"There's really only one answer . . ."

The answer is to vote out of office every legislator who violates the public trust. Period. It isn't a matter of existing laws being too lenient. We have corruption in government in large part because the voters tolerate it.

This is the result of the absolute arrogance of both parties. Until WE, the People, start holding both parties responsible nothing will change. I challenge my fellow Democrtas to stop worrying about the other side and to demand some accountability from our representatives. I dont give a damn that Ryan Deckert is a nice guy.I'm sure many say the same thing about congressmen Foley. Nice guys do bad things and they need to be held accountable. Deckert holds himself out as a leader. He is a disgrace and should be thrown out of office, as well as the rest of them

Sounds like an argument for term limits to me.
As for the "nice guys"...they are usually the ones that try to get away with crap.

It is actions like this from our state reps, both D and R, that cause me to think twice about the value of voting. It seems to be the rare individual from either side of the aisle who will still represent his/her district after being in the muck for a couple of years. And term limits have not helped where they have been applied--despite the hype from that corner. The older I get, the more I believe that this is the way politics always has been, and always will be. But I will vote this year regardless--26 yr. habit that that is hard to break.

No problem, they'll be sure and hit the hot button issues before re-election to get back in. Biodiesel! Gay Marriage! Taxes!

How does one "forget" that they received free airfare, free hotel, free meal, free drinks, free golf? I'm pretty sure I would remember these "gifts".

Maybe these lobbying and advocacy groups should re-consider whether their gifts are all the rememberable.

It can hardly be argued that staying in a hotel in Hawaii is even remotely related to getting out some message to the public. It does not even belong in the category of a campaign expenditure. It is just like ordinary taxable income . . .

. . . but income that must be made transparent by reason of the status of the candidate and the giver. Do we really want to encourage the trips by excluding such ordinary income from taxation? That is the question. (Less junkmail?)

I could think of much broader transparency to cover ALL convention center type activity by all sorts of interest groups, for-profit and non-profit alike, as a precondition to claiming the same as a valid tax reducing expenditure. Detailed transparency can be a statutory condition on any and all incorporations. If they talk politics then let it all instead be after tax; voluntary for each individual.

Jack, don't the recipients of these gifts have to report the value for income tax purposes?

Yeah Jack! What are the tax implications of the trips?

I doubt that the people who paid for the trips could be seen as acting out of "detached and disinterested generosity," and so the value of the trips is includible in gross income for tax purposes. These folks might try to take an offsetting business deduction, but it wouldn't be a sure thing.

If they didn't report the income, though, they had all better be filing amended tax returns along with their amended little Salem papers.

Jail is where these folks belong. "I forgot! I went to Israel!" would be pretty funny, if it weren't so sick.

One could argue that term limits actually encourage this stuff. Why? Wide-eyed newbies can get blinded with all the gifts that their new friends, er, lobbyists throw at them. Perhaps those who've been around know the rules and what to steer clear of. Not that anyone with common sense wouldn't question such generosity in the first place...

But then I see Karen Minnis on the list. Can we put term limits in effect for her district only??

Trips to Israel for state level politicians paid for by a local religious organization? I don't understand how a member of the state legislature would have a profound impact on U.S. foreign policy such that such a trip could be justified. Maybe I'm missing something here.

I agree with Mr. Merkley.