House passes major ethics legislation
One of the major themes of the 2006 election - both in Oregon and nationwide - was ethics. After so many investigations and revelations, the voters made it clear they'd had enough. Whether it was Congressman Duke Cunningham taking bribes or Oregon legislators gallivanting at the Lobbyist Luau in Maui, the voters spoke with one voice: Knock it off!
The House Democrats started fast - proposing a gift ban as part of the House rules. Now, the House Democrats have passed (and the Senate is expected to join them shortly) in final passage of Senate Bill 10, the ethics bill pushed by House Speaker Jeff Merkley, Senate President Peter Courtney, and Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown.
Merkley carried the bill to the floor (a rare move for a Speaker). In a statement, he said:
“Restoring the public’s faith in their elected leaders starts with a strong ethical standard,” said House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D-Portland), who carried the bill during floor debate. “When our constituents see us receive exotic vacations and expensive dinners, they wonder if their interests are really being served here. They wonder if their voice is as important as someone giving a lavish gift. Today, we’re putting an end to that.”
What's in the ethics package?
- A dedicated funding source for the Government Ethics Commission, so it won't get shorted by future legislatures.
- Online quarterly filing of lobbying expenditures and a requirement that lobbyists tell public officials when they're spent money on their behalf.
- Boosts conflict-of-interest and expense-reimbursement reporting requirements on public officials and candidates.
- An aggregate $50 limit on gifts of food, lodging and items of value to a public official from any one source in a year, if the person giving the gift has business before the public official’s board or agency.
- The max penalty goes from $1000 to $5000, and candidates can't use campaign funds to pay the fines or their legal expenses.
- Allows the creation of legal defense funds, but public officials can't fundraise for their own legal defense - nor can they use the funds for personal use.
- An outright ban on gifts of entertainment, like sporting events or concerts.
- A “revolving door” provision that prevents officials from leaving public service and immediately going to work for corporations with whom they previously negotiated contracts and business deals.
- Prohibits legislators from being paid lobbyists for one full session after they leave office.
Oh, and one more thing: It applies to all public officials in Oregon - not just legislators. (Except judges, who already have their own ethics code.)
Of course, a bunch of House Republicans kicked and screamed about the bill. Eventually, the bill passed 40 to 18. The former speaker, Karen Minnis, missed the vote.
Discuss.
|
June 27, 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
4:23 a.m.
Jun 28, '07
An aggregate $50 limit on gifts of food, lodging and items of value to a public official from any one source in a year, if the person giving the gift has business before the public official’s board or agency.
This doesn't, however, stop a corporation from giving a campaign contribution of say, oh, $5,000...which that elected official can then use for, oh, food and lodging...flowers and, well, whatever.
Or am I missing something?
Jun 28, '07
Me Thinks that selective Amnesia Creeps in. While I agree That Randy Cunningham is a Criminal,I guess that Old Cold Cash Jefferson must have slipped through the Radar. Hmmm Maybe Old Timers Disease?
Jun 28, '07
Me Thinks that selective Amnesia Creeps in. While I agree That Randy Cunningham is a Criminal,I guess that Old Cold Cash Jefferson must have slipped through the Radar. Hmmm Maybe Old Timers Disease?
Jun 28, '07
Frank Dufay is right on point.
David, on the other hand, is a whiny nutjob:
Me Thinks that selective Amnesia Creeps in. While I agree That Randy Cunningham is a Criminal,I guess that Old Cold Cash Jefferson must have slipped through the Radar. Hmmm Maybe Old Timers Disease?
Although the blogger is not obligated to give a full list of all the proven crooks in the last session of Congress, including the full list of Abramoff's co-criminals, since it would consist almost entirely of scumbag right-wingers maybe he or she should have to drive you even crazier. And don't forget, nutjob, after he was re-elected the Democratic leadership already took as much action as they could against Jefferson until he is tried and convicted, the Republican leadership took virtually against all the crooks on their side while they held power.
8:49 a.m.
Jun 28, '07
Old Cold Cash Jefferson must have slipped through the Radar.
....yeah, and Kelley Wirth was on meth. OK, now that that's out of the way, can we talk about the ethics package here in Oregon?
10:42 a.m.
Jun 28, '07
$50 limit seems a bit low--that's the cost of one nice dinner at many restaurants. Not sure why we wouldn't set this at a more reasonable level, like $250.
Jun 28, '07
Two other ethics related bills were important complements to SB 10.
HB 2595 includes "nuts-and-bolts" tools so the ethics commission can do its job better. For example, the agency will emphasize explanatory rules and clarifications in the use of advisory opinions.
HB 2595 also became the vehicle for another house bill that changed the name of the Government Standards and Practices Commission back to Oregon Ethics Commission. This was the original name of the commission back in 1974 when voters supported a legislative referral establishing the agency and other ethics rules.
Another important feature of HB 2595 that was a particular priority for the group I'm with, Democracy Reform Oregon, is providing the ethics commission authority to do accuracy audits of lobbying spending and other reports filed with the agency.
HB 5025 is the budget bill for the ethics commission. It included a long overdue boost in the resources available to the agency. They will restore an investigator position and add a trainer. The latter is especially important because they commission has always tried to educate public officials and help them avoid ethics violations in the first place. Now they have the resources to focus more on prevention since public officials want to do the right thing.
Between SB 10 and these two house bills, Oregon's ethics laws took a giant step forward. Campaign finance reform is a logical next step that will complement this comprehensive ethics reform package.
Jun 28, '07
How many amendments did this thing get!?!?
I don't blame the R's for being upset about the bill or how Brown and others fast tracked this thing through both houses.
I'm sure after I post this I'll be criticized (which is fine) and probably called a troll cause I disagree with the people who support this leg and call themselves "progressives".
As PROGRESSIVES, this is not a bill for us to be proud of.
So please go ahead and call me a troll, or Benedict Arnold, or even wrong. But please just try and take a step back and look at this thing with clear eyes.
Jun 28, '07
This is a great step forward for Oregon! There is more to be done on this front obviously, but this has to be one of the higlights of this session.
I am suprised at the number of legislators who voted against this. Could someone please post their names and districts here??
3:41 p.m.
Jun 28, '07
Third reading. Carried by Mr. Speaker. Passed.
Ayes, 40; Nays, 18--Berger, Boquist, Butler, Cameron, Esquivel, Garrard, Gilliam, Girod, Hanna, Jenson, Krieger, Krummel, Maurer, Morgan, Olson, Smith G., Thatcher, Whisnant; Absent, 2--Gilman, Minnis.
6-27(S) Senate concurred in House amendments and repassed bill.
Ayes, 27; Nays, 2--Beyer, Kruse; Absent, 1--George, L.
5:44 p.m.
Jun 28, '07
HYRI asks if we've read it, and asserts: "As PROGRESSIVES, this is not a bill for us to be proud of."
But HYRI, you don't tell us why we shouldn't be proud of it. Care to share?
I have read it, and it looks pretty damn good to me.
5:58 p.m.
Jun 28, '07
Don't you get it Kari?
If it doesn't immediately cure cancer and bring about utopia, it is bad, not really progressive, and not at all a good thing. After all, we can't have merely good legislation, or good session of the legislature, we have to have perfection! Because if you don't have perfection, then you are not a real progressive... or something like that.
;-)