See previous Blog for my House floor comments on HB368. The following story on the HB368 debate appeared in the Anchorage Daily News this morning.
By ANNE SUTTON
The Associated Press
ETHICS BILL PASSES HOUSE, BUT WITH "BAD SEED" ATTACHED"
Last Modified: April 6th, 2008 06:15 AM
JUNEAU -- A bill to modify the state's ethics laws passed the Alaska House Saturday despite containing what its sponsor called "a bad seed in an otherwise good bill."
Among other provisions, the bill by Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage, would expand a prohibition on lawmakers accepting or soliciting campaign donations in Juneau, the capital city, to include any municipality where a session is held in the 90 days before an election. But the House Finance Committee added an exemption for lawmakers who have filed to run in a municipality where a special legislative session is being held.
The exemption would pertain only to Juneau lawmakers in the next election — a special session in the capital city is scheduled for later this summer. But it could affect other lawmakers if future special sessions are held elsewhere within 90 days of an election. A special session on senior benefits was held in Anchorage last summer.
House Finance Committee co-Chairman Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage, said the issue only cropped up in recent years when the Legislature started having a lot of special sessions.
Lynn said the exemption would open up a "Grand Canyon of loopholes," and he tried to remove it. But Meyer said he couldn't support Lynn's amendment to remove the exemption unless the prohibition on campaign donations applied to an incumbent's opponents as well.
The amendment, sponsored by Lynn and Juneau Democrats Andrea Doll and Beth Kerttula, failed by a vote of 14-25, and the bill containing the exemption then passed 39-0.
The bill also would loosen the laws concerning gifts, allowing a legislator or staff member to accept a gift worth $250 or more from a lobbyist, if the lobbyist is an immediate family member.
It also establishes fines for "willful" late disclosure filings and allows the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to publish official summaries of decisions and advisory opinions on an annual basis.
Most of the bill's sections are based on the select committee's recommendations. The bill goes to the Senate next. The bill is HB 368. ###
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
SAYING WHAT I THINK
Following is my House floor speech in support of my amendment to remove Section 2 of AS 24.60.031(c) from my HB368 ethics bill. Rightly or wrongly, the speech caused quite a stir in the capitol building (“stir” loosely translated as “yikes!”).
“Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to remove Section 2 of HB368 that was added in the last committee. The subject matter has little to do with the subject matter of the underlying bill. Basically, the amendment removes a bad seed that should not be planted in a good bill. Section 2 was not one of the recommendations by the Select Committee on Ethics for this legislation.
Section 2 puts us on a very slippery slope that increases the danger of mixing campaign contributions and legislative votes in too close proximity to the physical location of special sessions.
Unless we pass this amendment, a legislator could get campaign contributions anyplace a special session occurs, if that session is held 90 days immediately preceding an election as long as that legislator is running for office in a district within the municipality hosting the session …
Proponents of new fundraising loophole claim the current law is unfair to Juneau legislators. They say they are at a competitive disadvantage when special sessions are held in the Capital city. But my colleagues from Juneau have not complained.
Unless we remove Section 2, I think this provision could lead down the path to some bad habits from the good old days – days that actually weren’t that good. Newspaper accounts I’ve found from 12 years ago, make the point.
In those days, executives and lobbyists coming in the door to see legislators would pass by tables covered with upside down top hats. For anyone with an IQ above a clam, it didn’t take long to figure out what the hats were for. And the checks, mostly sheathed in envelopes, would pile up fast. Then, during the evening, there would be fund-raising receptions and other such campaign-enriching events.
And throughout all these cash-fueled meet and greets, lawmakers voted on important legislation - bills that were often of interest to the patrons of political campaigns. According to an Anchorage Daily News story from that era, one lobbyist was quoted as saying: “I can’t believe the legislators don’t find this as distasteful as most people think it is. It’s just a lousy system.”
We’re come a long say since, with some recent notable detours, in building a Foundation of Trust through campaign and ethics reform that prohibit lawmakers from using state offices and equipment to raise campaign funds.
But this Section 2 of HB 368, this Grand Canyon sized loophole in the fundraising rules, would make it possible to raise money on private property across the street, down the block, or in the neighborhood. Mixing campaign contributions and legislative votes that close to the location of a session, regular or special, creates at the very least, the appearance of improper influence, and quite possibly the seed for public corruption. Mr. Speaker, that’s a seed that should not be planted.
Let me make this perfectly clear. My colleagues who voted for this exemption have good and honest intentions. One legislator testified that you have to assume people are honest. Well I do. But I also have to assume that some people will do whatever the law allows them to do - especially under the pressure of a hotly contested competitive race.
Another colleague said he was going to err, he would err on the side of equal treatment – the rationale being that no lawmaker should be at a fundraising disadvantage simply because they reside in the municipality where a session is held.
