Leashing Lobbyists

This year Speaker Taylor and Sen. Miller tried to push through a ban on business deals between lobbyists and legislators but could get votes for only a disclosure requirement on such dealings. The two leaders did create a special commission to come up with recommendations for new regulations to be presented to legislative leaders this fall. That commission has now approved a set of recommendations--not as tough as commission chairman Don Robertson, a former House majority leader, and some other members had sought but definite improvements.

The commission recommends a licensing system that would leave lobbyists open to tough sanctions, including revocation of licenses, for violations of the law. The panel also recommends new disclosure requirements on dinner parties and other lobbyist-hosted receptions held for legislative committees (one-on-one entertaining was banned last year, but the feting of committees was left to flourish). Another recommendation is for new reporting requirements on political contributions by lobbyists to lawmakers, the governor and other elected officials.

Topping the way-overdue category is the recommendation that would give the state's ethics commission authority to revoke the registration of a lobbyist who "has been convicted of bribery, theft or other crime involving moral turpitude." That ought to be automatic, but after the 1995 conviction of Bruce C. Bereano on federal mail fraud charges, he lobbied on behalf of clients while serving time in a halfway house, and continues to lobby now at the State House.

Maryland lawmakers who complain that these attempts to tighten ethics make all members of the legislature look bad because of the behavior of a few ought to think again. They should welcome the changes as a way both to curb opportunities for misconduct and to improve the public's perceptions of how business in Annapolis is conducted.

Lines form in Cumberland over track

It won't be Liston vs. Clay, but it should provide Maryland racing fans some entertainment as thoroughbreds continue racing in other states.

On Wednesday, the Maryland Racing Commission will conduct a public hearing in Cumberland on the proposed horse track in Western Maryland. So many people want to speak that the hearing, which will start at 3 p.m., will probably run into the evening.

Said John Franzone, chairman of the racing commission: "We're getting quite a reaction. Hopefully, it won't be hostile."

He said he had received 50 to 60 letters about the proposed track - all in opposition.

"That's to be expected," Franzone says. "You've got anti-growth people, anti-noise, anti-traffic. You've got people with environmental concerns."

And you've got people who don't approve of gambling.

Franzone says he does expect business operators to speak in favor of the track.

The applicants for the license to build and operate the track will summarize their plans in 10- to 15-minute briefings. They are William Rickman Jr. and Joe De Francis.

Rickman, a Montgomery County developer and owner of Delaware Park, has applied for the license with his father, William Rickman Sr. They want to build a track on the eastern side of Allegany County, about 25 miles east of Cumberland.

De Francis, president and CEO of the, has applied for the license with Cloverleaf Enterprises, owners of Rosecroft Raceway. They have proposed building a track on the western side of Allegany County, about five miles west of Cumberland.

Each proposal calls for short thoroughbred and harness meets, presumably in the summer, and year-round simulcasting.

If the commission approves establishing a track at either of the sites, it would become the fifth horse track in Maryland.

Franzone says that public reaction will be one factor in the selection process. More significant may be the commission hearing in November or December where the applicants will meet in a more formal, court-like setting.

At that as yet unscheduled hearing, the commissioners will consider reports from the Maryland Stadium Authority about the proposed track's site and construction. They will also hear from consultants about the track's financial viability. If the outlook is gloomy, neither plan would get the go-ahead.

"We don't want to be the commission that grants a license for a track that doesn't get off the ground or goes belly up in a year," Franzone said. "We'll do what our charter says: Do what's best for Maryland racing."

Although House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr., who lives in Cumberland, has made it clear he wants a track in his home county, his desire will not sway commissioners, Franzone said.

"It has nothing to do with Cas Taylor," he said. "This idea that everybody's under marching orders is ridiculous."

At 11 a.m. on the same day, the racing commission will hold its regular monthly meeting. That meeting and the public hearing that follows will take place at the Holiday Inn in Cumberland, 100 S. George St.

