskforce was shot down 12-1 by his colleagues, but not without some spirited debate from Orange.

Of course, all of this isn’t to say that 2012 candidates are simply using ethics as a political talking point. Many of them are echoing arguments made by good government advocates, after all. Still, trying to pretend that an election isn’t coming up and that playing the role of outsider or crusader isn’t beneficial would be naive, especially considering the raft of scandals that have hit the council and mayor this year. Ethics will certainly be an issue come election time, and each candidate knows that establishing their bona fides now will help them in April.

The current debate on ethics could have another impact on next April’s election — the Office of Campaign Finance. At the hearing, OCF’s Director Cecily E. Collier-Montgomery testified that if the legislation and all of its increased reporting requirements passed, her office would likely be inundated with more work than it could handle. (The Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, which the law creates and would handle most reporting and ethics regulation tasks, wouldn’t come to be until at least July.)

“Against this backdrop [the 2012 election], it will be virtually impossible for the Office of Campaign Finance to undertake the transition tasks without additional resources,” she said.

Bowser has said that she wants to move the legislation to the full council before the end of the year. That means that it’ll likely be up for a first vote next week and a second and final vote on December 20.