Gift ban madness

The Legislature passed a law in late 2005 requiring lobbyists to disclose income and barring lawmakers and staffers from accepting anything of value from lobbyists. Not even a cup of coffee.

The goal was to curtail a crass lifestyle of government workers living off the largesse of lobbyists.But campaign contributions weren't covered. So a form of madness has ensued. A blueberry muffin is now the symbol of undue influence in Tallahassee, not a $50, 000 campaign contribution. More here.

Comments

You hypocrits at the St. Pete Times knew all of that when Tom Lee created this paper tiger. However, you chose not to point it out in editorials or news stories because it make a good headline. Blame yourself! Allan Bense went along with the House so he could get his legislation passed over there. There has never been a better example of the legislature or press not having one single person who would stand up and tell the truth on this issue.

All you Jerkoff reporters were the ones pushing this stupid law and everyone knows its a joke and doesn't do anything about campaign contributions. But that's what you "self appointed protector's of Democracy" wanted so deal with it.

in defense of the reporters (i can't believe I said that)- they were not the ones voting for it. If our legisl had any backbone, they would have seen the bill for what it was (political tool) and would not have voted for it. Can't blame the reporters for this one-

I echo what the previous posters wrote. Read the archives of this blog and see how many posters pointed out the hypocrisy. But no, the St. Pete Times reporters were so starry eyed by Tom Lee they wouldn't dare question him and his "I'm not seeking hire office" campaign stunt.

The articles about Lee's PAC never scratched the surface of the "don't give me a meal, write me a check" practice and essentially let him off the hook, only questioning whether he was going to spend the money on his campaign. However they chose to never ask he or others like him for specifics about what were those organization's expenditures. I'll give you a hint - most of them were for the type of items that were banned by the gift legislation, only the money's laundered. I could never tell if it was just poor and lazy reporting or collusion.

But hey, live with it, because it's in the law now and no one is going to change it now.

The $150,000 the Home Builders PAC gave to Pruitt's Senate Majority 2006 in Sept 06 didn't seem to help them this session. Guess it wasn't enough :)

They better pony up big time to the Republicans if they expect to get any caps on impact fees next session.The Repub leadership is getting more and more expensive to buy (oops, I mean influence).

This really is insane. But the staff and politicians are not nearly as worried about what the press (most of whom are too busy to pursue stupid stuff like this) will do, as what their campaign opposition will do.
This just gives more fodder to those who like to file complaints and write postcards about their opposition, not to mention employment security for some attorneys.

[Tom in Tallahassee]

Effectively, this so-called "gift ban" law is pure window dressing and nothing more. Used to be that the the gifts, dinners and trips were delivered directly into the hands of legislators by lobbyists. Now, these same banned gifts merely take an often untraceable, circuitous route. Nothing has changed. Talk to any legislator that is willing to be off-the-record honest, and you'll find that the freebies abound at a level that often exceeds those before this fake "ban" was enacted.

Media coverage led us to believe that the gift ban was the answer to a problem. Fact is, it merely drove everything underground.

you f***ing scoundrel toady reporters!! way too interested in the big splash than doing true investigative journalism. you're as perfectly untrustworthy as the parasitic lobbyists themselves.

yeah- instead of getting the free tickets to sporting events, the legislator will buy a cheap ticket and then be ushered into the presidents (or CEO) box seating area. He then has proof of purchase and both sides are covered-

10:50 Who actually pays for the cheap tickets?

1102-

I don't know of any under the table issues as it regards to cheap ticket buying...I do know of them being ushered into the box seats though

wow I think the times had a grudge they wanted to air. What a waste of reporting

Dollar contributions to political campaigns are a form of free speech that should be protected.

Kind of funny how the new law was great until it was interpreted to prohibit the SP Times from giving free papers to legislators - now it's just a silly waste of time. Except the truth is that as long as it keeps Kahn busy it is a good thing!

Fl press wont unearth this story either. Coverup by Tom Lee to secure Jeb's endorsement for CFO. It worked.

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2007/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2007-119ee.pdf
Question 15

Dollar contributions to political campaigns are a form of corruption not free speech but this practice has been so effective that it is an addiction protected by layers of denial, justifications, and minimization of its virulent influence on democracy in which the amount of money is a predictor of political access.