One item on the agenda is Rickman's application for the license to operate Ocean Downs, the harness track on the Eastern Shore. Rickman is buying the track from its current owner, Bally's, in hopes of launching into the construction of off-track betting parlors and the creation of a telephone-betting system.

Rickman said he will settle on the Ocean Downs' property about Oct. 15, assuming the racing commission grants his request for an operator's license.

Controls on state lobbying pushed
Task force proposes licensing system, reported donations; Several scandals addressed

A state task force is recommending sweeping changes to Maryland's lobbying laws, including establishing a licensing system that would leave lobbyists open to tough sanctions if they engaged in misconduct.

If approved by the General Assembly, the proposed changes would allow the State Ethics Commission to suspend or revoke a lobbyist's registration to work in Annapolis. The commission also could impose steep fines for wrongdoing.

The licensing measure, favored by some top legislators, including House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr., won approval with little discussion at a meeting last night of the Study Commission on Lobbyist Ethics.

The panel rejected a proposal by Chairman Donald B. Robertson, a former House majority leader, to ban political contributions by registered lobbyists and to severely restrict their attendance at fund-raisers. But it unanimously endorsed a proposal that would require such lobbyists to report their donations to candidates for the legislature or for statewide office.

The task force also decided to drop all efforts to impose lobbying restrictions or reporting obligations on local governments or organizations representing municipalities and counties.

Kathleen Skullney, head of a government watchdog group, called the report "a mixed bag," but said "there are some very important parts that are going forward."

The task force, which includes key lawmakers, lobbyists and representatives of the public, was created last year by the General Assembly to review lobbying laws in the wake of several scandals.

In the most recent, lobbyist Gerard E. Evans was convicted of federal mail fraud charges in a case involving his lobbying activities.

Skullney, executive director of Common Cause/Maryland, said the task force's recommendation to, in effect, license lobbyists and set a code of conduct with significant penalties for violators was especially significant.

"For the first time, there are meaningful sanctions being proposed for lobbyists who violate the ethics laws," she said.

Robertson expressed disappointment that the commission turned down the ban on political contributions by lobbyists.

"I don't think that the reporting requirement gets to the heart of the problem we were attempting to address with the prohibition, but it is a step forward," he said.

Skullney said the code of conduct the task force is recommending could help address problems that arise from intense competition among lobbyists in Annapolis for clients and fees.

"If you can eliminate some of the cutthroat competition, you are probably going to eliminate some of the serious abuses," she said.

The task force's recommendations will be considered during the annual legislative session that starts in January.

The recommendation on licensing would greatly expand the authority of the State Ethics Commission to regulate lobbyists.

It would give the commission authority to suspend, for up to three years, the registration of any lobbyist who violated state law regulating their behavior. The commission could take that step if necessary "to protect the public interest and the integrity of the governmental process."

The commission also would have the authority to revoke the registration of a lobbyist who "has been convicted of bribery, theft, or other crime involving moral turpitude."

The measure appeared aimed at addressing situations such as the one involving lobbyist Bruce C. Bereano, who in 1999 lobbied on behalf of clients from a halfway house where he was serving time on a federal felony conviction for mail fraud.

Under the proposal, the commission could reinstate a lobbyist whose registration had been revoked or suspended if the panel later decided that was appropriate.

The types of actions that could lead to tough sanctions are spelled out, in part, in a code of conduct section of the task force proposal.

One provision targets "bell ringing" - a practice that was at the heart of the federal fraud case against Evans.

The term refers to the practice of a lobbyist getting legislation introduced for purposes of opposing it in an attempt to make money from clients who want the legislation killed.

Hey! Let's get a refund!

They cancel the Rocky Gap Festival's Sunday headliner, get on the radio and tell people not to come out because of the weather, and then announce that they don't give refunds.

They will, however, give you a free upgrade when you purchase your tickets next year. What a swell bunch of guys!

