Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 9, 1999)
Money for nothing UNL should object to ‘rule’ of spending scant resources wooing officials Editor s note: Each Tuesday this semester, the Daily Nebraskan will print an opinion column from a guest columnist. Each works at the University of Nebraska or is involved with an issue that affects our campus or our students. BILL AVERY is a professor of political science. He served on the Common Cause national board from 1990-96. Several weeks ago, the clerk of the Nebraska Legislature released figures on the earnings and expendi tures of those who lobbied the Legislature in 1998. Among the top four spenders was the University of Nebraska, which spent $106,927 on lobbying fees and entertainment. State law requires the reporting of lobbying expenditures each quar ter, but does not force lobbyists to reveal how much is spent on each state senator. That makes it impossi ble to know from the reports who is getting what and how much. But the university, as a tax-sup ported public institution, must honor requests to reveal in greater detail how it spends its lobbying dollars. Last November, at the request of Common Cause, a nonpartisan citi zen group that supports openness and accountability in government, the university opened its 1997 spend ing records to public scrutiny. The records showed that the university knew how to use to best advantage what was commonly considered its most valuable asset: football tickets. All 49 senators were offered free tickets, and 21 accepted them. At a cost of $350 per ticket, this account ed for $7,350 of the $85,959.67 the university spent on lobbying in 1997. Many of the remaining 28 sena tors accepted the tickets, but paid for them, claiming that by paying, they did not get a special benefit. How many fans who have been trying in vain to get season tickets to 1 Husker football games believe that nonsense? The football and other sports related treats do not end with season tickets. Fully 35 senators accepted special press-box tickets at a total cost of $1,960; gameday lunches for senators cost another $924; and it cost $3,900 to send Gov. Ben Nelson to the Orange Bowl. Basketball tick ets and those game day lunches cost an additional $ 1,607. The gift-giving goes beyond Husker sporting events to include free tickets to Lied Center perfor mances and entertainment expenses incurred by President Dennis Smith and other NU officials, such as a Sandhills golfmg trip for Smith and Nelson, that cost at least $460. The university also hired outside lobbyists in 1997 at a cost of $48,000, which appears to be above and beyond the salary paid to former state Sen. Ron Withem, who now heads the university lobbying office. When asked about these expendi tures, university officials patiently explain - as though the question springs from political naivete - that this is how the game is played, and they simply are playing by legal rules they did not create. Of course, this is true to some extent. Other groups with a stake in how state tax dollars are spent also spend large sums win ing and dining senators and the gov ernor. In 1997, the total amount spent by lobbyists on gifts and enter tainment for senators amounted to nearly $250,000. That’s about $5,000 a senator, in addition to their regular pay. Some senators complain that their meager $12,000 annual salary is too low. They argue that the gifts and meals help ease the burden of the sacrifices they make to serve. What they don’t mention is that each receives a generous daily stipend to cover meals and expenses during the legislative session. The biggest joke lies in the vehe ment denials that such lobbying largesse is meant to influence votes. Givers and takers alike bristle at the suggestion that the gifts and enter tainment are in any way meant to sway a senator to vote in a particular way. If you buy that, I want to talk to you alxmt some swampland in Florida. If lobbyists didn’t know gifts and entertainment influenced votes, why on earth would they spend so much money on them? Indeed, in an era of lean budgets and annual appeals for further belt-tightening, how does the university justify spending such large sums this way? A better question might be: Where is the shame? Why doesn’t the Legislature change the rules and ban all gifts? An attempt five years ago to end gift giving met with ridicule among sen ators in floor debate. This winter, Common Cause circulated a bill at the beginning of the session that sim ply would require full disclosure of who gets what. Not a single senator would agree to carry the bill. So another legislative session will proceed as before, with large sums being spent on “influence” gifts and entertainment, and the uni versity once again will devote scarce resources to “playing by the rules.” What should the university’s position be on this issue? Should the university end the practice and “uni laterally disarm” in the battle for state revenues? Should university officials dare to treat our citizen sen ators the same as any other Nebraska student, faculty, staff member or tax payer? Let’s not be naive. The Huskers will make it to the Final Four before this happens. So, here are some more realistic suggestions. First, the university could take the lead in urging the Legislature to adopt rules that ban or sharply limit gifts. This not only would improve the legislative process by reducing the unfair advantage of well-funded special interests, but it also would save scarce university resources. Second, the university could sup port full disclosure. This at least would have the effect of requiring all other lobbying interests in die state to do what the university must do already. It