1:41 -- See you are of the ilk who wants to control access to the political process -- you want to set up laws like McCain-Finegold that nobody, including lawyers, can figure out. The courts have spoken on the ability of people to contribute dollars to campaigns.

This law is a mess. The intent is good. Clean up quid pro quos. But thats best done by transparency and timely reportning requirements, not muffin and coffee bans.

It wasnt the reporters who voted on this, folks. Sure, they pandered it up, but ultimately you elect leaders to sort this stuff out and vote on it.

[Paul D. Harvill]

-- What we now have in law is much better than what was before. And improvements are always needed given that legislation is nearly impossible to be fully comprehensive. The law of unintended consequences and all that.

The link below will have articles to demonstrate how bad things were not much more decade ago.

http://forum.tallahassee.com/viewtopic.php?t=25326

For those who assert that the legislation that former Senate President Tom Lee and Speaker of the House Allan Bense passed is a paper tiger or window dressing - then please re-read the article - this time more carefully - and read related archives in the St. Pete Times news archives that go back to January 1, 1987 - full text free.

With current law and rules, it better behooves legislators and others to err on the side of caution - unlike not too many years ago when "everyone" did it, e.g. go on trips to Europe, Alaska, Central America, Georgia hunting plantations, Walt Disney World, and free tickets to all sorts of events that cost hundreds and more dollars, etc. on the "dime" of lobbyists.

Nowadays it is not driven underground - the sworn disclosure statements are still required. If someone commits perjury, then we've got a felony to pursue.

Apparently most - if not all - the negative comments come from one anonymous poster - probably a legislator who is still angry that he/she can't be as easily legally bribed or legally extorted as before.

There was extensive coverage of Tom Lee's leadership PAC - with the attendant criticisms. So that is a red herring of an argument.

And the PAC expenses are required by law to be disclosed, as well as the contributions.

And that information is available online at the Florida Secretary of State website.

Filing Election and Ethics Commission complaints has done much good in Florida history. I know.

As to First Amendment and political campaign contribution issues: In this country we have a very long history of bribery, extortion, "legalized bribery" and "legalized extortion".

Finding the right balance between the First Amendment and legalized and non-legalized crimes is certainly not an easy task for anyone - but I'd rather seek that balance than not.

[ForLaw]

10:50am -- if a legislator goes to a box even if he or she bought a cheap ticket, and is there other than to say a quick "hi", that falls under the gift ban. Both the legislator and the lobbyist are in trouble. this was true before the gift ban too. Nothing has changed there.

Attention Mr. Brilliant, Paul D. Hardhead: ANY LEGISLATOR can buy trips to Europe, Disney, Georgia hunting plantations, or anything else in the world for sale with money donated to PACS. The PACS have gotten very good at masking the expenditures of such donationsin their required reporting. You sir, with all due respect, are completely wrong on this. The only difference between then and now is that Tom Lee was able to get headlines about how he forced the House and Governor into Campaign Finance Reform. I'm glad the voters saw through him and voted for Sink. The St. Pete Times remains responsible for not pointing this out. Where was the headline: "Lee Creates Form of Madness With Faux Campaign Finance Reform:?

[Bakunin]

Something else you'll never read in the SPT (a.k.a. The Tom Lee Chronicle)...

Ever wonder during the Session who was paying for all the TV ads about PIP, the Phone/Cable War, etc? Under the Pre-Lee Law, those paying for the ads would have reported the expense as "indirect lobbying"-- Blue Cross, the Telcos, AIF, and several others reported hundreds of thousands of dollars under the old law.

The Lee Law inexplicably failed to include this requirement-- probably a staff screw-up. Lee focused instead on the Zero Tolerance for gifts (even though anything over $25 already had to be reported) and disclosure of lobbying fees.The latter is useless as a public policy tool but invaluable to the Press so they can publish their tiresome and prying "Who Gets Paid the Most" stories without having to turn a hand.Lee was obviously and successfully pandering to the lazy SOBs who've never stopped to think. "Why are we doing this?"

The result is that companies and groups can spend undisclosed millions on ads but can't buy a legislator a cup of coffee. The battlefield is shifting to the airwaves and mailboxes as well as the Party campaign accounts and the Press doesn't write a word!! Perhaps they're too embarrassed to admit that they missed it or that their Hero Tom Lee is an idiot for creating a far bigger loophole than the one he allegedly closed.

Thanks, SPT, for printing all the news that fits your views. The NYT you're not.

