Lawmakers should leave office long before lobbying

One of the many problems with Nebraska's misguided embrace of term limits is the increase in both the temptation of lawmakers to become lobbyists and the power lobbyists wield among neophyte legislators.

Now, at least one state senator seems to have taken the role of paid lobbyist while still serving, only two years into her first term.

According to disclosure forms, Lincoln Sen. Danielle Nantkes has been paid $7,500 plus $300 in expenses as a consultant for Nebraskans United, a group working against a ballot initiative to ban affirmative action in Nebraska.

For her part, Nantkes, an attorney by profession, says she has done nothing unethical nor illegal, since she was against the ban on affirmative action already.

But what if she were a swing vote on another issue? Should she still accept what amounts to a lobbying payment? Should she abstain from voting on such an issue? And if she does abstain, are her constituents being cheated?

Not one of us, of course, is immune from potential conflict of interest, including NET Radio, which disclosed in today's report that it is underwritten by Common Cause Nebraska, a group which raised objections to Nantkes' activities.

But like Caesar's wife, public officials should be above reproach, avoiding all appearances of evil.

Certainly, accepting outside payment on an issue upon which one is expected to vote should raise concern among those the lawmaker represents.

Lobbying, if it happens at all, should wait until long after a legislator leaves office.