I can understand that. But I also believe there’s a compelling state interest that supersedes this argument, and that is the need to preserve the integrity of the legislative process which, by the way, is the mission of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
In 1982, a local Juneau cartoonist drew a wonderful cartoon of a legislator holding out his hand toward a man reaching for his wallet. The caption reads: “These things aren’t free, you know. Why do you think they’re called bills?”
Please eliminate this fundraising loophole attached to HB368. Please help us maintain a healthy distance between someone’s checkbook and a legislator with a vote.”
NOTE: My amendment failed on a vote of 14 to 25 (you win some, lose some). Among the 14 voting “yes” with me were the Republican Majority Leader, the Democrat Minority Leader, the Republican Rules Chairman, and the Republican Finance Co-Chair.
“Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to remove Section 2 of HB368 that was added in the last committee. The subject matter has little to do with the subject matter of the underlying bill. Basically, the amendment removes a bad seed that should not be planted in a good bill. Section 2 was not one of the recommendations by the Select Committee on Ethics for this legislation.
Section 2 puts us on a very slippery slope that increases the danger of mixing campaign contributions and legislative votes in too close proximity to the physical location of special sessions.
Unless we pass this amendment, a legislator could get campaign contributions anyplace a special session occurs, if that session is held 90 days immediately preceding an election as long as that legislator is running for office in a district within the municipality hosting the session …
Proponents of new fundraising loophole claim the current law is unfair to Juneau legislators. They say they are at a competitive disadvantage when special sessions are held in the Capital city. But my colleagues from Juneau have not complained.
Unless we remove Section 2, I think this provision could lead down the path to some bad habits from the good old days – days that actually weren’t that good. Newspaper accounts I’ve found from 12 years ago, make the point.
In those days, executives and lobbyists coming in the door to see legislators would pass by tables covered with upside down top hats. For anyone with an IQ above a clam, it didn’t take long to figure out what the hats were for. And the checks, mostly sheathed in envelopes, would pile up fast. Then, during the evening, there would be fund-raising receptions and other such campaign-enriching events.
And throughout all these cash-fueled meet and greets, lawmakers voted on important legislation - bills that were often of interest to the patrons of political campaigns. According to an Anchorage Daily News story from that era, one lobbyist was quoted as saying: “I can’t believe the legislators don’t find this as distasteful as most people think it is. It’s just a lousy system.”
We’re come a long say since, with some recent notable detours, in building a Foundation of Trust through campaign and ethics reform that prohibit lawmakers from using state offices and equipment to raise campaign funds.
But this Section 2 of HB 368, this Grand Canyon sized loophole in the fundraising rules, would make it possible to raise money on private property across the street, down the block, or in the neighborhood. Mixing campaign contributions and legislative votes that close to the location of a session, regular or special, creates at the very least, the appearance of improper influence, and quite possibly the seed for public corruption. Mr. Speaker, that’s a seed that should not be planted.
Let me make this perfectly clear. My colleagues who voted for this exemption have good and honest intentions. One legislator testified that you have to assume people are honest. Well I do. But I also have to assume that some people will do whatever the law allows them to do - especially under the pressure of a hotly contested competitive race.
Another colleague said he was going to err, he would err on the side of equal treatment – the rationale being that no lawmaker should be at a fundraising disadvantage simply because they reside in the municipality where a session is held.
I can understand that. But I also believe there’s a compelling state interest that supersedes this argument, and that is the need to preserve the integrity of the legislative process which, by the way, is the mission of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
In 1982, a local Juneau cartoonist drew a wonderful cartoon of a legislator holding out his hand toward a man reaching for his wallet. The caption reads: “These things aren’t free, you know. Why do you think they’re called bills?”
Please eliminate this fundraising loophole attached to HB368. Please help us maintain a healthy distance between someone’s checkbook and a legislator with a vote.”
NOTE: My amendment failed on a vote of 14 to 25 (you win some, lose some). Among the 14 voting “yes” with me were the Republican Majority Leader, the Democrat Minority Leader, the Republican Rules Chairman, and the Republican Finance Co-Chair.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
WELCOME
Welcome to my political and "Win with Lynn" campaign blog! This blog is an adjunct to,and totally separate from, my legislative blog at www.RepLynnBlog.com (Please visit that blog also).
My legislative blog does NOT(and should not)contain any political news or opinion, and does not contain any material related to my re-election campaign.This Politcs and Campaign Blog, however, may cover both legislative and political topics, as well as personal reflections on a variety of topics. I may also copy some posts from my legislative blog to this one.
So, all that said, I respectfully request the honor of your vote for the 2008 elections
My legislative blog does NOT(and should not)contain any political news or opinion, and does not contain any material related to my re-election campaign.This Politcs and Campaign Blog, however, may cover both legislative and political topics, as well as personal reflections on a variety of topics. I may also copy some posts from my legislative blog to this one.
