In Georgia, time to halt unlimited gifts from lobbyists
NOTE: A few weeks ago, my conservative colleague Kyle Wingfield and I were discussing the need to strengthen Georgia’s ethics laws, which put no limit on the value of gifts from lobbyists to legislators and make it difficult to hold state officials to modern standards of conduct.
We agreed that it’s an issue in which ideology should play no role and that offers common ground across the political spectrum. So we decided to adopt passage of a tougher ethics law as a joint project for this legislative session. We kick off that effort this week with columns in the Sunday AJC. (Kyle’s has been posted on his blog here.) As my column below explains, the key to success is voters getting involved and demanding to be heard.
———————
According to an AJC poll released a week ago, 72 percent of registered voters in Georgia believe there ought to be a legal limit on the value of gifts that lobbyists can give those whom we elect to represent us in the General Assembly.
Many state legislators don’t buy that claim. House Speaker David Ralston and others argue that they’ve seen no evidence of such support, and believe the public is satisfied with a system that allows lobbyists to shower politicians with gifts of unlimited value as long as those gifts are reported.
Who’s right?
For now, Ralston and his colleagues are right. Poll numbers are merely that — mute numbers on a page. Politicians respond to poll numbers only to the degree that they believe voters will act on them. If voters expect to be heard, they first have to speak.
In the speaker’s case, he accepted a $17,000 European vacation for himself and his family– all paid for by lobbyists — and aside from some bad publicity he has paid no political price for it. So if voters care, he’s been shown no evidence of that.
That has to change.
This year, the nonpartisan good-government groups Common Cause and the League of Women Voters have joined forces with the Tea Party movement and Georgia Watch to push a package of ethics reforms in Georgia that would include a $100 limit on the value of gifts to state elected officials. The goals also include restoring the authority and independence of the agency once known as the state Ethics Commission, which has been gutted by state officials unhappy with anybody looking over their shoulder.
Every one of our neighboring states — Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Florida — has adopted either outright bans on lobbyist gifts or limits that are much more strict than the proposed limit of $100 in Georgia. In other words, this is not some radical scheme; if adopted, we would still have the most generous gift limit in the region.
Bucking considerable pressure from their colleagues, legislators in both the House and Senate have agreed to champion a reform package. State Rep. Tommy Smith, a Republican from a rural district in southeast Georgia, said Thursday that he wants to help “make Georgia a state where the people out there who elect us have more influence than these lobbyists that walk the floor everyday.”
“We didn’t have a revolution so the special interests could run the government,” Smith said. “We had a revolution so people could run the government.”
Smith is chairman of the State Planning and Community Affairs Committee in the House, a post that Ralston can strip from him should he choose to do so. But Smith is nonetheless willing to take risk because he believes it’s important that legislators have “a wholesome and a correct fear of the people who sent us here.”
Right now, that fear does not exist. As one small measure of the problem, lobbyists spent more than $35,000 last year just taking state officials on golf outings. If you think that kind of behavior poses a problem, you need to say so.
Otherwise, your silence is interpreted as your permission.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
183 comments Add your comment
USinUK
January 13th, 2012
9:28 am
“Transparency is better than nothing”
I don’t know if you meant that to be funny, but that is just brilliant.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 13th, 2012
9:31 am
TaxPayer, absolutely. “Deniability” is all.
Sort of like in the movie A Few Good Men.
Speaking of which, when do we get a discussion of the latest outrage viral video of US troops misbehaving, I wonder.
Jm
January 13th, 2012
9:32 am
Usinuk
Glad I could brighten your day
I was making a factual, though perhaps wry, assertion
USinUK
January 13th, 2012
9:35 am
Jm – well, whatever it was, it made me snort.
Jm
January 13th, 2012
9:38 am
JP Morgan , the first reporting large bank had weaker than expected earnings
Liberals can celebrate
Business owners and borrowers that can’t borrow can be frustrated that the federal government has made banking an unattractive business and therefore everyone is contracting credit, which means a slow grow economy
So the unemployed can thank Obama and the liberals too
Jm
January 13th, 2012
9:39 am
Unemployed
(for their predicament)
Guy Incognito
January 13th, 2012
9:39 am
If you are the 13th comment on the 13th page of a Jay Blog, on Friday the 13th………what is your fate?
RB from Gwinnett
January 13th, 2012
9:44 am
This discussion won’t go anywhere until everybod stops making it a partisan issue as if only the party they don’t support is guilty of it. How many times do you see posted here the “corporate owned Republican’s” garbage thrown around by idiots who ignore the millions given to every last Democrat by corporations.
““Votes against this should be political suicide.”
Unless you’re telling us you’ll vote for a Republican against your incumbant Democrat because of that vote, you’re kidding yourself.
