HomeEssential Ethics / August 9, 2019

Essential Ethics

August 9, 2019

Latest Developments:

  • The Governor of Oregon signed two campaign finance disclosure bills this week:
    • HB 2716, which requires that communications in support or opposition of a candidate disclose the name of the committee and the top five donors of $10,000 or more.
    • HB 2983, which requires organizations that spend $10,000 or more on electioneering communications disclose their donors.   The bill also reduces the threshold requiring disclosure reporting for independent expenditures from $750 to $250.
  • The Federal Election Commission has published a “notification of availability” and is seeking public comment through September 30 on whether the Commission should engage in rulemaking to require disclosure of contributions of “valuable information,” which would include “foreign information” and “compromising information.”  The notice is in response to a petition the FEC received in April.
  • The California Fair Political Practices Commission adopted new regulations on conflict of interest.  The commission issued regulation concerning when an interest in a business is material and when an interest in a source of income is material.  Each regulation has a list of criteria for determining when the reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision on one of these interests of a government official is material.
  • The Florida Commission on Ethics approved a new regulation defining the term “disproportionate benefit.”  Last November, voters approved a state constitutional amendment providing that “A public officer or public employee shall not abuse his or her public position in order to obtain a disproportionate benefit for himself or herself,” but deferred to the Commission to define the term.  The new regulation defines “disproportionate benefit” as a “benefit, privilege, exemption, or result arising from an act or omission by a public officer or public employee inconsistent with the proper performance of his or her public duties.” The regulation also includes several criteria to be considered in determining whether something constitutes a disproportionate benefit.  The legislature is required to enact penalties for violation of this provision by December 31, 2020.

Reminder:  

The Practising Law Institute presents the annual Corporate Political Activities Conference on September 6-7, 2019 in Washington, D.C.  The program comprehensively covers campaign finance, lobby disclosure and government ethics on the federal state and local level, with a break-out session on foreign political activities.  A one-day version of the program will be presented later in San Francisco, CA on October 3. Nielsen Merksamer co-chairs these programs.  To sign up, use the following links:  PLI Two-Day Conference in Washington D.C.; PLI One-Day Program in San Francisco (also webcast).  Nielsen Merksamer clients are invited to a workshop on September 4.

In Case You Missed It:

  • Special Purpose Accounts are too Dark:  The Center for Responsive Politics and the Campaign Legal Center have asked the Federal Election Commission to require that party special purpose accounts, known as “Cromnibus” accounts, be subject to disclosure requirements.  The petition requests “that the FEC promulgate rules and forms requiring national party committees to delineate within their reports the individual and aggregate transactions involving their Cromnibus accounts.”  CRP’s article points out that “accounts are not required to disclose basic information, and it is nearly impossible to track all contributions to these accounts under the current reporting structure.”
  • Last Bus Stop: Federal Pen:  Courthouse News Services reports that the former head of the Dallas County Schools bus agency was sentenced to seven years in federal prison in a pay-to-play scheme in which he took $3 million in bribes for $70 million in school bus camera contracts awarded.  The school bus agency has since gone bankrupt and been dissolved by the voters.
  • Consulting is not Lobbying:  Maplight reports that in 2017, “corporate trade organizations and nonprofits” spent more money in Washington on consulting and advocacy than on lobbying, the latter of which requires disclosure, to influence public policy.  The article characterizes these as “vague expenses” and notes that they include grassroots lobbying activities.
  • Public Disclosure Embarrassment:  NPR discusses the fallout from publicizing information that has already been disclosed publicly; specifically, highlighting the list of donors to the President’s campaign.  The Los Angeles Times reports on efforts of SoulCycle and Equinox Gyms to distance themselves from contributions made by their owner/investor.
  • Too Much from One Source:  The Oakland Public Ethics Commission fined the Mayor of Oakland for accepting four times the maximum contribution from an individual Oakland developer.  The four contributions came from different entities, but all are owned by the same property developer.  According to the East Bay Times, the commission voted to impose an increased fine because the Mayor’s campaign received a similar group of four contributions in the 2014 election.