So, all that said, I respectfully request the honor of your vote for the 2008 elections
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
INEXCUSABLE DELAY OF ETHICS BILL
WHEN LEGISLATION IS LOVED TOO TOO MUCH
The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) is the watchdog committee that monitors campaign contributions and expenditures, and imposes penalties for violating their rules. In 2003, Governor Murkowski’s administration attempted to eliminate APOC. Didn’t work. It went over with the public like moose nugget in a box of bonbons, and the administration backed off. Later in the year, however, the administration was successful in getting the legislature to reduce the APOC Statute of Limitations for violations from four years to only one year. I’m proud to have voted against the reduction.
Governor Murkowski’s Chief of Staff Jim Clark, who recently plead guilty to illegal activities in Murkowski’s gubernatorial re-election campaign, is suspected of being the political operative responsible for getting the legislature to reduce state Statute of Limitations to one year. Whatever, the reduction proved convenient to Mr. Clark, after he plead guilty to federal charges.
As a result of situations involving VECO and state legislators, on January 1st, 2008 I sponsored House Bill 281 to fix these deficiencies in state law. My bill was referred to my House State Affairs Committee (I’m the chairman) on January 15th. Seven days later my committee heard the bill, and on January 22nd we passed it from State Affairs Committee to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill languished in Judiciary until today, March 19th, nearly two months later.
We adjoin about 25 days from now, and HB281 still must pass through the House Finance Committee, the House floor, and then pass the State Senate committee process. In other words, I wouldn’t bet my housecat on fixing Statute of Limitations deficiencies this year.
I confess to being irritated by the delays, but shan’t on this blog share personal speculations why my bill was delayed. I will share, however, my opening statement today before the Judiciary Committee on why the committee should move my bill out of committee. I used “love” to make my point (ain’t I nice).
The text of my statement follow:
-----------------------------
“Thank you for hearing HB281 once again - the bill we’ve come to know and to love. It seems to me that our Judiciary Committee is in love with this bill - because we’ve held it close, and haven’t wanted to let it go. But let go of we should. As the saying goes, “If you love something - let it go.” So, tough as it is, it’s time to share this important ethics legislation with other lawmakers.
Knowledgeable people in high places have told me HB281 is the flagship bill for ethics this session. Well, I agree. But the departure date has arrived - and it’s time for the flagship it sail out of this committee to House Finance, the floor, to the Senate, and then to the governor. I just hope the other committees don’t love HB281 as much as we have. Again, if love you something, let it go. Considering the time we’ve lived together with HB 281, we probably have intimate knowledge of it. So, rather than examining it once again, from head to toe, let me just summarize its main provisions:
HB281 extends the statute of limitations from the current one year to five years, for review of complaints of alleged APOC violations, or Ethics Committee complaints. The bill also allows six years for retention of records related to complaints that fall under this act. But, if and when a person leaves office, records are turned in at that time - that means we don’t have to worry about our dog eating the records.
We chose a five years Statute of Limitations because, if you run for state senate, or lieutenant governor, or governor - that’s a four-year term, and one would conceivably campaign a year before that.
The five-year statute of limitation is supported by both APOC and the Ethics Committee and, I would think, supported by most of our constituents. Recent history suggests that the current Statute of Limitations for APOC, and two years for the Select Committee, is woefully inadequate. Whatever, the provisions of HB281 are not retroactive - that eases the sponsor’s digestive system, and permits him to sleep at night.
I want to thank the Judiciary Committee and its Chairman for all its time, and love, in improving HB281. But to paraphrase Moses, ‘Mr. Chairman let my ethics bill go!’”
NOTE:
The delay of HB281 was inexcusable. My comment to the Judiciary Committee tried to make the point with satire. The proposed (and needed)extension of the Statute of Limitations for campaign reporting was hardly mentioned during "debate." It appeared no one wanted to be on record opposing that. Instead, the bill was delayed with argument on a thousand minor points. When something is both wrong and politically stupid, it shouldn't happen.
The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) is the watchdog committee that monitors campaign contributions and expenditures, and imposes penalties for violating their rules. In 2003, Governor Murkowski’s administration attempted to eliminate APOC. Didn’t work. It went over with the public like moose nugget in a box of bonbons, and the administration backed off. Later in the year, however, the administration was successful in getting the legislature to reduce the APOC Statute of Limitations for violations from four years to only one year. I’m proud to have voted against the reduction.
Governor Murkowski’s Chief of Staff Jim Clark, who recently plead guilty to illegal activities in Murkowski’s gubernatorial re-election campaign, is suspected of being the political operative responsible for getting the legislature to reduce state Statute of Limitations to one year. Whatever, the reduction proved convenient to Mr. Clark, after he plead guilty to federal charges.