Lee, for all his cons and pros, did not introduce the gift ban. Bense did, it came straight from the House. Lee had introduced drew his line in the sand on lobbyist reporting fees in the ranges they are now. The world hasn't ended from either, it does make life more difficult from the lobbyists side, and silly rules prevail. If a lawmaker wants to be corrupt, there are ways. If a lobbyist wants to aid and abet, you bet they can.
But get your facts straight, blogobuzzers. Too much revisionist history.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 02:59 PM
..................

And thank you for your very kind anonymous comments.

You are still incorrect given our disclosure requirements in the Florida Constitution and statutes.

and thank you paul for your partisan parasitic liberal waste of time slanted comments. They should just open the system and let everything go and everything would be ok. All this "ethics" and discloure junk has made the system more corrupt and less responsive. We should be able to fire liberal state employees who publicly air such outrageous garbage, though.

[Paul D. Harvill]

The lobbyist fees disclosure portion of the law is very useful as a public policy tool.

And also is invaluable to the press so they can publish their meaningful "Who Gets Paid the Most" stories without having to turn a hand - as those fees were not public knowledge before, thus even twisting a lobbyist's hand would not result in bleating out one's fees to the press.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 03:45 PM\
....................

You need some sleep.

Posted by: Paul D. Harvill | July 08, 2007 at 03:54 PM

You have got to be joking. That is all a waste of time and the stories are absoulute garbage. How about we disclose how much of our tax dollars you are wasting by blogging on the public dime.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 04:00 PM
........................

Yep, you definitely need a lot of sleep.

since you are so much better than all of us Paul. Why are those stories important. On every post you put our you never say why?

[Paul D. Harvill]

I am resining my postion in the morning. It is a conflict of intrest for me to be blogging my democratic Agenda while accepting money from the State.

Sincerly

Paul D. Harvill

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 04:05 PM
..............................

My sufficient reply:

http://forum.tallahassee.com/viewtopic.php?t=25326

[Paul D. Harvill]

I am resining my postion in the morning. It is a conflict of intrest for me to be blogging my democratic Agenda while accepting money from the State.

Sincerly

Paul D. Harvill

Posted by: AN IMPOSTER Paul D. Harvill | July 08, 2007 at 04:07 PM
................................

And now you are eating merda.

And can't spell worth a hoot.

[Bakunin]

Paul--

There may be a marginal public policy interest in knowing the cumulative amount that a principal is paying all of its lobbyists. There is zero public policy interest in disclosing the fees paid to individual lobbyists. In addition to the fact that it tells you nothing to start with, the wide array of differences in how and why lobbyists are compensated makes any rational comparison impossible.Add in the violation of the privacy rights of private (vs. public) individuals and you have a terrible idea, the only value of which is to feed the prurient interests of the indolent counterculturists and/or sociopaths that we call a Press Corps.

Think about it-- you know better than to take up for this superficial pandering of a valueless concept.

most of those were written by Lucy Morgan so they have no credibility

in your own words why is it important for reporters to write about what lobbyists are paid?

Does anyone remember the services tax fiasco. The SPT was for it until they discovered that they might have to charge and collect sales tax. Then they were against it. (Except for Martin Dyckman). Anyone who has ever raised serious campaign funds knows the rules of the game. For all of you in the peanut gallery, you go to each lobbyist, give them a number, and they bundle to hit their number. Lobbyists themselves are small time contributors. They simply pass the plate among their clients. Then, many of of the clients, such as insurance companies, pass the hat among their agents,dependent businesses and so ad infinitum. The only one who ever gets credit from the politician is the bundler. The contributors are merely a bunch of sheep who want to see and be seen at political fund raisers.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: Bakunin | July 08, 2007 at 04:18 PM
..............................

I respectfully disagree and so do the courts.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 04:21 PM
.......................

So, Lucy Morgan published something about you being caught doing what?

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 04:48 PM
.........................

By and large, your assessment is on target.

As the famous phrase from Deep Throat: Follow the money.

I hope some of our less aware posters learn something.

Or seeming to appear less aware in order to do the bidding of whoever they are doing the bidding on behalf.

Or......

once again paul all headline and no substance. Have you ever had to ask yourself why? Or do you just ask the D bosses what to think. Give us the why Paul come on

Paul seems like the least informed person on here.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 04:55 PM

and

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 04:58 PM
.................................