We hate to be party-poopers, but we're not interested in next year's concert. We want our money back. In fact, all ticket holders to the Rocky Gap Festival's canceled Sunday show should be given a refund. And don't tell us that it says "Non-refundable" on the tickets - all tickets say that. "Non-refundable" is on there so people won't try to get a refund if they can't go to the concert because Aunt Madge shows up at their house an hour before showtime. "Non-refundable" is not on there so concert organizers can keep the money when they cancel the show.

In light of this, our intrepid investigators have come up with two options for ticket holders. First, if you purchased your tickets using a credit card, you can contact your credit card company and tell them the concert was canceled, and that the Rocky Gap Foundation is refusing to give refunds. You can then request they charge the cost of the tickets back to the Foundation. Your credit card company will credit your account and go after the Foundation for the money owed. You can excercise this option even though you purchased your tickets several months ago.

The other option is this: you can contact the Maryland Attorney General's Office, which houses the state's Consumer Complaint Division.

To go through them, here's what you need to do:

Go on-line to http://www.oag.state.md.us and print out a consumer complaint form.
Fill out the form and mail it, along with photocopies of your tickets and your receipt, your canceled check or your credit card bill to:

Attorney General's Office
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202
Attn: Consumer Protection

About a week after you send in your information, call the Attorney General's office at 410-576-6300 and ask to speak to someone in the Consumer Complaint Division (don't call the consumer hotline - you'll be on hold forever). Ask for a case number, so you can track it. After that, you get to wait. We're not sure how long - this is government, remember, so don't expect a speedy resolution.

But at least you'll have a shot - and if the Attorney General's office won't help, you can at least demand to know why.

Good luck, ticket holders. Let us know how you fare.

Schaefer assails Dixon as 2-1 balance shifts on Board of Public Works
Comptroller annoyed with treasurer, blames pressure from Assembly

Comptroller William Donald Schaefer lashed out publicly at Treasurer Richard N. Dixon yesterday, accusing him of becoming a rubber stamp for Gov. Parris N. Glendening on the powerful Board of Public Works.

Schaefer's outburst at yesterday's board meeting signals an apparent end to what Annapolis observers have described as "an unholy alliance" of the two officials in opposition to Glendening.

"The treasurer now is the second vote for the governor," Schaefer said after the meeting. "All of a sudden, anything the governor says is OK."

The comptroller, treasurer and governor are the three members of the board, which reviews all major state contracts and many spending decisions. Since Schaefer's election in 1998, he and Dixon have from time to time joined forces to block Glendening decisions.

But yesterday, after Dixon sat mute while Schaefer raised complaint after complaint about Glendening administration actions, the comptroller launched into a public denunciation of the treasurer.

In the acid tones Schaefer usually reserves for Glendening and the governor's underlings, the comptroller mocked Dixon's policy of refusing to second-guess decisions of the General Assembly, which elects the treasurer.

"You're telling me that just because the General Assembly approves it, it's all right?" demanded Schaefer, who was questioning the long-standing practice of letting the recipients of state loans and grants select their own contractors without formal bidding.

Dixon defended the practice as a "local prerogative" endorsed by the General Assembly in many bond bills.

Schaefer recalled that he had joined Dixon, a former Carroll County delegate, in opposing the governor's decision to cancel a bypass project in Manchester.

"You've given up?" Schaefer taunted. "I'm not going to just cave in because the governor waves his hands and everybody caves in."

"I haven't given up, but [the governor] makes the final decision," Dixon replied.

During the exchange, Glendening sat impassively between the two officials, showing little reaction to Schaefer's criticisms over matters great and small.

The comptroller's exchange with Dixon capped a 2 1/2 -hour meeting at which Schaefer repeatedly questioned even minuscule government contracts, frequently implying that the bidding had been rigged.

After the meeting, Dixon played down the clash, saying, "I'm not aware of any falling out" with Schaefer. But the comptroller continued to fume, lamenting that Dixon had stopped being an independent voice after a meeting with General Assembly leaders.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller confirmed that he and House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. had met with Dixon this summer to discuss his handling of the treasurer's job.

