Evidence is emerging that state lawmakers are not completely tone deaf or arrogant when it comes to the appearance of impropriety or public concerns over ethics in government.

It is welcome news out of Harrisburg that lawmakers might reconsider the provision in the recently approved slot machines legislation that allows lawmakers to own up to 1 percent of a gambling interest.

Critics correctly note that even 1 percent of a large gambling company could be worth tens of millions of dollars. Lawmakers, as well as members of the governor's administration and the yet-to-be-formed gambling board should not be permitted to own any part of a gambling company.

Defenders say they modeled Pennsylvania's one percent rule after a New Jersey law that is thought to be one of the strictest in the United States. Nevada, by comparison, has no provisions barring lawmakers and other state officials from owning an interest in a gambling company.

Still, permitting any ownership at all seems to be an enticement for corruption. By passing the slots legislation for Pennsylvania, lawmakers in Harrisburg have essentially created a billion-dollar industry in the state that otherwise would not exist. The potential for money-inspired favoritism and payoffs is too great to ignore.

While the 1 percent rule is being challenged, it is disturbing recall that the threshold had earlier been 2 percent, and reportedly few lawmakers outside of party leadership were aware of that provision in the bill. To make matters worse, the original slots legislation allowed lawmakers to own up to 5 percent of gambling interests.

While the 1 percent limit can be debated, it is hard to understand how any lawmaker could have defended the original 5 percent rule. And that limit was only reduced to 2 percent after a Philadelphia newspaper exposed the 5 percent ownership allowance.

Supporters of the 1 percent limit say they included that provision so that a lawmaker owning a mutual fund that happened to own gambling interests would not be violating the law. Though well intentioned, the 1 percent limit is too high. One percent of a company worth billions of dollars is still worth many millions of dollars.

The best solution is a total ban on any ownership of gambling interests by any lawmaker, administration official or gambling board member.

There are various existing disclosure requirements that might ferret out lawmakers' financial stakes with gambling interests, but replacing the one percent allowance with an outright ban will provide additional protection against abuse and corruption.

Many Pennsylvanians have expressed concern and suspicion that slot machine and gambling interests would find ways to enrich lawmakers and other public officials who have helped them - or have the potential to help them in the future. Misgivings have also been expressed in newspapers, including the Butler Eagle, over the appearance of impropriety that would arise from any lawmaker or public official having any ownership stake in gambling operations.

An amendment banning lawmakers from owning any interest in gambling operations is reportedly going to be introduced this fall by state Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks County. Key lawmakers are saying they have no problems taking another look at the rule and substituting it with a complete ban.

Pennsylvania has created a billion-dollar industry with the passage of the slot machines legislation. More than a few people associated with gambling, horse racing, slot machine distribution will become rich - or richer than they already are. State lawmakers, members of the governor's administration or the gambling board should not be among those enriched by slots.

The 1 percent ownership threshold should be eliminated and replaced by a total ban.