also would open up the lobbying process to more public scrutiny, giving voters the informa tion they need to decide for them selves whether the giving and taking of gifts is out of bounds. As the state’s leading educational institution, the university has a moral obligation to set the highest stan dards for its behavior. Hiding behind the excuse that “everyone is doing it” is not good enough. What is legal is not always right or ethical. Keep on truckin’ New luxury sport-utility vehicles fail tests for sportiness, utility, safety A.L. FORKNER is a junior news-editorial major and a Daily Nebraskan colum nist This just in: Bigger vehicles cause lotsa damage to little vehicles. This shocking information comes from New York Times automotive writer, Keith Bradsher. Bradsher was featured in a Columbia Journalism Review, detailing his painstaking research into the extensive damage large pickups and sport utility vehicles (S.U.Ys) can cause. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Hold on a minute while I dry my tears from your Pulitzer “slight.” Sorry, I really have nothing per sonal against Bradsher. It’s stupid peo ple in general who bother me. (Don’t even get me started on Jerry Springer or Ricki Lake.) It s like the world suddenly real ized that big, heavy things can hurt lit tle, lightweight things. See, where I’m from that’s called survival of the fittest. Great Danes always beat Chihuahuas in a fight - yes, even the cute little Taco Bell guy. Why else do you think he bribed Godzilla with tacos? Even he realized that a recycled beer can (read: Geo) won’t survive a collision with an M-l Abrams. Even with the airbags. So, is there a cry to toughen up the safety standards on smaller cars? Heck no! Instead there’s talk that our pals in government want to lower bumper heights and ground clearances on the pick-em-ups. This makes sense? Make the safe things less safe, and leave the unsafe things alone? Am I the only one that hears the Laurel-and-Hardy music playing in the background? Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the experts do know more than this mild-mannered journalist. Nahhhhh. See, in A.L.’s happy little world, all cars would have at least a foot of ground clearance. Bumpers would be replaced by metal railroad ties. Gun racks would be standard. Now calm down, I’m not talking Weird A.L. Beyond Thunderdome here. (Although... Tina Turner...) I’m just sick of seeing those little cars crumple like a Hamm’s beer can in the smallest collision. What’s the real problem with the pregnant roller skates? It’s all in the materials. Lift the hood on a Ford Festiva. If you look really close, you can still read the labels from the recycled beer cans. In summary, of course the small car endures the most damage. I can’t wait to see the results form the Peterbilt/Suzuki-Sidekick test. I’ll bet a fiver on the semi. Any taxers/ Maybe the whole problem would be solved if we made the bumpers out of Nerf. You know, that’s not that bad of an id... (Note to self: Begin research on Nerf bumpers. Remove all references from column until patent clears.) (Another note to self: D’Oh! Too late! Damn those deadlines!) Of course, whenever there is a good thing, some people have to go and ruin it. Naturally, I’m talking about the owners of any “off-road” vehicle made by Lexus, Lincoln, Mercury, Cadillac or Mercedes. You people S.U.K. In my world, a truck is durable, indestructible and (usually mud-covered. My friends and I have spent many an hour in the Black Hills of South Dakota driving through, around and over nature. Not something you’d want to do in a $40,000 Lexus. My personal choice would be a 1982 Jeep Scrambler with the top off. My friend Jay used to own one. “The Heap” would bounce off trees without catching a second wind. It ran through rivers up to its dash board with no damage. Well, the stereo was a little weird after that, but that’s secondary. Hell, the engine caught fire once, and it was up and running soon after the fire was put out. Now that’s an S.U.V No leather seats, no heated mirrors and no onboard computer navigation system. The jeeps also had no problem on the city streets. Sure, you couldn’t do much more than 55 mph without vibrating your fillings loose. That’s one of their built in safety features. Do I think these luxury “war wagon” S.U.Vs are dangerous? No, the vehicles themselves aren’t. It’s the yahoos who buy them. I think we need a five-day waiting period and background check for buy ing those beasts. A few standards: No one under 6 feet tall allowed. An S.U.V owner would be required to drive off-road at least once a month, and a gravel farm road doesn’t count. Lastly, grocery shopping is strictly prohibited. At the very least, let’s create a sep arate classification on the drivers’ license. Hey, „ * we do it with ^ motorcycles, don’t we? Ford, really happy with you, either. As some may have heard, Ford unveiled their newest beast a few weeks ago. Weighing in at 19 feet long, it’s the largest production vehicle ever built. ' It’s an unwieldy, over-sized behe \ moth. It’s also overkill. In the boonies, this truck would get stuck in a tight switchback, bogged down in the \ mud and wedged * between two trees. It’s just another example of America’s style of taking a good thing too damn far. We couldn’t just be happy with a Jeep Cherokee or a Dodge Durango. Noooo. Americans needed to outdo the neighbors. If he has a Dodge, I need a Lincoln. He has a Lincoln? I need a Lexus. Shoot, they have a Lexus? We have to buy a Mercedes. l i Of course, when the suits get \ their big-buck trucks stuck in a r n snow drift who do they call? I can’t tell for sure, but odds are Jji a 1978 Jeep CJ-7 will answer. AmyMartin/DN
