Viewpoint: Are legislators ignoring conflict-of-interest provision in Oklahoma Constitution?
Representative democracy works when the voting public trusts that our elected officials are acting on principle and serving the needs of their constituents. Confidence in our system rapidly erodes when lawmakers appear to act in self-promotion or enrichment.
Recognizing that principle, the authors of the Oklahoma Constitution included a conflict-of-interest provision. Article V. Section 24 governs a “Disclosure of Personal or Private Business,” which reads: “A member of the Legislature, who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill, proposed or pending before the Legislature, shall disclose the fact to the House of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.”
Unfortunately, this provision appears to have been roundly ignored in recent legislative sessions, and the kind of self-dealing the Constitution seeks to prevent may be occurring. This past legislative session, for instance, pharmacists who are also elected members of the Legislature worked closely with the pharmaceutical lobby to pass Senate Bill 821, which sought to curb discounts available to consumers who buy prescriptions via mail-order services. Pharmacists oppose mail-order for the same reasons record stores don’t like mp3s: They offer customers a more convenient and oftentimes more affordable way to get the same products.
SB 821 was vetoed; however, the fact remains, the bill was conceived, shepherded through the legislative process and voted upon by lawmakers who appear to have an incentive to see the bill become law, as the legislation likely would have had a direct and predictable effect on their pharmacy businesses. In fact, several other pieces of legislation designed to protect the market share of community pharmacists, reduce regulations on their businesses or stifle competition from large competitors were passed and signed into law. In all instances, legislators who have financial interests in pharmacies were vocal in support, voted upon and key to passage of such measures.
One might argue that conflict-of-interest provisions apply only to legislation that specifically benefits one’s own business, not legislation that appears to benefit all such businesses. While that may be true, the fact of the matter is that the pharmacy lobby is working in concert with a small group of pharmacist-legislators to pass bills that increase the cost of prescription drugs, hurt the bottom line for Oklahoma families and businesses, and increase profits for special interests. As such, the spirit of the constitutional prohibition on self-dealing, if not the letter of the law, is being ignored.
As we approach the next legislative session, our advocate coalition — which includes thousands of Oklahoma families — respectfully asks legislative leadership to ensure that the people of Oklahoma are represented as laws are crafted by impartial, non-conflicted elected officials. Lawmakers who may directly profit from such legislation should take a step back from the legislative process to ensure that no conflict-of-interests, or appearance thereof, exists.
Ericka McPherson is the executive director of the group Oklahoma Families for Affordable Health Care.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Conflict-of-interest provision cannot be ignored by Oklahoma legislators
