Historic ethics reform? Or just more horseshit?

I love when the media reports that the ethics reform (whatever that means) will require more disclosure.

How do they know?  And shouldn't they actually analyze the language before they report on it?

I guess if the legislators can vote on it without understanding it the media can report in the same fashion.

We have now moved from legislation by press release to analysis by press release.

I like to think I have a pretty good handle on ethics and lobby legislation, at least my clients pay me a lot of money because they think I do.  And the way I keep clients happy is by never being wrong.  I know that sounds arrogant but it is basic customer service.  They pay a lot of money they have a right to expect me to be correct.

And for that reason I will not be providing any of them an analysis of the "ethics reform" until next week.  Why? Because I actually have to read the language, understand the language, think about the language and apply the language to real world situations.  AND THAT TAKES TIME.

One of the things I am going to do and I would recommend the media and the goo goos do as well (it's too late for the legislators and the governor never cared as long as he could say it was the strictest ethics laws since Moses passed the 10 commandments) is apply the new disclosure rules to the last 5 legislative outside income scandals and see if the new language would have made a difference.

My initial guess is no.  But I hope to have my Shelly analysis done today and posted before midnight after all an on time analysis is all that matters in this town,  but if I can't get it right the readers will have to wait because getting it right is far more important than any fictional deadline.

Of course if all else fails I'll just call my work historic, the most detailed and comprehensive ethics reform review ever prepared.  And I will expect the media to report it as such.