Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

A new twist on the gift ban

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* They had a big problem with this in Missouri recently, but I’m wondering what y’all think…

Missouri state Rep. @BartKorman has bill that’d require #MOLeg to report sexual relations w/ lobbyists as gifts. https://t.co/L9thJLwyTd

— Eli Yokley (@eyokley) January 7, 2016

* 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

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:30 am

Comments

Could you get around this by paying the lobbyist for his/her services?

Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:31 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.”

Comment by wordslinger 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”

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:33 am
I can’t imagine anything bad coming from this

Comment by Missing G Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:34 am
But I’m okay if I then “donate” my “sexual relation” to charity though, right?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:34 am
No.

Comment by The Captain Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:35 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

Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:36 am
Would this cover Liaisons?

Comment by Spliff Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:37 am
I know lobbyists!
They are:
Diamond
Pretty Babe
Squirrel Tooth Sadie
Dirty Betty
Crackhead Jane
Officer Big Club

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:38 am
can these gifts be shared with everyone in the office to avoid ethics violations?

Comment by Homer J. Quinn Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:38 am
I think legislators should be required to wear body cams 24/7

Comment by Missing G Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:38 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?

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:39 am
Now I know why lobbyists are taking those lap dance classes!

Comment by VanillaMan 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…

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:40 am
“I’ll run your bill, but no mouth kissing.”

Comment by left of Central IL Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:43 am
It is a blatant conflict of interest that should be disclosed in some form.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:43 am
Honestly, the first thing that popped into my head was “Are politicians losing their minds?”

Comment by Finally Out (and now very glad to be) Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:45 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.

Comment by The Captain Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:47 am
Are lobyists allowed to write off these relations on their taxes as charity?

Comment by SO IL M Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:48 am
When I think of all the lobbyists I know, they would owe me and it would not be a gift.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:51 am
Illinois would need a Brown Nose Bill to go with that.

Comment by Touré's Latte Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:58 am
If passed in Illinois, the SOS index department will need a lot more staff to handle lobbying reports.

Comment by Give Me A Break Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:59 am
Put’s a whole new spin on the term “fetcher bill”, doesn’t it?

Comment by Colin O'Scopey Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:02 am
This is a topic that is clearly NSFW.

Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:02 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 . . .

Comment by hockey fan Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:03 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.

Comment by Anonymous 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.

Comment by LizPhairTax Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:07 am
“I didn’t say the legislator was good in bed, I said he was sexually gifted.”

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:07 am
Well considering how locally it might have been considered relevant… I am going to take a pass on this one.

Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:09 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.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:14 am
How exactly would we go about enforcing this?

Comment by horse w/ no name Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:14 am
We’re all getting our giggles in here, but The Captain makes most the valuable substantive point.

Comment by The Historian Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:14 am
We now know a MO solon who is on the outs with his colleagues.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:18 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.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:33 am
Strange bedfellows

Comment by walker Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:37 am
Every comment I can think of at the moment would get me deleted and probably banned.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:41 am
Trying to use “re-gifting” in a post….working on it.

Comment by Bogey Golfer Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:55 am
Is it possible that some might report a negative numbers?

Comment by Anonnin' Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:00 pm
Would it be taxable?

Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:20 pm
And all Paul Powell received was money…..

Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:24 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.

Comment by Team Sleep 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.

Comment by Dupage Bard Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:25 pm
-Team Sleep-, thanks, you just inspired me!

This proposed bill adds a whole new layer to the term ’sheet and blanket show’.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:47 pm
RNUG - welcome, and now pillow talk will have to be classified speech as well. Man, this never ends!

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:54 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.

Comment by Lincoln Lad 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.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:01 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, …

Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:09 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!

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:23 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 …

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:32 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.

Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:28 pm
Name me a lobbyist who hasn’t gotten screwed by a legislator at least once?

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:48 pm
Report as gifts as to avoid the prostitution angle? Just sayin’.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 5:01 pm
Would large group gatherings be reportable

Comment by Fdr democrat Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 6:02 pm
=If passed in Illinois, the SOS index department will need a lot more staff to handle lobbying reports.=

Index accepts.

Comment by DW Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 6:07 pm
Well I usually just report under the “large gathering” provision but would probably not qualify for this section of the act.

Comment by Been There Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 6:13 pm
DW, job security?

Comment by Illinois law Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 8:47 pm