Legislative gift-taking eroding public trust

In an effort to stem the damaging headlines, Senate Democrats announced on Thursday their plans to introduce a package of bills to reform the gift rules for elected officials. The proposals include a ban on receiving any gifts from lobbyists, an overall reduction in the annual gift limit from $440 to $200 and an outright prohibition on accepting gifts of spa treatments, golf games and tickets to theme parks, concerts and sporting events.

“There is no question that recent events are testing the public’s faith in how our government does its work,” Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said at the press conference. “We need to restore the public trust.” Of course, legislative leaders wouldn’t need more laws if they followed the best practices of their colleagues.

In the Assembly, Gatto has set the standard for ethics and transparency. He not only declined all international junkets, but disclosed gifts that even the state’s political watchdog would find unnecessary to report. His disclosure reports even include footnotes. 

Gatto follows spirit and letter of the law

“Giving and receiving small tokens are part of life,” Gatto said. “I try to follow the letter and spirit of the law, and that’s anything over $50.” In explanation of the gift certificate given to his daughter, Gatto said, “The rules are very clear that we have to report anything over $50.” 

Technically, Gatto’s interpretation of the law is correct. According to Fair Political Practices Commission’s instructions for the Form 700, the annual statement of economic interests, elected officials must report “gifts given to members of your immediate family” if the official can “exercise discretion or control over the use or disposition of the gift.” This “control over the use or disposition of the gift” also includes tickets to concerts and sporting events. It explains why Gatto reported tickets to the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl that he gave away to local high school students who had overcome adversity.

For several years, unlike many of his colleagues, Gatto has worked with teachers and administrators and found deserving students to take his spot at the big game.  And don’t think Gatto does it for the positive publicity. He’s been doing it for years and never told the press. The only place you’ll find it: on Gatto’s financial disclosure report, in compliance with state law.

Ethics: Appearance of impropriety

Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes in governmental ethics, said that the issue of elected officials accepting gifts is a balance between what is allowed versus what appears to cross the line of undue influence. “If the laws allows legislators to accept gifts, then is it improper or indecent for them to do so?” she asked. “While some gifts are permissible, it can intuitively feel problematic when our elected lawmakers accept gifts when we all strongly suspect they would not receive those gifts were it not for their official roles, and the power they wield in those roles.”

That appearance of impropriety is exacerbated when lawmakers travel with lobbyists on extravagant junkets to exotic locales. Last year, California lawmakers collected passport stamps from Germany, Switzerland, Cuba, Mexico, Poland, Norway, Taiwan, Israel, China, Armenia, Sweden, Canada and South Korea, much of it on the dime of special interest groups.

“When it comes to traveling and attending conferences, I want our officials to leave the Capitol and learn from others,” Levinson said.  “I don’t necessarily want them to do all of that on the public’s dime. When the conferences look fishy, or the sources of the funds have substantial business before the state, it is certainly fair to ask questions.”

Some legislators have avoided the questions altogether. During the Legislature’s 2013 spring break, while dozens of lawmakers were relaxing in Taiwan, Eastern Europe and Cuba, state Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, fulfilled his monthly Air Force reserve duty. In addition to Lieu, state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, and Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, have declined to participate in junkets. And, of course, so did the Legislature’s ethical leader, Mike Gatto. “We are a big state with international implications, but I choose to stay in California,” he said. “My policy is simple: I will travel for limited circumstances but only in California. I am a California official.”

Senate Bill 113 is by state Sen. Hanna-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara. It would pre-register high school students to vote at age 16. Introducing her bill in the Senate Tuesday, she said there are similar laws in Florida and Hawaii.

She said pre-registration encourages young people to vote once they are eligible at age 18; and makes it more likely they will become lifelong voters.

“It does not change the voter age,” Jackson said Tuesday in the Senate. “Once they turn 18, the registration is automatic. This is great for Democracy to invest in the system. It’s their future.”

Sen. Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa, said the legislation would likely create a giant paper trail for the Secretary of State and local elections officials who would have to track the registration records. Anderson also warned that, if the teens move and don’t realize they must re-register, they won’t be able to vote.

Vote by mail at college

SB240 is by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. It would establish at least one vote-by-mail ballot drop box within each campus of all state universities and colleges.

Yet the vast majority of public universities in California have actual polling places on campus on Election Day, according to the bill analysis.

Yee said:

“Senate Bill 240 ensures that young voters’ voices are heard at the ballot box by allowing University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) students to drop off their vote by mail ballots on campus. While in college, many students will be voting for the first time. Together with online voter registration, students can effortlessly register or reregister to vote with their new address, request a vote by mail ballot, and drop off the completed ballot on campus.”

Out-of-county student voter disenfranchisement

Many students attending college away from home are typically registered to vote in their home county, not the university’s county. And each county’s registrar of voters is not required to forward vote-by-mail ballots to the student’s county of origin, so these student voters could be disenfranchised, according to the bill’s analysis.

The bill analysis explained how easy it already is for the budding scholars to vote:

“While in college, many students will be voting for the first time. Together with online voter registration, students can effortlessly register to vote, and on Election Day have convenient and easy access to a polling place on their university or college campus.”

Previous attempts

ACA 7 is by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco. In the bill summary’s words:

“Allows a person who is 17 years old and who will be 18 years old at the time of the next general election to register and vote in that general election and in any intervening primary or special election that occurs after the person registers to vote.”

This new bill is similar to ACA 17 in 2005 by former Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, the father of Kevin Mullin. It sought to lower the voting age to 17, but only for young people who would be 18 before the next general election.

The goal was to allow them to vote in the primary for that general election. Several attempts to pass the constitutional amendment failed, falling short of the two-thirds vote needed to put the change on the ballot.

Automatic voter registration

By Katy Grimes

Legislators have just involved themselves in professional sports. A bill was passed in the Assembly Thursday requiring all owners of all professional stadiums and sports arenas to post signs displaying the text message number and phone number to contact arena security in order to report a violent act.

Whatever, right?

But the bill started out as something very different.

AB 2464 by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Silver Lake, originally would have required stadiums and arenas to develop and maintain a list of individuals to be excluded or ejected from all professional sports arenas if they had been involved in a “violent act” at an arena or stadium.

Before being amended, the bill stated, “the banned persons list may include any person
whose presence in a professional sports arena is determined by the courts to pose a threat to the well-being and safety of those in attendance at professional sporting events.”

How creepy–especially in this era of very subjective ideas of “violence.” Daring to question a cop in many cases can bring about an arrest.

And, the bill was far too broad in its inclusion of nearly every serious felony including a special section just on child and sexual offendser.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the bill was it would have allowed a list of the addresses of the banned persons to be published. The bill’s analysis said, “The banned
persons list would be name-based, not biometric, and therefore there would be no definitive way to identify a person on the list. This could leave the DOJ open to litigation were the wrong person may be banned from sports arenas because he or she has the same name or is similar in appearance to a banned person.

Ironically, the Assembly just passed a bill yesterday that will allow public safety professionals to keep their property addresses hidden from the public.

Both bills were sponsored by the California Police Chiefs Association, a group that is becoming more and more aggressive about increasing police authority, and lessening the rights of private citizens.

Fortunately, AB 2464 was so bad, it was dramatically amended and became just a nuisance bill for arena and stadium owners, with the signage requirement.

But, the reason I point this bill out is because I want people to see the kind of personal rights violations and liberty reducing legislation lawmakers think is a good idea. Here is the bill, in its original form, as well as the original legislative analysis pointing out the gross flaws and legal issues.

Take the time to read the bill, and please leave me your comments. I have provided the link to all versions of the bill, as well as all of the analyses.