A stalker with unknown reasons to have such animus against me.

Also known as a loser.

All said Paul just cant answer why he believes things so he changes the subject. There is only one loser Paul look in the mirror

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 05:06 PM
............................

Good grief.

Go to sleep.

You keep getting wackier and wackier.

All you have to do is explain why you think it is a good policy to disclose money made. You cant do that. I guess that proves your mental capacity

"Lee, for all his cons and pros, did not introduce the gift ban. Bense did, it came straight from the House."

BWAHHA HAHAHA HAHAHA. Right.

Actually, Lee wanted to disclose gifts and Bense sent him back the poison pill gift ban, which Lee swallowed.

Get yer facts right buddy. Bense was not the mad scientist on this one.

Paul of course choose not to provide any reason for his views. I think that says EVERYTHING.

Is PDH suffering from multiple personality disorder?

disclosure foreclosure whatever. i love this country; it's a great democratic model for the world. but in the case of giving money to politicians, it's wrong all the way through. it's a corrupt practice. protected political speech is standing on the corner with your placard. writing large checks and having them deposited into a politician's campaign account has a long history (and future it looks like) of corroding an otherwise great and worthy system.

516, it is popular and fun to say BWHAHAHAHA but you are still wrong. Bense came up with and introduced the gift ban, Lee accepted.
You just have to get it straight beyond the hate.
Funny, I don't see the top ten lobbying firms bitching about reports, but since you can't take a legislator out for cocktails you got to whine about something.

7:52, that was well said, however, the PRESS holds all the cards if citizens are unable to contribute. That is of course unless we want to change the laws and make a flattering story in the press about a candidate counted as a campaign donation-which of course it is.

[Just Curious in left (right) field]

well let's pay the legislators $175,000 each per year like congress and be done with it. No PACs and no CCEs allowed at that point. Think that would fly?
Are they in it for the perks or the policy?

[Bob]

Why all the hostility towards reporters. They covered this bill pretty damn well when everything was happening.

Everyone knew this bill had loopholes big enough to drive a truck through and anyone who cares about good government and democracy issues supported it for transparency sake on the lobby reform and because the gift ban was something.

No one I know was ever under the impression that this bill was going to be a panacea in the fight to limit the influence of money on the political process.

Spending limits would be a big step in the right direction but overturning Buckley probably won't happen anytime soon with the current court.

bob, you are a) high on drugs b)just plain dumb or c)a toad reporter.

[Cynical Idealist]

ok, let's fire up the thread one more time...

Lee precipitated the lobbyist disclosure. Bense is responsible for the gift ban portion of the statute

Bense wanted to pass meaningful tort reform. He drew a line in the sand, "give me tort reform and I'll give you lobbyist disclosure."

Bense thought by sticking the gift ban language in the lobbyist disclosure bill that Lee wouldn't accept it.

Bense was wrong. He's gone, Lee's gone and, now, we're stuck with the results.

For the posters who think the legislators should've refused to vote for the bill, you're either stooo-pid or ignorant of the power of leadership (just ask Don Brown and Dennis Ross).

Asking a legislator to buck leadership might have happened back in the day, but with term limits, it's not going to happen.

Talk amongst yourselves....

[Boca Grande]

Perhaps the SP Times should report all its sources of revenue. It has as much influence as anybody else. Should we the public not know its motivations? Do advertisers influence reporting or editorials? Without more laws we will never know.

8:49

I agree. Reporters should also have to file financial disclosure forms with the ethics commission so that we know what they have a vested intrest in

"so that we know what they have a vested intrest in...."
------------
we already know: smut, freebies, money, power.... under the guise of holding vigil over the common man's interests, they are pigs just like everyone else but hypocrites to boot.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 05:10 PM
..............................

Asked and answered previously.

Good bye.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Posted by: | July 08, 2007 at 07:14 PM
.........................

Now isn't that special - coming from a sleep deprived psychotic.

;- )

Most of these anonymous posters-vermin have nothing better to do but insult others.

Vermin.

Paul,

You did not so, you proved the point.

Good Bye Moocher.

[Paul D. Harvill]

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

I am no longer going to respond to anonymous posters.

Why should anyone?

They waste our time.

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

Paul is an arrogant fool. We do not have to identify ourselves.

Quit trying to moderate the blogs

Get a real job.