"We stressed to him that government was a team effort," Miller said. The Senate leader said Assembly leaders reminded the conservative Dixon that he was elected by a Democratic legislature with more liberal views.

Miller denied there had been any "arm-twisting" of Dixon. "Nobody expects him to be a toady or lackey for anybody," he said.

"I think former Governor Schaefer tends to be frustrated by the fact he is no longer governor of the state of Maryland and he is one of only three votes on the Board of Public Works," Miller said.

 

House Speaker Taylor is hit with unprecedented criticism
After 27 years,  legislator's honeymoon with Allegany is over

 But this is a miserable May for the powerful speaker, who has become the target  of unusually harsh home-town criticism over his handling of local and statewide  issues. 

 "You are looking at a very wounded man, spiritually wounded. I'm not kidding  you," Taylor lamented last week in his downtown district office. "In 27 years,  I've never gone through what I've been going through right now. I'm being  crucified with lies and distortions." 

 The 65-year-old Democrat, whose mastery of the House of Delegates is  unquestioned, is taking a pounding in once-friendly newspaper columns and radio  talk shows in his native Cumberland.  

On one flank are sportsmen, who feel betrayed over his support for Gov. Parris  N. Glendening's gun safety bill. On the other are parents outraged by Taylor's  opposition to the school board's decision to move forward with a money-saving  school consolidation plan. 

 From the hills are coming pot shots over his support for a racetrack in rural  Little Orleans. 

 Taylor remains popular among Allegany County's leaders, but there are signs of  problems at the grass roots, where some see him as a remote and autocratic  figure. 

 Moms at Little League fields are criticizing his immensely successful efforts to  bring jobs to Western Maryland as so much prison-building. 

 Student council members at a Cumberland high school have circulated a bulletin  questioning his ethics and describing him as "our so-called Allegany County  "god.'" 

 The mounting damage has prompted some local activists to speculate that the  once-unassailable Taylor - who has never had a primary opponent or been in a  close general election race in a quarter-century in the General Assembly - could  be vulnerable if he seeks re-election. 

 "There are people, Republicans and Democrats, who are searching for someone to  run against him who would be a viable candidate," said Kimi-Scott McGreevy, a  Cumberland mother and Democrat supporting the school board's fight with Taylor  over school closings. 

 Any insurgent candidacy would be the longest of long shots. Even local  Republican leaders say they want Taylor to stay where he is. 

 "Cas does so much for Western Maryland. If we would ever lose him as Speaker of  the House, Allegany County and all of Western Maryland would suffer," said Dale  R. Lewis, a Republican county commissioner and member of the GOP central  committee.

  In Annapolis, Taylor is regarded as Western Maryland's greatest political asset.  As House speaker since 1994, he has used the influence of his office to win  hundreds of millions of state and federal dollars for projects in the  economically distressed region.

  The value of his influence is nowhere more apparent than in downtown Cumberland,  a city that is showing signs of a rebound after decades of decline caused by the  loss of major industrial employers.

  Standing on the platform of the historic Western Maryland Railway terminal,  under restoration with the money the speaker brought home, Taylor pointed to  where his legacy is taking shape.

  There's the parkway that will run to the airport, thanks to $50 million in state  funds. There's Canal Place, a $250 million state and federal project that will  bring the now-dry C&O Canal back into the heart of Cumberland, where tourists  will be able to ride like 19th-century travelers on canal boats pulled by mules. 

 "I'd like to leave this place better than I found it," Taylor said. 

 His efforts have won him the gratitude of many local citizens. 

 Gino Giatras, owner of the 82-year-old Coney Island and Curtis hot dog shop,  refused a visitor's offer to pay for a lunch with the speaker. 

 "Without Cas up here in Western Maryland, there'd be no money," Giatras said.  "At least we got a foothold with Cas."

  But with local unemployment down by almost half from its 1992 peak of 13.3  percent, some constituents feel free to question the type of jobs Taylor has  brought to Allegany County. 

