HomeEssential Ethics / November 22, 2019

Essential Ethics

November 22, 2019

Latest Developments:

  • The Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether to overturn a 1997 ruling that prohibits campaign contribution limits in the state.  Oregon Public Broadcasting reports that the case arises as a result of a $500 contribution limit enacted in Multnomah County.  The article also notes that there is no time requirement for issuing the decision.
  • The Fair Political Practices Commission met this week and imposed a $150,000 fine on a former state legislator and county official for using over $130,000 of his campaign funds for a vacation in Asia and for a remodeling project on his home in Hawaii.  The Commission  approved a settlement agreement with former official, who agreed to the fine.   Nevertheless, the Sacramento Bee reports that “commissioners said the fine wasn’t enough.  They said they’ll consider asking the Legislature to increase the allowable penalty,” so that future offenders will pay even more.  “It’s a breathtaking arrogance,” said one commissioner.  The spending was concealed on campaign finance reports and the matter has been referred to the local District Attorney for further review.
  • The City Clerk of Austin, Texas announced increased campaign contribution limits of $400 (up from $350) that an individual can give to a candidate and aggregate contribution limit for other than natural persons of $38,000 per regular election (up from $37,000) and $25,000 for runoff elections.  The Austin Monitor reports that the Clerk told the City Council that the “limits are increasing for the first time in a number of years.”
  • The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics met this week.  Among the items on the agenda, staff announced additional features of the Commission’s lobby application have been added to allow for extensions and terminations to be completed online.  They also indicated that the lobby app should be completed and fully functional by March 2020.
  • The Executive Director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board is stepping down after nearly a decade on the job.  The Des Moines Gazette reports that Megan Tooker is leaving in mid-December.  The Board discussed the process for selecting a new Director at its meeting last week.

In Case You Missed It:

  • Feds Throw the Book at Mayor:  The former Mayor of Baltimore, who resigned after it was disclosed that she was selling her children’s books to several local charities in an unseemly fashion, was indicted on federal tax evasion and wire fraud charges, according to CNN.  The report quotes a statement by the U.S. Attorney’s Office that the Mayor sold her books “‘to non-profit organizations and foundations, many of whom did business or attempted to do business with the Maryland and Baltimore City governments.’”  The former Mayor pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion charges, according to the Baltimore Sun.
  • New York Ethics Breach Investigated:  The Governor of New York was briefed about what happened during an executive session of the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), according to the Albany Times-Union.  The session concerned a vote on whether to investigate one of the Governor’s aides.  The breach of confidentiality was investigated by the State Inspector General (a former Executive Director of JCOPE), but no public report was issued.
  • FARA Still Ensnares:  Activity by a lobbyist seeking to oust the former Ambassador to Ukraine “raises questions about whether he violated a federal law that requires lobbyists to disclose their work for foreign clients,” according to an article in USA Today.  The issue is whether the lobbyist, a former Congressman, should have disclosed that he was paid by two “Ukraine-linked clients” to make repeated phone calls seeking the Ambassador’s ouster, or whether, as the lobbyist says, “he made the calls as a ‘concerned American citizen,’ not as a lobbyist.”
  • More Side Effects of FEC Impotence:  The Campaign Legal Center brought suit against the Federal Election Commission, which failed to prosecute a case of coordination between Hillary for America and a super PAC.  Despite a recommendation by the Commission’s General Counsel to fine the super PAC, the Federal Election Commission failed to gain a majority vote of commission members to proceed.  Similarly, the FEC failed to gain enough votes to defend the suit brought by the CLC.  Following that failure, Hillary for America and the super PAC sought to intervene and defend the case in place of the FEC.  Despite the CLC’s opposition, a federal judge issued an order allowing those two parties to take the place of the FEC.  The CLC, concerned about the state of the FEC, commissioned a poll of likely voters who rated “corruption in our political system” as the “biggest problem facing the country.”  According to the poll, “71% want the FEC to take a more active role enforcing campaign finance laws,” which includes at least two-thirds support across party lines.
  • IRS Generates Sunshine:  Politico reports on a “massive ‘dark money’ group” that spent $141 million during the midterm elections on various causes.  The information was gleaned from the IRS Form 990 filed by the group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund.  According to the article, the group’s income included a contribution from one donor of $51.7 million, and it spent its money through a series of other nonprofits (listed on Schedule I of the Form 990).
  • Free Speech doesn’t include Assault:  The Associated Press reports that a Florida woman was sentenced to 15 days in federal prison for throwing a sports drink at a Florida congressman.  She pled guilty to assaulting a federal official; the incident occurred outside the Brew Ha Ha Bar and Restaurant in Pensacola, Florida, according to the Panama City News Herald.
  • Political Online Targets:  Google announced that it “will restrict how precisely political advertisers can target an audience on its online services,” according to the New York Times.  According to the article, “(p)olitical advertisers will be able to aim their messages at people based on their age, gender or location.”  But they will not be able to target “audiences based on their public voter records or political affiliations.”