Comments on: Abbott announces ethics reform plan

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:32:28 +0000

She specifically mentioned registered lobbyists, then a blanket statement banning gifts to legislators. I can see how she would think banning gifts over $100 is a good idea. Someone who owns a company could give a delegate a big gift in hopes of swaying them on a vote, but they would not be a registered lobbyist. I am sure that is the logic she used when she wrote that statement, but she must not have taken into account birthday parties or the like. She clearly said except from the candidates family, which means she clearly meant to exclude everyone but the family from giving gifts. If she meant no registered lobbyists could give gifts then she would not have put in the exclusion for family because family are clearly not registered lobbyists (though they could be). Again, it clearly says no gifts from “any person.” So I do not see what you do not understand about that.

As for the press kit, I sent it from vote4call@gmail.com a few minutes after I made the last comment.

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:51:19 +0000

Actually, since the gifts are under the heading of “Curtailing lobbyist influence” I’m not sure why you’re having trouble with understanding what she’s talking about.

Haven’t gotten your press kit.

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:32:37 +0000

I understand that, but then why would she clearly state no dinners from lobbyists on one part and no gifts period on the next? Your intent is your intent. She clearly intended to mean no lobbyist dinners, would she not clearly mean no gifts to legislators? If she meant from lobbyists she would have put that in, but she did not. This shows she either overlooked it or did not think through the ramifications of her idea.

I did look at the concept. It is a good idea to have ethics reform, but this is another one of those ideas that allows you to campaign on something, but not actually risk the skin to make a real, effective change. You said yourself it probably does not go far enough. I’m sure Abbott knows enough to be able to point out far bigger and more serious problems with our handling of ethics.

As for my candidate; check your email for our press kit. People don’t want to hear about ethics reform in the 90th, they want to hear about new jobs, better schools, and government that serves the people, not the other way around. It makes sense for Abbott to send a release, if Jason did it would seem like he is questioning Delegate Howells ethics and we most certainly have no reason to do that. Gotta stay on message, 50% of freshman fail in Norfolk schools, fixing that is more important than banning legislators from receiving gifts.

The best ethics reform of all would be for delegates to step up and call each other out. They know what goes on, people talk, people know, no one cares enough to make a big deal out of it. You can have laws, but you need personal responsibility most of all.

No one wants to piss people off, its a systemic failure in our system. So and so does something wrong, but if you hate him for it you lose your good standing with so and so and that affects your business relationship with x client, so your better of just sucking it up… The same thing happens in court. The defense attorneys make a lot of money, they like to go on nice vacations. Do they really want to call out the prosecution for misconduct all the time, no matter how serious? They want to get that court date changed so they can go to Hawaii with their girlfriend, they don’t want to the CA office hating them exposing their corruption.

By: vjp

vjp — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:12:07 +0000

Max, perhaps you are unaware of how legislation ends up getting written. The proposal ends up going to legislative services, where the proposal is turned into legalese in accordance with the code and the intent.

AFAIK, none of the legislators actually write the legislation.

So rather than nitpicking the placement (or lack thereof) of a word, why not look at the concept?

Besides, I’ve not seen anything from your candidate on this…

By: Max Shapiro

Max Shapiro — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:49:44 +0000

Ethics reform? This doesn’t look like anything that hasn’t been proposed before. HB1738 introduced by Bob Purkey would have “expanded the period during which a former legislator or certain former state and local government officers and employees may not lobby from one to two years” It got shot down completely. A yearly review? Give me a break, that won’t do a thing unless the yearly review is during the session. Prohibiting gifts? Is she crazy? If you can’t see how a law with that phrase in it would wreck havoc on personal lives then you shouldn’t be a delegate. His best friend wants to give him a gift, not allowed, his former mentor, not allowed, his wife’s friend, not allowed. Birthday party? No way. The phrase registered lobbyist should be inserted into there, but it is not. She put it in the above statement, but not the one referring to gifts. If it was a mistake then that shows a lot about her campaign, if it wasn’t a mistake then it shows she has a novice understanding of just what laws can do when you don’t think them through.

By: laura

laura — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:27:53 +0000

Thanks Robin for stepping forward on this issue.