House Democrats start fast; pass gift ban
The House Democrats kicked off the session as they promised they would -- banning gifts from lobbyists and others with business before the House. From the announcement (pdf):
19.50 Gifts Prohibited. Members of the House of Representatives as well as to their employees and the staff of the Office of the Chief Clerk shall not solicit or accept gifts from individuals, businesses, or organizations that have business before the Legislature.19.55 Definitions. “Gifts” are items of value worth more than $10.00, entertainment, out-of-state travel and lodging, and meals. More detailed definitions of these categories of gifts are in the Gift Guidelines dated January 8th, 2007, which is adopted by reference in this rule.
Of course, the House Republicans - whose leadership had previously agreed to the rules change - played a little partisan politics. From the O:
House Speaker Jeff Merkley, D-Portland, offered new rules that limit the gifts legislators can receive to $10 or less. The rules also ban lobbyist-paid entertainment, out-of-state travel and private restaurant meals.Republican leaders, who agreed to the restrictions last week, sent out a news release Monday afternoon calling for a ban on all gifts. House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, said he was disappointed.
Hunt said Democrats had "reached out" to Republicans in the spirit of cooperation. "Instead, whoops. Sneak attack. Press release." ...
The House passed the proposal 56-4.
Discuss.
|
Jan. 09, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 9, '07
So even though it was a sneak attack for political purposes by the GOP to go the extra mile and call for a ban on all gifts, which it was, how did they somehow manage to show up Democratic whiners like Hunt as hypocrites in doing it? By not going that extra mile, our Democratic leadership once again proved they are doing the whole "ethics thing" for grandstanding purposes more than anything else.
9:23 a.m.
Jan 9, '07
How did they show up Hunt? It passed with 25 Republican votes.
That was a lame article in The O. So what if there was debate? For all the talk of partisanship in the article, the bills being discussed passed with 93% and 77% of the respective chambers voting Yea. Sounds pretty bipartisan, actually.
The more appropriate headline for the day would have been "GOP whines, tries previous tricks, suddenly finds no success."
It couldn't have happened to a nicer party.
9:32 a.m.
Jan 9, '07
It's an amusing play to go for "all gifts" versus a $10 exemption, but that's just grandstanding - not a reasonable proposal. The $10 rule makes the whole thing workable. Remember that it applies to staffers too, which is key.
A couple of scenarios:
A staffer is playing in his local municipal softball league. He scores the winning home run for the softball league championship. The opposing team captain says, "Hey buddy - keep the ball. You earned it!" The $10 rule means that's OK, no questions asked. No $10 rule? The staffer has to remember to ask, "Um, sorry, do you have business before the legislature?" And the team captain has to remember that "oh yeah, I'm just the cable repair guy, but yeah - I think my company, Comcast, they might have a bill."
A staffer is in a bar with some friends. On his way back from the bathroom, one of those friends goes and picks up a pitcher of beer. He returns to the table, and proceeds to fill up the staffer's pint glass. $10 rule means that's OK. No $10 rule? The staffer has to remember to ask, "Um, sorry, do you have business before the legislature?" Etc.
The $10 rule is key. If you don't have it, then people end up forced to decide what the gift rule "really" meant - because I guarantee you this: they ain't reporting the 12 oz of beer or the game-winning softball. Without the $10 rule, you've got folks deciding that the $45 steak their lobbyist-friend bought 'em doesn't really apply either, etc.
Jan 9, '07
Thanks, Kari, that makes sense. I was wondering why bother with $10, so I'm glad you explained that.
What do you all think of the points Steve Duin made in his column today? Particularly the part about how the ban is really just symbolic, because legislators will now be paying for their meals with their PAC money, which comes from the same lobbyists who are now prohibited from paying for the dinner directly. He seems to think this is all just for show, to make it look like something is being done about ethics while making very little practical difference.
What he says seems plausible, but I'm fairly new to following Oregon politics so I'm still easy to convince. :)
11:27 a.m.
Jan 9, '07
The PAC money is traceable, via C&Es. No one's keeping track of meal money at present; given the choice I'd rather the Member pay for the meal with PAC money.
