OK, here’s the tutorial. The Ethics Laws have three provisions that prohibit public officials from taking gifts, section 3, 23(b)2, and 23(b)3 of chapter 268A. Call it belt and suspenders. We lost the suspenders (section 3) when the Scaccia decision came down. But did that mean that Scaccia got off scot free? No. The court agreed that Scaccia violated 23(b)3 and another provision relating to lobbyist gifts (which is actually yet another section dealing with gifts). Since the Scaccia ruling, dozens of employees have been found to have taken illegal gifts and fined-not under section 3-the only section that actually uses the term “gift,” but under those other catch-all provisions . Section 23(b)2 prohibits a public employee from accepting unwarranted privileges, and the Ethics Commission has ruled that a gift because of one’s official position is unwarranted. Section 23(b)3 prohibits an official from acting in a manner that a reasonable person could conclude is biased, and the Commission (and the courts) have ruled that gifts could create such an impression.
There are some other differences-section 3 applies to both the giver and the public official, and 23(b)2 and 23(b)3 only apply to the public official. 23(b)3 can be cured by an official disclosure in advance, 23(b)2 cannot. Section 3 is both criminal and civil and the others are only civil.
Bottom line? The belt is holding. Maybe uncomfortably, but it’s there. The lack of our gifts section is a disappointment, but not a fatal flaw in the House bill, as so many on this page have written. It is also important to consider what is in the bill and how long we have been fighting for any number of these provisions. No recent Speaker (except Sal DiMasi on his way out the door)has wanted to touch ANY of these issues with a ten-foot pole, let alone pass the dozens that are in the bill. Now we are likely to get (just to name a few): significantly increased penalties, regulatory authority for the Ethics Commission and Secretary, more enforcement tools, better revolving door laws, civil enforcement power for lobbying laws, mandatory ethics education, more people registering….
I agree that these are not game changing reforms. As others have mentioned, public financing of elections, pay-to-play restriction, transparency reforms, IRV etc, would have a greater impact on the political culture. No one has fought longer and harder than Common Cause to keep them on the agenda and moving forward. But changing the game is a longer and harder goal.
And I can guarantee that if you discard significant incremental improvements as meaningless failures, we will never get there.
Violations of the civil provisions (under state law 23(b)2 and 23(b)3), but not charged under Section 3 (the criminal “suspenders” section that was invalidated/narrowed by the 2000 Scaccia decision), unless the state could prove that the gift was tied to a specific official act (which might be difficult given that Boston Licensing Board decisions are not made by the State Senate)?
Federal statutes are a different story, and I think she is being charged under federal bribery laws (still- what was the official act in question? A phone
call?)
What was the penalty? Did he pay a fine?
… and you’re not the only one from whom I’ve heard some pushback on the “hack” label. (Though I do think it’s good that people are becoming sensitive to the sobriquet …)
<
p>That being said, I think that clarity is precisely what is necessary in these ethics laws: Bright lines of legal/illegal behavior, correlated with a common sense notion of conflict of interest. The law should be intuitively correct — not just a jumble of rules.
<
p>I just don’t think we can expect legislators to remember the paragraph of legalities you wrote. I think we agree on this. Both public servants — and the public — need bright-line clarity on this issue. If DeLeo’s going to go 90 yards with this law, he might as well punch it into the end zone — and be my hero.
http://masslegislature.tv/?l=h…
is that it even has to be discussed. Unbelievable.
These people are elected because they supposedly have the knowledge, commitment and integrity to make decisions that will benefit the state and it’s people. They are elected to do this job and are paid with taxpayer money. Now for the people and the media to have to hover over and be sure they are practicing this knowledge, commitment and integrity is ridiculous. 90% isn’t enough. When these people are sworn in to office, what part of the oath says, …and ye shall receive gifts.
Here’s my inside the box thinking: Ethics reform is being taken up because of a couple of major issues that have caused the public to become even more cynical about how the State House operates. Because of this pubic demand, the legislature has to do something about ethics reform. The house has passed this package. Seems pretty linear.
<
p>Pam, it seems as though your thinking is going like this: “Well, we’ll get another bite at the apple so until then let’s not bite the hand that feeds.” I’ve said it as a comment in another post on the same subject, but with advocates like these…
<
p>The biggest scandal to hit MA in ethics recently was obviously Dianne Wilkerson – and when it comes to the fundamentals of what went wrong, the “accomplishments” that you name don’t even deal with the situation that has gone wrong!
<
p>I want to do a point by point on a couple of the items Pam talks about in this bill and how they’ll impact a repeat scandal of Dianne Wilkerson proportion:
<
p>Pam cites:
<
p>”significantly increased penalties” Now I don’t think Dianne’s behavior is excused by the excuses she gives, but I do think that when it comes to politicians like her who don’t have a lot of money but do have the ability to maintain district support, forcing that politician to come up with money may make them decide to do what Dianne says she did, seek big gifts.
<
p>”better revolving door laws” These, FYI, mostly hurt state staffers as opposed to preventing the influence for nefarious purposes of former legislators.
<
p>”mandatory ethics education” I don’t mean to be immediately dismissive, but a 1 hour class for legislators and/or other stare employees? Those who are interested in ethics often take the class on their ow. This is an answer? Oy.
<
p>”more people registering” I assume this is about the “register as an advisor, not just a lobbyist” provision that’s been reported on. This too seems like it doesn’t go to the heart of the issues in recent memory or to real ethics reform.
<
p>Maybe Massachusetts needs a real ethics watchdog group because Pam herself or Common Cause or both are clearly not advancing a real, effective anti-corruption agenda. And I don’t mean this to be intensely personal because for me it isn’t really about Pam or Common Cause. But when people and groups put themselves out there and profess to be working with great public interest at their core, shouldn’t that be expected from their efforts?
<
p>Also, Pam, it’s not about the media and what’s reported and what isn’t. You were personally out in front saying to the globe something like “this is great” of the House package and “we’ve gotten 90% of what we wanted!” So really, who is going to demand real ethics reform if you and common cause have made the decision to wait around for another bite at the apple?
The conventional wisdom is that incumbents have a huge advantage in this state, which is supposedly demonstrated by re-election rate. I believe voters are ultimately responsible for monitoring their officials, but it’s difficult to vote someone out if there is no challenger. People say incumbents can’t be challenged due to financial advantage, but the individual contribution limit is only $500 per cycle, even for statewide office! Are there much higher PAC limits that I’m missing? I don’t understand voters sometimes. The level of support Dianne Wilkerson maintained, even with a credible challenger like Sonia Chang-Diaz absolutely boggles my mind.
All the limits are available here.
<
p>However, your point about the $500 limit actually cuts the opposite way. Low contribution limits, combined with the ability to carry over campaign accounts from year to year, help incumbents enormously, because they can amass warchests over several cycles, whereas a challenger has to raise a lot of money quickly to mount a credible campaign. And with a $500 limit – one of the lowest in the country – it’s very hard to do that.
<
p>IMHO, substantially raising the limits, and ending the ability to carry over warchests, are probably the two reforms that would most help challengers, short of actual public financing.
But ending the warchest carry-over? Can any poor people afford more than $500? Isn’t having a higher limit a little bit disenfranchising for the poor, in terms of getting their voices heard?
Pam Wilmot does a hit and run. Thanks for stopping by BMG a few days ago though!