Jedi Mind Trick
January 13th, 2012
9:46 am
Caps on lobbyist contributions are not what the voters are looking for, and lobbyists do not sway legislation, they are just being nice. Move along
TaxPayer
January 13th, 2012
9:50 am
If you are the 13th comment on the 13th page of a Jay Blog, on Friday the 13th………what is your fate?
One sooner than 14th or one later than 12th. Take your pick.
TaxPayer
January 13th, 2012
9:51 am
Perhaps RB would do us the honors and give us a count of R v. D v. Nonpartisan for the posts on this here thread.
Aquagirl
January 13th, 2012
9:52 am
AQUAGIRL is this true or am I misreading your intent?
You have, because you seem to think I am not concerned about crooked politicians. This is like anti-abortion activists claiming the other side LOVES abortions and wants every uterus in America scraped for the thrill of it all. My point is that legislation passed by crooks to stop crooks will do nothing.
Disagreeing with a plan does not mean you disagree there is a problem. The fact you think this way says a lot about political discourse in this country. Please leave the “you disagree with me, you’re a quitter/hate babies/hate America/communist-socialist” rhetoric to the politicians. They’re the experts in its usage.
2012 Legislature: To restore public trust, pass ethics reform | Kyle Wingfield
January 13th, 2012
9:56 am
[...] My colleague Jay Bookman has his own post on the ethics reform and a brief explanation of our joint project during this legislative [...]
RB from Gwinnett
January 13th, 2012
9:57 am
Taxpayer – “Perhaps RB would do us the honors and give us a count of R v. D v. Nonpartisan for the posts on this here thread.”
Perhaps you can go back an re-read my post and explain to everybody how your post makes any sense at all…
0311/1811
January 13th, 2012
9:58 am
JAY:
On this we can definitely agree.
No gifts (zero, Nada) in my opinion.
NOT EVEN LUNCH !
Welcome to the Occupation
January 13th, 2012
9:58 am
Jm: “Transparency is better than nothing”
What is the opposite then of transparency?
If transparency is to X what day is to night, then what is X I wonder?
Robert Lee
January 13th, 2012
9:59 am
RB, yes I would vote R if I agree with their positions. Its obvious that both sides of the fence are using this to their advantage for trips, meals, etc becasue they are able to do it. As Jay mentioned earlier, there has been change due to voter pressure in the past for this topic so why not again…..all it takes is for enough people to call/email to make their voices heard.
Regarding the terrible crach in DC 30 years ago, I was a eager 7th grader on his class trip to DC. There are about 4 things I remember about that trip, the crappy hotel with hookers walking around outside, the Smithsonian museums, the Lincoln memorial and reflection pond, and the missing guardrail section where the plane had slide off into the icy water next to the highway. It had happened about 5 days before we left and if we had not been going by train my parents would have never let me go.
USinUK
January 13th, 2012
9:59 am
Welcome – opaqueness.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 13th, 2012
10:00 am
Where’s Thang man?
Did he stay up too late blogging last night?
USinUK
January 13th, 2012
10:00 am
damn.
it’s a scary day when I find myself agreeing with Scout
Welcome to the Occupation
January 13th, 2012
10:03 am
USinUK: “it’s a scary day when I find myself agreeing with Scout”
I say, it’s getting wayyyy too chummy around here. Quick, another post about the latest James O’Keefe stunt, Jay! Yeah, that oughta do it.
TaxPayer
January 13th, 2012
10:06 am
This discussion won’t go anywhere until everybod stops making it a partisan issue…
I don’t know what came over me, RB. After all, what in your post could have ever implied that there was partisanship displayed in any posts here whatsoever.
carlosgvv
January 13th, 2012
10:08 am
Jay – 9:05
You are right Jay! Thinking you can actually do anything about this is truly comic.
harvey
January 13th, 2012
10:08 am
What voters can do is regularly vote against any incumbent. Turn them over so fast that they can’t get too entrenched into the buddy system.
USinUK
January 13th, 2012
10:12 am
“James O’Keefe stunt”
WHAT a doofus.
Jerome Horwitz
January 13th, 2012
10:13 am
Jm – Ok, If banks don’t have funds to lend why are consumer rates so low and both credit unions I belong to continually directing offers for re-financing/cars/etc my way?
0311/1811
January 13th, 2012
10:17 am
UK:
You know I “call ‘em like I see ‘em” ………….
n
January 13th, 2012
10:19 am
Crusading AJC! It’s about time! Good on ya!
bob
January 13th, 2012
10:23 am
Jay, unlike subjects such as raising taxes or the role of gov where the two sides disagree, perks will always be around for both parties. We have a house of reps in DC that knowingly passes out inside trader info to friends and family, that story died in three days.
Aquagirl
January 13th, 2012
10:23 am
it’s a scary day when I find myself agreeing with Scout.