As a result of situations involving VECO and state legislators, on January 1st, 2008 I sponsored House Bill 281 to fix these deficiencies in state law. My bill was referred to my House State Affairs Committee (I’m the chairman) on January 15th. Seven days later my committee heard the bill, and on January 22nd we passed it from State Affairs Committee to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill languished in Judiciary until today, March 19th, nearly two months later.
We adjoin about 25 days from now, and HB281 still must pass through the House Finance Committee, the House floor, and then pass the State Senate committee process. In other words, I wouldn’t bet my housecat on fixing Statute of Limitations deficiencies this year.
I confess to being irritated by the delays, but shan’t on this blog share personal speculations why my bill was delayed. I will share, however, my opening statement today before the Judiciary Committee on why the committee should move my bill out of committee. I used “love” to make my point (ain’t I nice).
The text of my statement follow:
-----------------------------
“Thank you for hearing HB281 once again - the bill we’ve come to know and to love. It seems to me that our Judiciary Committee is in love with this bill - because we’ve held it close, and haven’t wanted to let it go. But let go of we should. As the saying goes, “If you love something - let it go.” So, tough as it is, it’s time to share this important ethics legislation with other lawmakers.
Knowledgeable people in high places have told me HB281 is the flagship bill for ethics this session. Well, I agree. But the departure date has arrived - and it’s time for the flagship it sail out of this committee to House Finance, the floor, to the Senate, and then to the governor. I just hope the other committees don’t love HB281 as much as we have. Again, if love you something, let it go. Considering the time we’ve lived together with HB 281, we probably have intimate knowledge of it. So, rather than examining it once again, from head to toe, let me just summarize its main provisions:
HB281 extends the statute of limitations from the current one year to five years, for review of complaints of alleged APOC violations, or Ethics Committee complaints. The bill also allows six years for retention of records related to complaints that fall under this act. But, if and when a person leaves office, records are turned in at that time - that means we don’t have to worry about our dog eating the records.
We chose a five years Statute of Limitations because, if you run for state senate, or lieutenant governor, or governor - that’s a four-year term, and one would conceivably campaign a year before that.
The five-year statute of limitation is supported by both APOC and the Ethics Committee and, I would think, supported by most of our constituents. Recent history suggests that the current Statute of Limitations for APOC, and two years for the Select Committee, is woefully inadequate. Whatever, the provisions of HB281 are not retroactive - that eases the sponsor’s digestive system, and permits him to sleep at night.
I want to thank the Judiciary Committee and its Chairman for all its time, and love, in improving HB281. But to paraphrase Moses, ‘Mr. Chairman let my ethics bill go!’”
NOTE:
The delay of HB281 was inexcusable. My comment to the Judiciary Committee tried to make the point with satire. The proposed (and needed)extension of the Statute of Limitations for campaign reporting was hardly mentioned during "debate." It appeared no one wanted to be on record opposing that. Instead, the bill was delayed with argument on a thousand minor points. When something is both wrong and politically stupid, it shouldn't happen.
Monday, March 17, 2008
LYNN ADDS ETHICS PLANK TO REPUBLICAN PLATFORM
Representative Bob Lynn
Win with Lynn Campaign
16 March 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Rep. Bob Lynn adds ethics plank to Republican Platform
Rep. Lynn selected as National Convention Delegate
Rep. Bob Lynn, a delegate to the Republican Party of Alaska State Convention in Anchorage, made a motion that was successful in inserting the following plank into to the Principles section of the Alaska Republican Platform,
“The Republican Party of Alaska supports strong ethics, transparency in government, and accountability for elected and appointed officials.”
Rep. Lynn stated, “The plank is another step in building a “Foundation of Trust” between the people of Alaska and the political process.” He added, “This is a new plank for our Republican Party, and I challenge other political parties to follow our lead.”
In another action by the State Convention, Rep. Lynn was elected as an Alaska Delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention at Minneapolis in September. He will be the only member of the Alaska Legislature to serve as a National Delegate.
END
Win with Lynn Campaign
16 March 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Rep. Bob Lynn adds ethics plank to Republican Platform
Rep. Lynn selected as National Convention Delegate
Rep. Bob Lynn, a delegate to the Republican Party of Alaska State Convention in Anchorage, made a motion that was successful in inserting the following plank into to the Principles section of the Alaska Republican Platform,
“The Republican Party of Alaska supports strong ethics, transparency in government, and accountability for elected and appointed officials.”
Rep. Lynn stated, “The plank is another step in building a “Foundation of Trust” between the people of Alaska and the political process.” He added, “This is a new plank for our Republican Party, and I challenge other political parties to follow our lead.”
In another action by the State Convention, Rep. Lynn was elected as an Alaska Delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention at Minneapolis in September. He will be the only member of the Alaska Legislature to serve as a National Delegate.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)