12:20 p.m.
Jan 9, '07
Not only is PAC money traceable, but the legislator will also have to explain to his donors (and possibly, his voters) why it is that he's got $900 worth of $45 steaks on his C&E's.
12:21 p.m.
Jan 9, '07
(See Mugs 'n Jugs Kitts.)
Jan 9, '07
Plus, you're limited by law (which can be strenghtened, of course) as to what you can do with campaign money. Some have proposed limiting the use of campaign funds strictly to campaign purposes - you couldn't give it to another candidate, you couldn't supplement your official state budget with it, etc. And that's a valid idea that deserves consideration.
But Steve Duin is a lazy columnist whose grasp of the legislative process is clearly very weak.
The gist of Steve's coumn today is that, because Dems didn't further restrict the use of PAC money and raise the beer and wine tax yesterday, they must all be in the pocket of Paul Romain's Bermuda shorts. What a silly and unproductive assessment.
If Steve had tuned in to the Oregon Channel yesterday, he may have learned that the House passed rules - which can apply only to themselves - in order to address ethics concerns immediately. A House Rule cannot restrict campaign spending, that must be done in statute. And statutes take time, they don't happen on the first day.
Likewise with the beer and wine tax, only you have the added hurdle of a 3/5 majority to move any revenue raising legislation out of the House. Was there any question yesterday that a proposal like that might not yet get the full support of the newly obstructionist House GOP minority?
No, Duin wants to put on a show. But the true story of Democratic leadership in Oregon will be written this summer when the legislature adjourns. If they have not implemented a more permanent and comperehensive ethics reform package, or upped the beer and wine tax, then he can complain.
But until then, he just looks like yet another clueless and lazy Oregonian writer.
3:03 a.m.
Jan 10, '07
No one's keeping track of meal money at present; given the choice I'd rather the Member pay for the meal with PAC money.
Funny, but the term used in the announcement was "ban", as in gifts and meals, not choose to find another way to pay for gifts and meals. I've read Markley's "announcement" several times now, and nowhere in it do I see anything about "well, its still OK to take corporate and lobbyist money and spend it on your meals and travel."
You want to feed the public's ever increasing distrust, disgust, and cynicism with politicians? I can't think of a better way then pretend to ban something, but then allow it through another mechanism.
You're limited by law (which can be strenghtened, of course) as to what you can do with campaign money.
Flowers, breakfast, lunch, dinner, event tickets, home computers, cell phone bills, monthly parking, parking meters, travel expenses, hotels, motels, gasoline, parties, celebrations, staff meetings, staff retreats, plane tickets, train tickets, Tri-Met tickets, magazine subscriptions...what can't you buy with your PAC money? Well, all the above are certainly allowable. So remind me again what's "banned?"
Maybe if we "ban" something...we should really "ban" it? Or is that too radical an idea, to expect that words mean something?
3:17 a.m.
Jan 10, '07
Frank, what you're talking about is a campaign finance STATUTORY change. On day one, all they're doing is RULES changes.
I fully expect campaign finance reform to come up in the due course.
Once again, let's not jump the gun and expect everything to be fixed on day one.
Flowers, breakfast, lunch, dinner, event tickets, home computers, cell phone bills, monthly parking, parking meters, travel expenses, hotels, motels, gasoline, parties, celebrations, staff meetings, staff retreats, plane tickets, train tickets, Tri-Met tickets, magazine subscriptions...what can't you buy with your PAC money? Well, all the above are certainly allowable.
Well, actually, you can't convert any campaign finance money for personal use. Anything like what you describe above has to be campaign or legislative related. Sure, some people use that as a loophole, but let's not pretend that some rules don't already exist.
4:01 a.m.
Jan 10, '07
Well, actually, you can't convert any campaign finance money for personal use.
Of course not! What was I thinking? :-)
<h2>Maybe I've just read too many C&E reports where there are people who can't even go to a pay-toilet without charging it off as a "campaign or legislative-related" expense.</h2>