In California, three state senators were suspended from their positions last week following a federal investigation and sting operation that led to a range of charges from trafficking firearms to accepting money for political favors.

The suspension was unprecendented in state history, according to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who said the suspension action “puts this house on formal record that we unequivocally distance ourselves and the Senate from the unfathomable allegations. . . .”

The three lawmakers, all Democrats, were suspended in a 28-1 vote. The one vote in oppostion came from a lawmaker who objected to suspension with pay, saying the lawmakers should have been expelled and “didn’t deserve a paid vacation.”

Accepting the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, the majority voted for suspension, with pay.

Gov. Jerry Brown called for all three of the lawmakers facing charges to resign.

State Sen. Leland Yee is accused of conspiracy to traffic in firearms and accepting $100,000 in bribes for legislative favors.

In case a similar situation comes up again, Steinberg, D-Sacramento, is introducing legislation to allow the Legislature to withhold pay from any suspended lawmaker, pending the outcome of investigations or trials.

There is irony, even hypocrisy, in the California case. Yee was known as a gun-control crusader — now charged with trafficking.

Now, take a look at Pennsylvania, where four state lawmakers have been caught on tape allegedly accepting cash and other gifts from an informant pretending to be a lobbyist. The issue made headlines a few weeks ago when state Attorney General Kathleen Kane decided to stop the investigation and not pursue corruption charges because she claimed the operation was poorly managed and targeted black officials.

The four lawmakers are Democrats from the Philadelphia area. The actions of Kane, a Democrat, have been widely criticized.

Reacting to the accusations of bribery, the state Legislature has begun work on a tougher gift law, possibly banning all cash gifts from lobbyists. There is less talk of a total gift ban, which is something found in nine states.

Unlike in Sacramento, the four Pennsylvania lawmakers remain in the Legislature. In fact, they are running for re-election.

In California, lawmakers seem embarrassed by the scandal. The bi-partisan vote for suspension reportedly could cost state Democrats the chance to regain the super-majority they need to pass tax increases or veto bills without support from Republicans.

In Pennsylvania, lawmakers talk as if they are embarrassed by the bribe-taking, but it’s just talk, so far. It should be noted the amount of money was greater in California. Still, Harrisburg doesn’t seem to be moving toward suspension or even censure.

Why are California lawmakers willing to take the bold move of suspension, while Pennsylvania’s lawmakers just talk about possible ethics reforms and banning cash gifts?

Pennsyvlania’s General Assembly appears to have a much higher threshhold for embarrassment, considering there was inititally broad defense of the 2 a.m. vote in July of 2005 giving themselves generous pay raises. There’s no evidence of embarrassment in Harrisburg over the 2001 pension grab in which state lawmakers voted themselves a 50 percent pension increase, effectively a deferred pay raise.

Honest Harrisburg lawmakers, meaning the majority, should be embarrassed by their bribe-taking colleagues, and should vote to suspend them. They should also be embarrassed by the fact that Pennsylvania’s ethics laws are ranked among the weakest in the nation. More than being embarrassed, they should take action to change the laws.

While better ethics laws would be a good thing, better lawmakers would be even better.

— J.L.W.III