HomeEssential Ethics / January 15, 2021

Essential Ethics

January 15, 2021

Latest Developments:

  • The Biden Inaugural Committee released its list of donors of $200 or more to the committee, which is formally “known as PIC 2021, Inc.” Politico notes that the list includes “tech companies Google, Microsoft and Qualcomm; internet service providers Verizon and Comcast; aerospace giant Boeing; labor union IBEW; health insurance company Anthem, Inc.; and medical technology company Masimo Corporation.”
  • The Arizona Secretary of State issued new campaign contributions limits, which took effect on January 1. Limits on contributions from individuals, partnerships, and PACs to state candidates increased from $5,200 to $5,300 per election cycle. The limit for contributions from “Mega PACs” to state candidates increased from $10,400 to $10,600.
  • Elections Canada announced that the contribution limit for federal offices in Canada have been increased by $25 for 2021 to $1,650 for the calendar year. 

In Case You Missed It:

  • Here Come the Ethics Reforms: The New York Times describes how “Congressional Democrats and a slew of groups are preparing to push for the kinds of ethics and governance changes not seen since the post-Watergate era.” The article notes that “Among the changes embraced by House Democratic leaders are limits on the president’s pardon powers, mandated release of a president’s tax returns, new enforcement powers for independent agencies and Congress, and firmer prohibitions against financial conflicts of interest in the White House.” A number of proposals have already been advanced in Congress, including the reintroduction of HR 1. The President-Elect is also touting an ethics reform plan.
  • Corporate Contribution PauseBloomberg News compiled a list of corporations “that say they are withholding political contributions after last week’s U.S. Capitol riot…”  The article groups the companies “into three broad categories: Those going after specific Republican lawmakers …, those going after objectors in general, and those withholding all contributions for now…”
  • Atlanta Ethics Settlement: According to WSB-TV2, the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission fined the Mayor of Atlanta for “irregularities in her campaign finances during the 2017 mayor’s race.”
  • A. Pay-to-Play Probe Continues: The Eastsider LA reports that a company has agreed to pay a $1.2. fine as part of a non-prosecution agreement “to resolve a federal criminal investigation that focused on the firm’s relationship with former Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar, who voted to approve its 35-story project in downtown’s Arts District.” This is the latest in an “ongoing investigation into a wide-ranging pay-to-play scheme in which developers bribed Los Angeles city officials to secure official acts to benefit their real estate projects.”
  • San Francisco Ethics Investigation Topples City Administrator: The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the San Francisco City Administrator will resign February 1, just “weeks after federal prosecutors implicated her husband in an ever-expanding City Hall corruption scandal.” The article notes that she is “the latest domino to fall in a multipronged city hall bribery scheme that was first made public last year…”
  • Nevada Legislator Folds:  The Associated Press notes that a Las Vegas area legislator resigned amid an investigation into his use of campaign funds. Questions were also raised about whether his primary residence was in the district he represents. His letter of resignation simply explained, “With great regret, and because I believe that lawmakers are bound to uphold the law and act with honesty and integrity, I must admit my mistake and resign my office.” To date, no charges have been filed.
  • No-Bid Contract PR Star: The Associated Press reports that The Governor of Iowa and her aides appeared in and “helped make a marketing video for a Utah company that was awarded no-bid contracts for work on the coronavirus pandemic, a move that has raised allegations of favoritism and improper use of public resources.” The article notes that the “appearances go against long-standing guidance to avoid any hint of preferential treatment in relationships with contractors.”