Oy. DeLeo already wants to water down the gov's ethics bill:
The proposal, DeLeo's first major initiative since taking office in late January, increases penalties for ethics violations but leaves in place what critics call a gaping loophole that allows lawmakers to accept gifts of any size as long as the gifts are not intended to influence a specific act.
Former state senator Dianne Wilkerson has relied on that provision – which was spelled out by the Supreme Judicial Court in 2000 – to justify her acceptance of tens of thousands of dollars from wealthy contributors who helped dig her out of income tax and mortgage debts. Those large gifts have become a focal point of separate bribery charges against her that are being investigated by a federal grand jury.
Nice juxtaposition by Globe reporter Andrea Estes. Shall we call DeLeo's bill the “Diane Wilkerson Ethics Bill”?
I hope the legislature recognizes how badly they all need a strong ethics bill. If they want to assuage the public's contempt for the way they do business, they should lean forward with these reforms. Hope and change, everyone … hope and change.
The Good Ship Speaker suddenly looks less well balanced than it did when it left port.
In case you don’t know what I’m talking about:
<
p>http://maps.google.com/maps?hl…
When I interned for my State Rep. in 1998 the interns had a speaker series we could attend and one of the sessions was about lobbying and the speaker was herself a lobbyist. She claimed that gift laws were so tight in this state that if she were meeting with a Rep. and the Rep. started to sneeze, she couldn’t even offer him a Kleenex to wipe his nose because that would be considered a gift. (Yes, that was exactly the example she used.)
<
p>I also wonder how you regulate gift-giving when it comes to Christmas, birthdays, etc. I guess it would be easy enough to exempt family members from the law, but what about close friends, fellow parishioners, etc. This area of law has always struck me as an example of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions, while ultimately being extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.
How difficult is this?
<
p>One rule: All gifts shall be publicly disclosed, and disclosure shall include the value and the donor’s name and address if (a) the value of all gifts from any donor, by attribution, to the extent said gift exceeds $250 in one 12 month period, (ii) excluding gifts from immedicate family defined as parent, grandchildren, children, brother sisters. Failure to disclose within a period of 30 days following the receipt of the reportable gift is a misdemeanor subject to fines and imprisonment not to exceed 1 year.
is that like Roger Clemens’ sons?
Have pols open up a gift registry at the same time they do their initial OCPF filing. That way they’re sure not to get two of the same chafing dishes and that their china patterns will all be uniform.
But they can give you money to buy tissues.
except money.
<
p>[It’s a little crass, but it’s the thought that counts … ]
or beer.
I could care less if Senator so-and-so gets a gift. Just make them report it. Make it a crime to not disclose it.
<
p>When the press sees a $10,000 gift from Bechtel, it’ll make hay of it; we’ll all know it’s a bribe just as we know that the Wilkinson bra-gate was a bribe. Quack, duck. Stuff bra with cash, bribe.
<
p>Disclosure is the answer for practically any aspect of ethics reform.
I get what you’re saying, but if it becomes routine, it stops becoming news. Maybe the $10,000 gift from Bechtel is Big News, but what about the $1,000 gift from John Smith who wants a restaurant license in Boston? Or Jane Anderson’s $2,000 gift — who just so happens to be Jack Anderson’s husband, who works for Scientific Gambling Corporation. (Making all these up, folks, names and all.)
<
p>The press will not catch all of these things… and suddenly we could be missing some payments that add up quickly. Relying on the 4th estate as it’s in a state of collapse and has not exactly been the exemplar of reporting success anyway does not seem like a good form of protection for our democracy.
You must be, because I agree with you on this one. News is about the unusual, not the mundane.
Opt for my suggestion and you just know that any disclosure will be closely scrutinized to determine a link to a profit motive for the donee, much the same as political contributions are scrutinized.
<
p>A lawmaker would think twice, several times before he took any gift from a casino owner, or a business with a potential conflict if he knew he had to disclose. Also, even a disclosede gift may still be construed in the Criminal court as a bribe if the link is sufficiently strong.
<
p>Alternatively, you can draft a labyrith of laws to criminalize gifts to lawmakers so that the only criminals will receive gifts (to borrow a line from the gun lobby). Seriously, do you actually think that an ethics law OR disclosure law would have slowed Diane Wilkerson from her double D cash score?
<
p>There is a fair amount of liberty at stake here. If a voter wants to make a bona fide gift, it’s presumptuous of government to stop him.
<
p>And, ought we not have some confidence, some presumption of innocence that elected officials will do the right thing. Because, the opposite is to mandate the restriction on gifts. Soon, if it’s not already happened, the only candidates running are the ones with egos bigger than their hat, and the one to whom no one has any desire to make a gift in the first place.
<
p>There are plenty of qualified people who have no interest in the burden of running for elected office because of the increased public criticism, the increased burden of fund raising, the increased scruntiny of the press and the public on their personal lives, Gift restriction, and potentially a faretheewelll of well-intended ethics rules that will establish one more road block to any non-professional politician from running for office.
<
p>Probably explains the Mass liberal majority; conservatives can earn more and maintain more satisfying jobs by avoiding politics.
