Yesterday the Supremes heard oral argument on the ex-VA governor’s appeal of his conviction for bribery. The governor and his wife accepted some $170 in gifts/loans from a bsinessman, and in return, set up meetings between the businessman and gov’t officials in the governor’s mansion. Sounds like a majority of the court sees nothing wrong with elected officials accepting gifts, free meals, etc.
I’ve worked for the feds for 30 years. Every year I have to undergo ethics training, where they stress that I cannot accept anything worth more than $10. Maybe a pen (not that anyone has ever offered me one!) They stress that I need to pick up my own tab at meals. So I’m just trying to get my head around why governors and Congressmen aren’t held to the same standard?
(Of course, my yearly systems training and warnings about private e-mail made it difficult for me to understand how Hillary could have thought her handling of her official e-mail was appropriate. And I just finished completing my STOCK Act reporting of my investments - requirements that Congress exempted themselves and lobbyists from! :rolleyes:)
They’re not subject to the rules because they’re the ones who write them, and the biggest rule they have is “I’m not going to write any rule that limits me unless there really is absolutely no other option.”
And frankly, if your governor sells out for a mere $170, he’s damn cheap!
In my opinion, this happens when democracy is a beautiful shiny apple with a rotten inside. Given the widespread practice of accepting gifts, I’d say we (i.e. citizens) are not dealing with a mere bug but with a fundamental flaw of the system because corruption undermines democracy.
*"Democratic regimes have now evolved many such devices, such as the promotion of the public interest and community service, the protection of individual civil liberties and human rights, representative and responsible government, the rule of law, independent agencies […] that ensure public accountability, openness and impartiality, division of power, fair competition among contenders, subordination of the military and police, promotion of civic culture, voluntarism and citizen participation, due process and fair administrative practices.
Corruption is the exact opposite. Corruption in all its manifest forms gnaws at, undermines and contradicts all the democratic elements. It embodies the anti-democratic ethos, for it embraces selfishness, self-centredness, particularism, unfair privilege, exploitation of weaknesses and loopholes, unscrupulous advantage of the weak, the exploitable and the defenceless and all manner of shady dealings, It is undeserved, unfair, unjust, immoral benefit derived from positions of public trust." (source)*
Like I said, I just finished my annual financial disclosure. As you recall, the STOCK Act was passed in response to congresscritters and lobbyists profiting from insider information regarding pending legislation, etc. Well, the first thing Congress did was exempt themselves from the obligation, and decline to define who is a lobbyist needing to report.
Yeah, I can imagine some few folk in the FDA or other agencies/components could conceivably profit from info they derive from their jobs - say invest in a drug company whose drug is about to be approved Not sure how I could in my position (or the 1700 folk holding positions similar to mine.) And certainly not to an extent that warrants the extent of info I must disclose about my - and my wife’s - finances. (Note to mention the confusing nature of the required reporting - and the stated penalties for making a mistake doing so.)
The Dems instituted a total ban on gifts from lobbyists when they took over both Houses in 2006. I’m not sure what loophole the OP is talking about with respect to Congress, and I’d guess that every state has a different law on what they consider gifts for their governors and legislators.
I admit ignorance as to gifts permitted congressmen. My suspicion that they could receive gifts was based primarily on something attributed to J Breyer in this a.m.'s Chicago Trib article:
“Breyer said elected officials go to lunches all the time and then write favorable letters for constituents.”
I admit that was insufficient basis to suggest congresspersons could accept free meals.
I guess I would need to look into the specific language of the prohibition against gifts from “lobbyists.” Exactly what is precluded, and what is permitted. If it is as strict as applies to me - essentially don’t accept anything from anyone arguably related to your job with a value over $10 or so - that would be great. I doubt it is that strict, but I haven’t done the research.
But wasn’t he convicted of a federal crime? Isn’t that why it’s on appeal to the SCOTUS? What federal offence governs allegations that a state governor has been bribed?
They can hold a fundraiser that uses campaign dollars in which a lobbyist pays $2,000 for a $20 plate of breakfast, but they cannot accept a meal paid for by a lobbyist if it is a non-campaign event, unless it is a widely attended event that’s sort of like a charity dinner where lots of people go to it. So, in the simplest terms:
Lobbyist pays $2,000 as a campaign contribution, some of which goes to defray the costs of a campaign fundraising event: allowed.
Lobbyists pays for a sandwich during a discussion of the XYZ bill: prohibited.
Lobbyist sponsors a fundraiser to find a cure to ABC disease that is widely attended: allowed.
A lobbyist is generally defined at someone who is registered to lobby (I think it means something like 1/3rd of their time is spent on lobbying activities), or a person who works for a company that employs a lobbyist. So, the CEO of some defense company counts as a lobbyist even if they don’t really lobby at all.
Thanks for the info. I may be cynical, but I’d imagine there is some wiggle room in that definition of a lobbyist. For example, I’m a rich businessman, and I donate tons of $ to my industry’s interest groups and PACs, but don’t personally employ a lobbyist…
I forget the specifics when the STOCK Act was passed, but ISTR that there was a lot of difficulty in defining lobbyists, because a great many folk who were profiting from insider info and access were not technically registered as lobbyists. But, of course, “lobbyist” could be defined differently for that legislation that for the one you refer to.
Political activity (donating money) is not lobbying. Many lobbyists do donate money, but many more people who have nothing to do with lobbying also donate money. For someone who is not a lobbyist, the limit on gifts is that no item can be worth more than $50, and the total amount of gifts from one source cannot amount to more than $100 in a year.
Furthermore, a gift worth in excess of $250 from a personal friend is subject to approval by the congressional ethics committees. As I understand it, people who work in Congress – both politicians and staff – are obliged to get permission from the ethics committee in order to receive wedding gifts. Cite.
Right. I’m giving you a bunch of money, and expressing my desires. But definitely not lobbying. :dubious:
Seriously, what is the benefit of registering as a lobbyist? Why not just conduct yourself as a “concerned citizen” who happens to be walking around carrying wads of cash?
I suspect the definition of “lobbyist” for purposes of congressional gifts (and/or other legislation), may differ from what general folk consider to be - for lack of a better word - insiders with undue influence.
Even outside the blanket prohibition on lobbyists, gifts form any source are limited to $100 per annum (even friends and family!). So there isn’t really much of an advantage to trying to use unofficial lobbyists, unless your targeting a Congress-critter that can be bought really cheaply.
I think your cynicism is unwarranted. The rule is written really broadly. It doesn’t leave the kind of wiggle room your picturing.
I can answer your questions about why people register as lobbyists and address your comment about the definition of lobbyists in a strict factual manner, and in fact I started writing out a post to do that. Then I started wondering why I should, because I’m pretty sure the post would just be met with another roll of your eyes and further explainations about how you don’t know much about the subject, but you’re sure I’m wrong anyway.
If you’d like me to shed some light on the matter, and your mind is open to some basic facts on the law and how it applies to lobbyists, let me know.
