A new twist on the gift ban
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* They had a big problem with this in Missouri recently, but I’m wondering what y’all think…
* Relevant passage from the bill…
For purposes of subdivision (2) of this subsection, the term “gift” shall include sexual relations between a registered lobbyist and a member of the general assembly or his or her staff. Relations between married persons or between persons who entered into a relationship prior to the registration of the lobbyist, the election of the member to the general assembly, or the employment of the staff person shall not be reportable under this subdivision. The reporting of sexual relations for purposes of this subdivision shall not require a dollar valuation.
The proposal has no listed co-sponsors as of yet.
…Adding… From a reader…
Rich:
Regarding your gift ban post, see this North Carolina ethics opinion from last year in which it was opined that a consensual sexual relationship where the lobbyist is not paid by the lobbyist’s principal for engaging in a sexual relationship does not constitute goodwill lobbying and therefore did not trigger lobbyist registration.
http://www.ethicscommission.nc.gov/library/pdfs/AOs/PDFs/AO-L-15-001.pdf
- Soccermom - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:31 am:
Could you get around this by paying the lobbyist for his/her services?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:33 am:
–The reporting of sexual relations for purposes of this subdivision shall not require a dollar valuation.–
Don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, I guess.
It’s the old joke: “We’ve established what you are, now we’re just haggling over price.”
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:33 am:
===The reporting of sexual relations for purposes of this subdivision shall not require a dollar valuation.===
“Nah — it was only a $100 gift. They’re definitely not a $1000 a night lobbyist”
- Missing G - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:34 am:
I can’t imagine anything bad coming from this
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:34 am:
But I’m okay if I then “donate” my “sexual relation” to charity though, right?
- The Captain - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:35 am:
No.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:36 am:
“The reporting of sexual relations for purposes of this subdivision shall not require a dollar valuation.”
Just use the traditional 1-5 star rating.
– MrJM
- Spliff - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:37 am:
Would this cover Liaisons?
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:38 am:
I know lobbyists!
They are:
Diamond
Pretty Babe
Squirrel Tooth Sadie
Dirty Betty
Crackhead Jane
Officer Big Club
- Homer J. Quinn - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:38 am:
can these gifts be shared with everyone in the office to avoid ethics violations?
- Missing G - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:38 am:
I think legislators should be required to wear body cams 24/7
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:39 am:
As with Rauner’s anti-union proposals, isn’t it a waste of taxpayer time to propose bills that have absolutely no chance of passing?
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:40 am:
Now I know why lobbyists are taking those lap dance classes!
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:40 am:
Does this mean anyone workin’ in Missouri government, politics, or lobbying have to register with Tinder? I mean, for recording purposes…
- left of Central IL - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:43 am:
“I’ll run your bill, but no mouth kissing.”
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:43 am:
It is a blatant conflict of interest that should be disclosed in some form.
- Finally Out (and now very glad to be) - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:45 am:
Honestly, the first thing that popped into my head was “Are politicians losing their minds?”
- The Captain - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:47 am:
This gets to a broader issue that doesn’t get discussed enough. Much of our government and political process runs on young, cheap labor. On any given campaign very few of the staffers are over 30. Look at the legislative staff or the typical leg liaisons, some are senior staffers but a great many are young and affordable, people who are trying to work their way up the ladder to something better.
The people who capture the headlines with salacious or nefarious behavior are seldom these young people. Yet the reactionary legislation that gets put in place in the aftermath never fails to further punish them. This proposed legislation would put the same obligations on legislative staff as it does the members. They work a bunch of hours for low pay in a system predicated on this young, cheap labor existing and now they’re proposing to legislate their private affairs.
Revolving door laws are no different, look at all the young people who lost their jobs during the recent administration changeover, through no fault of their own they had to go find another job and many of them were legally prevented from looking for a job in the subject area(s) they knew best.
I get that lobbyists and government workers are easy, popular punching bags but these are also people. Just treat them like human beings.
- SO IL M - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:48 am:
Are lobyists allowed to write off these relations on their taxes as charity?
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:51 am:
When I think of all the lobbyists I know, they would owe me and it would not be a gift.
- Touré's Latte - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:58 am:
Illinois would need a Brown Nose Bill to go with that.
- Give Me A Break - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:59 am:
If passed in Illinois, the SOS index department will need a lot more staff to handle lobbying reports.
- Colin O'Scopey - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:02 am:
Put’s a whole new spin on the term “fetcher bill”, doesn’t it?
