While she was Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin faced numerous allegations of ethics violations -- charges she called frivolous and cited as one of her reasons for resigning from office last year. Now the ethics reforms proposed by the state's attorney general are being criticized by those who filed ethics complaints against Palin.

These former critics of Palin say ethics reforms should be drafted and debated by legislators, not created by Attorney General Dan Sullivan without a vote.

One person testifying before a legislative committee raised concern that the state Personnel Board -- whose members are appointed by the governor -- is not sufficiently independent to ensure that state officials comply with ethics rules. A state legislator echoed this concern, saying that the Personnel Board and top state officials may have "too close of a relationship."

One of Florida's largest newspapers welcomes the state legislature's pursuit of ethics reform. In this recent editorial, the Sun Sentinel offers lawmakers some advice:

... the Legislature would be smart to improve the U.S. "honest services" law with a detailed Florida version rather than to copy the federal one. The federal law has served anti-corruption efforts well, but it appears headed for possible undoing by the U.S. Supreme Court for constitutionality concerns.

The newspaper says the legislature should be more than capable of writing a new ethics law that is specific enough to survive any constitutional or other legal challenges:

If the state can delineate a whole book of driving statutes that dictate everything from when to use your headlights to where to park your car, surely it can specify what warrants a range of criminal behavior for public officials, from voting on issues where there's a personal financial stake to accepting bags stuffed with cash in exchange for a vote.

In fact, those are such no-brainer acts of criminal conduct, it's almost laughable that they're not already outlawed by state statute, and it says something about a neglectful Legislature that they're not.

The package of ethics reform that the state legislature in New York has drafted are a good start, but this editorial in today's New York Times complains that:

... the plan is not the full-fledged housecleaning necessary for a place that has gone too long without the slightest dusting of reform.

And the Times editorial also criticizes the package for not adequately addressing the issue of lawmakers' outside income:

The (current) proposal would mandate more disclosure, including requirements that lawmakers list income ranges to $1 million or more. That is a clear improvement, but there is a big hole: exemptions for the Legislature’s lawyers, including Mr. Silver, who would not be required to list clients. That is wrong. A lawmaker’s first obligation is to the public, not the clients.

Let's hope other newspapers and commentators join the Times in urging legislators to set a high bar for ethics reform.

Maybe. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, pro-ethics reform groups are feeling that momentum is on their side in Georgia.

Reform legislation is likely to take aim at a variety of problems. The newspaper writes:

Currently, there’s no limit on lobbyist spending on lawmakers, just a requirement that it be reported.

In the House, there’s bipartisan support for a bill introduced Wednesday by Rep. Wendell Willard (R-Sandy Springs) that would place a $100 cap on gifts from lobbyists.

The cap would likely cut out the high-priced meals, airline tickets and trips to The Masters golf tournament that the public finds objectionable, said Willard ...

A bill by Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur) would set a gift limit of $25.

However, potential loopholes could remain.

Neither bill would keep lobbyists from treating legislators multiple times, provided each time they stayed within the cost cap.

Willard said his bill also might not stop lobbyists from sharing the expense of a gift that exceeds the limit.

A spokesperson for Common Cause Georgia says "the timing is right" for serious ethics reform. Hopefully, the final legislation that Georgia legislators pass will prove his assessment was correct.

Scandals like this one should prompt legislators to move beyond talk and enact real reform.

By a margin of 102-11, the South Carolina House of Representatives has voted to censure its ethically disgraced governor. According to the Associated Press:

Before the vote, (Gov. Mark) Sanford said he wouldn't attend the session or watch and would have no comment. "It is what it is," Sanford said.

... The censure requires state Senate approval for passage.

... In addition to the censure, Sanford also faces up to $74,000 in fines from the State Ethics Commission, which contends he broke more than three dozen laws involving travel in pricey airline seats, using state aircraft for personal and political trips and improper reimbursements.

Gov. Sanford's serious ethical lapses were cited last month by CREW when we released our Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009. Click here to read this document -- the Sanford scandal is summarized on page 4.

The South Carolina House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a resolution that formally censures Gov. Mark Sanford for "dereliction in his duties of office as Governor and for official misconduct that has brought dishonor to himself."

Click here to read the text of the resolution that the SC House will consider.

A state House committee declined last month to approve an impeachment resolution, opting instead to support a censure of the GOP governor.

Yesterday, the Georgia Legislature elected a new House Speaker who vowed to restore the public's confidence in the wake of a major legislative scandal.

As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

... (last month) former House Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) announced his plans to resign after his ex-wife told the world via a series of devastating television interviews that Richardson cheated on her with a lobbyist for a local utility company while championing legislation to benefit his paramour's employer.

Susan Richardson's decision to reveal her ex-husband's infidelities, as well as his need for attention and sympathy, did not cost only Richardson. It opened the floodgates on a month of rumor mongering and depictions of the Gold Dome as frat house rather than people's house.