The “right” to give politicians gifts. Huh. I, for one, have never felt an overwhelming desire to take my state rep, who already earns more money than I do, on a golfing trip or out to dinner or to the Kentucky Derby. I think only people who want “special consideration” in the lawmaking/appropriations process think about giving legislators gifts in excess of $50 (excepting campaign contributions, which are intended to be used for a specific purpose). I once gave a candidate a couple hundred because I liked his politics, but I would have been pretty angry if he used that money to buy his wife a necklace or spent my donation at the Foxy Lady or something. I’m surprised that you have so much faith in our Democratic majority, Gary.
<
p>It’s not about desire to do it, it’s about the right to do it. I don’t particularly care to buy porn videos but don’t want them banned, and I don’t care to give my Congressman presents, but if someone does, it’s not my business.
<
p>And as far as the faith in the Democratic majority takes me, I have absolute faith and confidence that given enough temptation, there are elected officials who will take a bribe, ethics laws notwithstanding. The ethics laws will present just one more impediment to qualified non-career candidates leaving us with the selection of professional politicians we presently own.
This risks criminalizing the trivial incidents and honest mistakes, while doing nothing at all about actual bribe takers.
Outlaw gifts, and only outlaws will take gifts.
Just like Wilkerson was. The problem is: right now Dianne had a credible defense, namely, the Angelo Scaccia Memorial Loophole, which is the one that DeLeo is refusing to close. I’m afraid I disagree with you guys that gifts to legislators are ever inoccuous. And certainly legislators should not be supplementing their incomes with steady streams of payouts from certain constituents or interest groups- disclosed or otherwise.
The law of ‘gifts’ is pretty broad and deep because of the existance of income tax laws and people who have tried to disguise income as non-taxable gifts for decades.
<
p>A gift usually requires donative intent, delivery, acceptance, AND most notably lacking in the case of Ms. Wilkerson, that the donee be an ‘object of the donor’s affection.’
<
p>If there is an alterior motive to the gift, then, it’s not a gift. If there is consideration or the potential for consideration in exchange for the ‘gift’, it’s not a gift.
<
p>Her defense that the money was a gift is a bullshit defense that should appropriately crumble given its 15 minutes of fame.
That Dianne was not an object of that nightclub dude’s affection, or to prove that she did not consider herself to be an object of his affection? How do you prove “ulterior motivation”, especially without witetaps (the ability to wiretap politicians under investigation by the AG or the Ethics Commission is another provision that is being tabled, AFAIK.)? Couldn’t anybody who receives a bribe just say, “I thought it was a friendly gift” and then how do you prove that that’s not what they thought? A polygraph test? ESP?
well, there’s always time for him to reverse course – so not epic yet. but, yes, a fail. for sure.
<
p>That said, as I say on my blog today, we’re not going to get the Speakah to play ball with us if we declare him the Enemy Hack Numero Uno. Let’s criticize him for his bad policies till the rooster crows, each and every day, until he fixes it. But let’s be smart and crafty in this if we’re to be able to have any major successes over the next 2-3 years, or however long Mr. Speakah is with us.
<
p>Calling him a hack and being done with it is neither smart nor crafty. He’s a conservative Democrat who’s made it clear he will play ball on some of the issues we care about. I believe we can get him to come along on others, too. But that doesn’t happen if he’s not reading us, not caring about us and deciding to cast off progressives as his political enemies. If that’s the relationship we foster, the epic fail is on us.
It’s a very good proposal and I’m taking Pam’s lead in praising the Speaker for what he’s done and working to fill in the gaps.
Just got a little opaque. Some times I wonder what they are thinking also I would now surmise that the Former Senator Must have kicked over the cookie jar on the way out the door which is why the little jewel of the State house got exposed. But to quote Mel Brooks once again (how sad is this) “Gentleman we have to save our phony baloney jobs” or is this case we could suggest Payola. Well I think we have seen the first blooding of the idea of change in Massachusetts.
<
p>See even we hard-core Democratic Socialist Progressives get this one!
<
p>As Usual just My Opinion
I remember back in the day when people wore “hattops” — the Minutemen wore tricorner hattops, Lincoln wore a stoverpipe hattop, and in the first draft of Harry Potter, Hogwarts had a Sorting Hattop.
<
p>Okay, obviously I meant hate from hatred. My bad.
nt
to see if you can come up with a way to incent us all not to inflict such violence upon the mother tongue.
Lowell Spinners
Could you please enlightened the blind as to what your referring to in this comment?
<
p>
<
p>Some how I missed the story
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
story.
Now that I have picked myself up off the floor. We don’t just need Ethics reform in the state we need random drug testing for all elected officials and we need annual competency testing How about an annual MCAS test you must pass to remain in office fail and you go home. We wonder why the Republican Party survives on Life Support. Sad very sad!
<
p>Oh well looks like I wasted that effort supporting Tim for Treasure ‘oh doopey me’. More Likely to be Tim for bubba’s room mate
<
p>As Usaul just my Opinion
<
p>2. I’d say not including the Dianne Wilkerson Memorial Gift Ban is a “fail” as far as meaningful ethics reform is concerned. Again, if you’ve got a contrary argument, let’s hear it.