- Huh? - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:02 am:
This is a topic that is clearly NSFW.
- hockey fan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:03 am:
I can think of a couple examples where this would apply to well known dating relationships - which are not ethical concerns to me. I think it’s horrible that a bill would require those relationships to have to be reported as such.
From the articles you read about Missouri - their culture is far more problematic than what we see in Springfield.
That bill is crazy but they have had a lot of problems with unethical behavior on the part of their Speaker and legislators - don’t blame the lobbyists just because you’re for sale!
I don’t see that as much here - unless I am ignorant . . .
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:07 am:
If the lobbyists and legislators had to file a disclosure declaring no such relationship exists and they are not truthful, bingo- that’s mail fraud under fed law. Wouldn’t be the primary charge but certainly could use it as a threat for cooperation and pleas.
- LizPhairTax - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:07 am:
“Sexual Relations” is not defined anywhere in the Missouri Revised Statutes. Probably should get that in the bill if it’s a sincere piece of legislation.
Also, depends on what the definition of “is” is.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:07 am:
“I didn’t say the legislator was good in bed, I said he was sexually gifted.”
– MrJM
- OneMan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:09 am:
Well considering how locally it might have been considered relevant… I am going to take a pass on this one.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:14 am:
If they add a provision requiring legislators to disclose a sexual relationship with anyone they recommend for a job, we won’t need to bother with term limits.
- horse w/ no name - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:14 am:
How exactly would we go about enforcing this?
- The Historian - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:14 am:
We’re all getting our giggles in here, but The Captain makes most the valuable substantive point.
- Norseman - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:18 am:
We now know a MO solon who is on the outs with his colleagues.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:33 am:
A legislator can get around the gift ban reporting requirements if said legislator is joined my a large group of legislators and none of them sit down when they eat.
- walker - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:37 am:
Strange bedfellows
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:41 am:
Every comment I can think of at the moment would get me deleted and probably banned.
- Bogey Golfer - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:55 am:
Trying to use “re-gifting” in a post….working on it.
- Anonnin' - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:00 pm:
Is it possible that some might report a negative numbers?
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:20 pm:
Would it be taxable?
- A Jack - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:24 pm:
And all Paul Powell received was money…..
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:25 pm:
RNUG, you took the words right out of my mouth. I will say that I wondered about the bedding and sheets lobby being impacted by the bill.
- Dupage Bard - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:25 pm:
I’m thinking that there will be someone in the Illinois Legislature that will file this bill. It’s not a long list but you know there are a few who are looking at this thinking it’s a good idea.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:47 pm:
-Team Sleep-, thanks, you just inspired me!
This proposed bill adds a whole new layer to the term ’sheet and blanket show’.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:54 pm:
RNUG - welcome, and now pillow talk will have to be classified speech as well. Man, this never ends!
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
Taking time to even create this bill tells you a lot about the capabilities of this Missouri Republican. Illinois doesn’t look so ridiculous today, comparatively speaking.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
“Politics is suppposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”
-R. Regan
Seems even more similar now.
- Soccermom - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:09 pm:
“A legislator can get around the gift ban reporting requirements if said legislator is joined my a large group of legislators and none of them sit down when they eat.”
Therefore, …
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:23 pm:
“Relations between married persons…shall not be reportable under this subdivision.” So, you just have to be married (not necessarily to each other)? No problem!
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:32 pm:
Will this bill mean a legislator’s spouse can no longer be a lobbyist or advocate for a position unless it was properly reported?
On second thought, there might be some merit to this reporting idea …
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:28 pm:
The problem in Missouri has been more about staff/interns and legislators. If that’s the intention of the sponsor, he’s missing the problem almost entirely–though lobbyists do get harassed as well.
I’m guessing it’s more of a shot across someone else’s bow who he has a grudge with.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:48 pm:
Name me a lobbyist who hasn’t gotten screwed by a legislator at least once?
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 5:01 pm:
Report as gifts as to avoid the prostitution angle? Just sayin’.
- Fdr democrat - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 6:02 pm:
Would large group gatherings be reportable
- DW - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 6:07 pm:
=If passed in Illinois, the SOS index department will need a lot more staff to handle lobbying reports.=
Index accepts.
- Been There - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 6:13 pm:
Well I usually just report under the “large gathering” provision but would probably not qualify for this section of the act.
- Illinois law - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 8:47 pm:
DW, job security?