 "All he's done is bring prisons and. . .a playground for the rich at Rocky Gap,"  said Nina Rizer of Cumberland. She was one of several county residents to  express resentment over the state-funded Rocky Gap resort, for which Taylor was  the leading advocate. 

 With no recent polls available, it is difficult to tell whether Taylor is in  serious political trouble. But even if the recent attacks are merely the work  of a vocal minority, they are finding their target in the proud and sometimes  touchy former tavern owner.

  "I'm hurt. I don't think I've ever been as hurt in my life as I have been in  the last month," Taylor said.

  Some of the criticism is being fanned by the National Rifle Association and  guns-rights groups over his role in passing Glendening's landmark gun-safety  legislation. 

 Gun control is far less popular in Western Maryland than in other parts of the  state, and Taylor was the only delegate west of Hagerstown to vote for the bill,  the first in the nation to require built-in locks on handguns. 

 More deeply damaging is a local battle over the future of the Allegany County  school system, in which Taylor has alienated a significant number of his  constituents. 

 The problem stems from the county's population drop, which has sent the number  of public school students falling from about 18,000 to 10,000 over the past  decade.

  In spite of that decline, the school board was for years unable to muster the  political will to close under-populated schools. That temporizing has left the  system in a serious financial pinch.

  This year, with the sense of crisis growing, a board majority led by machine  shop operator Tim Woodring finally decided to move ahead with consolidation, a  stand that has won considerable support in Cumberland. 

 As a result of various actions, Taylor has become identified as the leading foe  of consolidation, which he says is not the case.

  Taylor says it's "crazy" to implement a consolidation plan before a study can be  done by a professional consultant, but the board decided a delay would force  unacceptable curriculum cuts. 

 Erin DeLong, a parent who supports the board, suspects the audit is a ploy to  derail consolidation. 

 "We don't have any faith that it's going to be truly independent," said DeLong,  a Republican who voted for Taylor in 1998 but is disenchanted.

  The board also decided to reject $1 million in state aid Glendening put in his  budget at Taylor's request to help the school system balance its books for next  year. 

 Members balked at budget language that would have required them to hold off on  closings until the audit was complete. 

 Accurate or not, the notion has gained hold in Allegany County that a meddlesome  and dictatorial speaker is interfering with an independent local board to spare  rural constituents from school closings that are necessary. 

 "There is definitely a perception that the speaker is involved at a level higher  than he should be," said Woodring.

  The school issue and the gun brouhaha became intertwined when the Cumberland  newspaper ran a page one story - about a week after the fact - that Taylor was  supporting a compromise gun-safety bill. The article was juxtaposed with news  that the governor had offered the additional $1 million to county schools.

  Critics charged that Taylor had "sold" his vote on the gun bill. The allegation  was recycled in a bulletin issued by the student council at Allegany High  School, where rumors swirled that Taylor was behind a proposal to close the  school. 

 The bulletin went on to insinuate, without offering evidence, that Taylor's  actions were motivated by financial gain. "Backroom politics are at work and  personal gain and power is at hand for our speaker of the House," it said.

  When shown the bulletin, Taylor tossed it on the table and called it "totally  trash." 

 "I've never suggested to any human being that Allegany High School be closed or  restructured. It's absurd," he said. 

 He expressed outrage over the allegations of vote-trading and rumors of  financial motives. 

 "They're inferring that I'm a liar, that I'm crooked. I resent it to the depth  of my soul," he said. 

 The problem for Taylor is that the charges are being taken seriously by  constituents such as Frances Hixon, 34. Hixon, who was interviewed at a local  Little League field, said she had heard a lot of speculation that Taylor's role  in the school controversy is motivated by personal gain. 

 Her husband is an NRA member who was bothered by the gun-safety vote. "People  think with these two issues now in Allegany County, he may be able to be  defeated," she said. 

 Taylor said he does not intend to back down from any fights, and he appears  ready to seek re-election and another term as speaker in 2002. If he does, "I'm  going to approach it with all my heart and the fighting spirit I learned as a  kid," he said.  

