Ethics of state dogcatcher vs. president
Donald Trump disregarded the rules of political campaigning on his road to the White House. Now it looks as if America is in store for his disregard for tradition and convention as president, particularly when it comes to conflict of interest.
If Trump were elected, say, state dogcatcher in California, his conflicts of interest would be illegal. In fact, in some instances, they would be felonies subject to criminal prosecution by a local district attorney. Not so for the president of the United States.
I have been shocked to hear that federal law does not prohibit a President-elect Donald Trump from mixing his personal business with the people’s business. The only protections for the public are decades of tradition and the U.S. Constitution, with the sole enforcers the Republican-controlled Congress. This is the same Congress whose House of Representatives’ first aborted act in 2017 was to gut its ethics office.
Remember candidate Trump’s Old Post Office Hotel deal? During his campaign, he touted his newly opened Old Post Office Hotel in Washington, D.C. In the heart of the capital, the hotel’s business plan is certainly counting on room and conference bookings by the U.S. and foreign governments.
Under California law, if our state dogcatcher were to “suggest” to anyone in the government to book a room at any of his hotels for state business, the suggestion would trigger a violation of the state Government Code — a felony.
What about nudging a head of state about an overseas Trump business endeavor while at the same time talking about a treaty with the leader’s country? There have already been reports of Trump’s postelection conversation with the Argentine president, when the president-elect just happened to mention the Trump business’ red-tape problems in Argentina. In California, our Political Reform Act, passed back in the 1974 in the wake of Watergate, prohibits our state dogcatcher from using his official influence to help his personal business interests.
California law, like federal law, allows for our state dogcatcher to put his assets into a blind trust. But the conflicts of interest don’t evaporate that easily. The state official will still know what assets he or she put into the trust (and also that he or she still owns the casino, hotel or golf course because it still has his or her name on it), so any conflict of interest disqualification remains until the trustee of the trust sells off the assets.
The laws that would apply to state dogcatcher would apply equally to Ivanka Trump or Jared Kushner were either to take an official role at the state capital advising the state dogcatcher.
Trump said Monday “it’s very simple” to disentangle his potential conflicts of interest and he will talk about it at his press conference Wednesday.
There’s actually no state dogcatcher in California. But California’s ethics laws apply to thousands of elected and appointed government officials throughout the state, from small town city council member to the governor. Unfortunately for the American people, the laws don’t reach as far as the White House.