Not sure if this is the right forum but I’ll leave it to the mods.
Stacey Campfield is a Republican state senator in Tennessee. He’s proposed several anti-gay bills throughout his career but most recently he has re-proposed what’s nicknamed the Don’t Say Gay Bill, which this being the ever and increasingly harder to defend Deep South has passed the senate. The bill in full (bolding mine):
Del Shores is an openly gay writer most famous for his play & screenplay for Sordid Lives and for having been head writer on Queer as Folk (U.S. version) and he has challenged Campfield to a public debate on the bill. Campfield’s response was that he would do so in exchange for a $1,000 retainer and expenses to the venue.
A link to the Facebook page Shores has started with copies of their communication. Campfield writes like a not particularly bright 5th grader incidentally, which is hardly shocking.
So a question: is it legal and or ethical for a state senator to request $1,000 to debate a bill they sponsored?
ALL DISCLAIMERS IN PLACE: nothing said here is to be interpreted as legal advice or relayed to the parties as such, yadda yadda.
I’m guessing that it’s legal for him to charge for any speaking outside of his regular duties, but there’s probably a cap on the amount, to keep speaking fees from being a way to launder donations. And if that’s his standard speaking fee, it’s probably ethical, too. Kinda jerky, maybe, but ethical.
What I want to know is, if teachers can’t provide information about “sexual orientation other than heterosexuality”, does that mean that they can’t post a copy of the law in the classroom? I mean, it has “sexual orientation other than heterosexuality” right there in it.
The argument given in the law, by the way, applies to ANY information about sex. Any sex ed is balancing sensitive/complex/mature against how much will complete ignorance hurt folks whose parents are unwilling to talk or full of misinformation.
Wouldn’t this travel be a justified business expense for his job? Couldn’t he claim it on his taxes?
I quess I could see the expenses, but he could kiss my butt for the retainer.
Can you explain your reasoning in asserting this definitive conclusion? For example, I’m not sure that a debate that apparently is to include the Bible as well as this proposed law is “significantly related.” I note that footnote 8 in the ethics guidelines makes clear that this restriction derives directly from the first source: TN Senate Rules-85, Art. II, § 2(c)(1):
It’s not at all clear to me that “legislative duties” include a debate of the wisdom of a proposed law (and the Bible!) outside the legislative chamber with a member of the public.
Of course, it might be. But without some sort of caselaw or opinion from the ethics officials, I can’t quite see how you get to the realm of absolute certainty.