 Originally published May 7, 2000

Del. slot king eyes Maryland

THE Slots King of Delaware wants to bring his act to Maryland. And political leaders - including our "no slots, no way" governor are opening the door for him to Maryland racing.

William Rickman Jr. has made a fortune with slot machines at Delaware Park racetrack. Some estimates put his take at $100 million a year from the slots bonanza.

He's got cash to burn, and he wants "in" on Maryland racing. He's indicated interest in buying out the owners of Pimlico and Laurel or the owners of the Rosecroft harness track. To no avail.

So Mr. Rickman has settled on building a race track in Western Maryland. There's no money to be made from racing a few weeks each summer in rural Allegany County, but it would permit Mr. Rickman to open off-track betting facilities in Maryland and run a telephone wagering operation that could turn into a gold mine.

He'd then be positioned to control Maryland racing and squeeze the profits of the Pimlico/Laurel and Rosecroft owners.

Will he also bring slots to Maryland?

Supporters say no, he wants to ensure his slots franchise won't have competition from Maryland tracks. But if Mr. Rickman were to own the major tracks here, he could change his tune.

Whatever Mr. Rickman's true intentions, he's got potent allies. He won Gov. Parris N. Glendening's attentive ear by lavishing huge campaign donations on the Democratic Party and Vice President Al Gore. At a recent high-roller's fund raiser in Georgetown, Mr. Rickman sat next to the governor.

The Slots King has won the allegiance of House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr., who went to bat for Mr. Rickman during dangled negotiations over a racetrack bill this year. Mr. Rickman hasn't been shy about letting people know the House Speaker's on his side.

For instance, at a racing commission meeting two weeks ago, Mr. Rickman reminded the commissioners that House Speaker Taylor wanted a rapid decision on Western Maryland track operator, and that he was ready to build the track with cash.

His site for a Western Maryland track could end up in lengthy litigation. Residents at the site are fiercely opposed to any gambling there. They say there's already a major water problem, and that a racetrack would create environmental concerns.

Besides, his site is about as anti-Smart Growth as you can get. It's far from any infra- structure or population center. In contrast, the competing site of the Pimlico/Laurel and Rosecroft owners is on the edge of Frostburg, between the county's two population cen- ters, with access to the town's sewer and water systems.

If the governor's much-touted Smart Growth policy is more than an empty slogan, Mr. Rickman could have problems.

He also could face additional competition for that racing license. Now that the legisla- ture has granted the Western Maryland track licensee new powers to open OTB facilities and become a player in telephone wagering, the racing commission could be legally required to seek new bids. This time, other racetracks with deep pockets may have intense interest.

Why? Because Maryland's telephone wagering law is so advantageous that this state could become the national headquarters for such operations, which could mean tens of millions of dollars for those running the local system.

Suddenly, a money-losing racetrack in Western Maryland could be the key to a fortune.

But gaining that track is fraught with dangers: Racing and corruption are closely linked in this state. Scandals erupted in the 1940s and again in the 1970s. A governor went to prison for manipulating racing days.

And now the racing commission has to choose an operator for a new track in Western Maryland. If politicians continue to interfere in the competitive bidding, if they hand- wrap a racetrack for a favored applicant, will federal or state prosecutors suddenly take an interest?

Never underestimate the convoluted twists and turns of decisions affecting Maryland's racing industry. Mr. Rickman is still the new kid on the block. Things could get a lot messier and more complicated than he ever imagined.

Barry Rascovar is deputy editorial page editor. Originally published May 7, 2000

Legislator-lobbyist ethics must improve

By Barry Rascovar

WHEN will they learn? When will state lawmakers understand the damage they inflict on themselves -- and the people of Maryland -- by refusing to change the culture in Annapolis that openly invites lobbyists to taint the legislative process?

Lobbyist and lawmaker have a parasitic relationship in the State House, though it's often difficult to distinguish which is the host and which is the blood-sucking insect.

As the corruption trial of lobbyist Gerard E. Evans and West Baltimore Del. Tony E. Fulton showed, it's a sick relationship.