<
p>3, 4. If you say so. Not sure anyone else is, though.
<
p>5. See #1.
<
p>6. I haven’t seen any rejoicing over Cahill’s ethical problems. I made a snarky comment or two about them, but I trust I’ll be forgiven for doing so.
<
p>7. Someone else started it. I do think it’s funny.
1 2000-2008, Washington DC. I”ve seen Readiness Report press releases for months that have resulted in zero. Deval’s stats on casino gambling were way off, and his gambling bill didn’t match up to his declared goals in the press release. Deval is no Bush, but you don’t need to be a criminal to use the tricks.
<
p>2. Let’s read the bill.
<
p>3,4. I guess we see what we want to see.
<
p>5. See #1
<
p>6. Hit the Globe comments, or some Mass. blogs. That’s jsut what people are writing.
<
p>7. I know the “fail” thing has been around for awhile, but to respond to one tired Internet cliche with another, it’s jumped the shark.
When you say “#2 Let’s read the bill,” are you referring to the Governor’s ethics reform package or the Speaker’s? If the Governor’s, it was filed in January and has been up on his web site since, I think, January 16. If you mean the Speaker’s, your point is well-taken with respect to what is new (e.g., it apparently includes something new on campaign finance disclosure)but the two most significant differences are, per the Globe story, NOT including two provisions recommended by the Governor’s Task Force and included in the Governor’s text.
Whenever I feel down, I go there to get back up again.
<
p>Soo funny.
Is the loophole part of a law or was it derived from a judicial decision?
The loophole was created by two court decisions: U.S. v. Sun Diamond Growers of Calif., 526 U.S. 398 (1999) and Scaccia v. State Ethics Commission, 431 Mass. 351 (2000). The United States Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court both narrowed existing interpretations of parallel federal and state “gratuity” laws. Each required, in substance, that prosecutors must show that the gift was tied to a specific act by the public employee. The Governor’s Task Force on Public Integrity proposed closing this loophole by making illegal a gift of “substantial value given for or because of an employee’s official position.” I believe “substantial value” is over $50. The Governor’s bill contains this recommendation. The Governor’s web site contains the full Task Force report, with its analysis, as well as the full text of the proposed bill. http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=go…
My big problem with any of the proposals on ethics reform is that it doesn’t offer anything radically new. It just makes already-illegal things more illegal. While that’s great and we should definitely pursue that, I would really like to start taking a look at offering society alternatives.
<
p>Perhaps instead of trying to just police our elected leaders, we should truly rock the vote/boat and pursue things like same-day registration, public financing, instant runoff and stronger regulations on lobbyist dollars/time/gifts. That way, when a State Senator is arrested 3 days before an election and you weren’t registered to vote, you wouldn’t be barred from participation. That way, if you have a local elected leader who’s either a bad leader or otherwise corrupt, then more people in the district have the means to run against he or she – and there’s nothing that will clean a politician up faster or get them to support something the community wants quicker than an electoral challenge, especially in the primary.
<
p>Real ethics reform requires looking at our political system from a different angle. If politicians are willing to break rules that already exist, I’m not sure how many of them will suddenly decide to stop breaking them because the fines and penalties are a little stiffer. If we want accountable politicians, the best way to do that is to make sure that elections truly reflect the will of the people. I don’t think you can have ethics reform in Massachusetts without electoral reform.
<
p>The person who should lead the charge is Speaker Bob DeLeo, to undue the shame brought on the House by the Scaccia case that created the loophole. And why not? Scaccia opposed DeLeo in the race for Speaker, and refused to move out of his fancy office for months during DeLeo’s reorganization.
<
p>Chairman Charley Murphy has often spoken out for reforms. It would be great to hear from him on this, too.
The sad part to me is that nobody knows if the “Dianne Wilkerson” provision that allows for gifts =$10,000 has been used by anyone else to accept money that either allows them to run for office in the first place, sustain life as an elected or anything else. If all you have to do is claim “close friendship” with someone, a wealthy person would be able to bankroll a candidate’s living expenses while they take time off from work to run or do a number of things. Is this inherently criminal? I say no, but that it should certainly be disclosed and available to the public. Any ethics reform package without it really isn’t ethics reform.
<
p>Thanks though, Pam Wilmot, who seems to not mind that ethics reform is in name and penalty only and has sold out for the compromise plan as soon as it was announced. With “advocates” like these…
by Pam’s seeming acceptance of ditching the gift provision. I think gary makes some excellent points upthread about the difficulties associated with a ban, but there’s a very good case to be made at least for much broadened disclosure rules. They have to do something about the Wilkerson situation.
And the Rogers situation, and the Kentucky Derby junket situation, and the Scaccia tobacco golf situation.
Legislators are adequately paid- bribes, gifts, and free trips should not be an accepted and expected part of their compensation.
Ethics bill debate today. Could be over, they are in recess right now. No time to watch right now.
http://masslegislature.tv/?l=h…