HomeEssential Ethics / MARCH 9, 2018

Essential Ethics

MARCH 9, 2018

Latest Developments:

Oklahoma Ethics Commission meets today, Friday, March 9, 2018.  While we generally don’t monitor this commission closely, it’s worth noting that the meeting agenda includes a presentation by a current state legislator who is asking the Commission to engage in rulemaking to require that payments intended to influence be disclosed.

San Francisco Ethics Commission meets next Friday, March 16, 2018, but has not yet posted an agenda for the meeting.

In case you missed it:

  • Senate Bill 2482 was introduced by Senator Feinstein on March 1, 2018, and is cosponsored by Sens. Cornyn, Shaheen, and Young.  The bill would require the Department of Justice to enforce laws pertaining to unregistered, non-diplomatic operatives of foreign governments.  Roll Call reports that the bipartisan effort comes at a time when various interests have coalesced to stop HR 4170, which would require increased reporting under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and passed out of committee in January.  SB 2482, among other things, deletes the exemption under FARA for registered lobbyists, and instead creates an exemption in the Lobby Disclosure Act for persons registered under FARA.

Currently FARA contains an exception for foreign agents who are registered under the Lobby Disclosure Act.  (22 U.S.C. 613(h).)  Section 5 of the bill would repeal subsection (h) of Section 613 in FARA and instead place an exception in the Lobby Disclosure Act (at 2 U.S.C. 1603(a)(3)) to provide that a person registered under FARA is not required to register as a lobbyist.

  • The Federal Judiciary has issued a new personnel policy covering employees of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and the Federal Judicial Center.  The new policy admonishes administrative employees not to donate to candidates or engage in partisan political activity.  The National Law Journal reports the new policy brings these employees under the same rules that apply to federal judges and courtroom employees.
  • Patrick McGreevy, of the Los Angeles Times, reported on March 3, 2018, on recent public filings that disclose gifts to California officials.  Something greater than $700,000 in gifts were made in 2017 to state officials, including over $44,000 to the Governor alone.  McGreevy notes that the Governor vetoed a bill in 2014 that would have further restricted gift-giving to state officials.
  • The Hill has a recap of Trump administration ethics problems.  The March 3, 2018, article summarizes the problems of a half dozen cabinet members who face questions about spending public funds on lavish travel and goods, accepting improper gifts, and violating the Hatch Act.  Does anyone know a good ethics lawyer who can give these guys some much-needed advice?
  • On the other side of the coin, the Oregonian reports that a the former Republic State Senate leader, who represents a rural district in the eastern part of the state, agonized over an ethical dilemma when given a gift of a Pendleton blanket by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation.  The tribal board was grateful for the Senator’s sponsorship of beneficial legislation, including a bill to stop looting at Native American burial sites.  However, the $249 blanket exceeded the state’s $50 gift limit.  He contacted the State Ethics Commission Director, explaining, accepting it might violate ethics regulations, but returning it “might constitute an insult.”  Ultimately, the Senator gave the blanket to the State Senate.