Too many legislators are eager for lobbyists to fill their campaign coffers with tens of thousands of dollars from their clients -- even if that obligates them to return the favor at a later date.

Too many legislators are anxious for lobbyists to pressure clients for donations to projects and charities in lawmakers' districts.

And too many lobbyists are so intent on winning at any cost in the race for more business that they cut ethical corners and connive with legislators to manipulate the legislative process.

While lobbyists no longer subsidize the good life for lawmakers -- a recent law prohibits wining and dining of legislators -- and the days of under-the-table payments to lawmak- ers are long gone, there's a new system in vogue: Legislators put pressure on lobbyists to enrich their reelection campaigns.

Even state legislators with safe seats and no opposition squeeze lobbyists for big contributions.

And even the most junior legislators feel emboldened to hold $500-a-ticket events and distribute tickets for sale to the top corps of lobbyists.

Lawmakers also are coercing lobbyists to contribute to their favorite charities. House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. holds a big fund-raiser each year to benefit the Rocky Gap Music Festival. There's a reason every lobbyist of note feels required to attend and sell tickets to his or her clients.

Delegate Fulton claimed in his trial testimony (he was acquitted; Mr. Evans was convicted) that lawmakers often use their power to twist a lobbyist's arm. In essence, he threat- ened to introduce a bill opposed by paint companies to get them to buy him off.

How? By contributing money to charity programs in his impoverished district. He did it, the delegate said, for the kids of District 40.

It sounded like a Jerry Lewis telethon, with the local emcee encouraging companies to ante up: "OK gang, let's do it for Tony's kids!"

Privately, lobbyists bemoan all this legalized extortion. They feel trapped. But they have done little to end the situation.

Lobbyists are partners in creating this mess. Many of them are so intent on gaining an advantage for a client that they adopt an "anything goes" approach.

So much money is up for grabs that lobbyist competition is cut-throat fierce. For a growing number of them, it's an endless game of "king of the hill."

Proximity to lawmakers is critical. The closer you get, the better.

Is it any wonder that Gerry Evans, the one-time king of the lobbyist hill, stood as godfather for some of Senate President Mike Miller's children? Or that several major clients came Mr. Evans' way after they met with Mr. Miller about bills that had encountered troubles in the Maryland Senate?

Is it any wonder that unregistered lobbyist William Rickman got what he wanted in racing legislation after discussing charity contributions in Western Maryland with Speaker Taylor?

There's no smoking gun for prosecutors to follow. No indictable offenses here. But there's a growing awareness among ordinary citizens that something's amiss.

What takes place would never be condoned by a lobbyist's priest or a legislator's rabbi.

Yet lawmakers continue to turn a blind eye. Here's proof. The indictable offenses that put Mr. Evans and Mr. Fulton on trial in federal court -- fraud, collusion, deception -- were first exposed last winter by The Sun.

Yet when the legislature's ethics committee took up the matter, it didn't even question the two individuals involved. The panel dismissed the allegations out of hand. The mes- sage was clear: Such conduct is acceptable in Annapolis.

Honest lawmakers -- that's most of them -- haven't found the courage to erect thick, visible barriers between themselves and those who seek to influence votes.

They have become too dependent on lobbyists to finance their campaigns. They have allowed themselves to be seduced by overtures of friendship and a helping hand.

When a commission led by Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin recommended tougher ethics laws for legislators, resistance was so strong the original bill was watered down.

When Senate President Miller and Speaker Taylor reacted to the Evans-Fulton scandal by introducing a bill banning financial deals between legislators and lobbyists, they got so much grief from their colleagues they settled for a weak substitute to save face.

And when former House Majority Leader Donald B. Robertson presents his panel's rec- ommendations on lobbyist reforms later this year, be prepared for similar resistance from senators and delegates.

They just don't get it. Ethics and legislating ought to go hand in hand. But that would require significant changes in the status quo. Apparently both sides are so comfortable with the situation that they'd rather continue to fight than switch.

Barry Rascovar is deputy editorial page editor.