Could be worse…you could be agreeing with rags. *shiver*
It looks like a good day to start drinking before noon.
Mary Elizabeth
January 13th, 2012
10:24 am
Carlosgvv@10:08
“Thinking you can actually do anything about this is truly comic.”
—————————————–
Carlos, I always tell my dear sister that I must be sure to vote in each election, so that I can, at least, cancel out her vote, of which I invariably disagree.
So this morning I am posting my following words on this blog, as well as on Kyle Wingfield’s blog, to “cancel out” the impediment, on both blogs, that your voice is doing to curtail the belief, and the hope, that citizens can make a difference in their government, which, of course, they can, once motivated:
NOTHING VENTURED, NOTHING GAINED!
Paulo977
January 13th, 2012
10:25 am
AmVet
Because the people who elect them are perfectly fine with this debacle of a government we have here
_______________________________
Check out our historical roots ….anything to keep the confederate flag flying!!!
0311/1811
January 13th, 2012
10:29 am
Headline: MSNBC
“MORE THAN HALF OF EMPLOYERS SAY THEY CAN’T FIND SKILLED WORKERS”
“Experts say there’s a talent shortage in some industries but that another factor is in play too: “Employers have been spoiled.”
Hummmmmm ………………………..
n
January 13th, 2012
10:30 am
Bill Shipp, I hope you’re reading this. The AJC is going to war! Just like old times!
USinUK
January 13th, 2012
10:32 am
““Employers have been spoiled.””
or do they just smell that way …
0311/1811
January 13th, 2012
10:38 am
UK:
I guess it’s wrong now to want employees who have talent and work hard.
But when you have someone work on your house, car or whatever …………… that’s what you sure want.
373 more days
January 13th, 2012
10:41 am
I agree with Jay and Kyle, and this should not be a political party decision, it is purely a moral issue, and if our politicians don’t have the morals to do something about it, maybe we should…………
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Adam
January 13th, 2012
8:02 am
You and Kyle agreeing on something must piss some people off
It appears you are the only one Adam…………why is that?
Talking Head
January 13th, 2012
10:42 am
On a side note, it looks like the FED will be introducing Quantitative Easing Part 3. This will surely pull us out of this slugglish economy (sarcasm).
Just as with QE2, though, another round of easing won’t help the underlying problems relating to either housing or employment. The issue isn’t tight money policy any more — we haven’t made money this easy in, well, forever. The problem in housing is employment; there just aren’t enough qualified buyers any longer. And the problem in employment is an administration that keeps pushing short-term, gimmicky tax breaks that make for great headlines but do nothing to allow for long-term planning for investors, while increasing the ambiguity of future investment costs with bad regulation like Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, which turns over rulemaking to the whim of bureaucrats.
USinUK
January 13th, 2012
10:48 am
Scout – 10:38 – it’s absolutely not wrong to demand that people are able to do what you want to hire them for.
I just find it fascinating that we have so many skilled people who are out of work, yet none of them seem to have skills good enough to suit employers. It’s hard to believe that ALL the people who have been unemployed for more than a year are totally inept (especially as I’m good friends with one of them and she’s amazing) – it makes me wonder where the disconnect is …
is it skills?
or is it pay (or lack thereof)?
and, despite my usual snark, that is an honest question.
Oops, Wrong Planet
January 13th, 2012
10:50 am
It’s pretty easy to email all the listed legislators. Feel free to copy and use the email list, the personal note, and the list of ethics changes taken from “http://georgiaethicsreform.com/ethics-proposal/”.
Note: Lt. Gov. Cagle is shy about providing his email address. You can use his contact form at “http://ltgov.georgia.gov/00/ltgov/contact_us/”.
(sorry for the wall o’ text)
=======
Fr: O. W. Planet
[email]
[address]
To: Lt. Governor Casey Cagle
cc: Chip Rogers
David Ralston
Gloria Butler
Jan Jones
Joe Wilkinson
John Crosby
Stacey Abrams
(Modified) New Ethics Legislation in the State of Georgia
PLEASE NOTE: I am a Georgia citizen and registered voter. I endorse and urge you to swiftly enact legislation and rules based on the following list from “http://georgiaethicsreform.com”.
I’ve modified the original text to require stricter ethics rules as follows:
- Allow $0 (ZERO) in gifts from lobbyists to public officials (including family and staff.) We should not allow for even the appearance of unethical influence.
-Increase the “revolving door” time to at least 5 (FIVE) years after leaving State office for all public officials (including family and staff) until allowed to work as/for a lobbyist. Serving our State should not be considered as a springboard to professional influence peddling.
-Allow $0 (ZERO) in transfers from one candidate’s campaign funds to another candidate. Candidates and public officials should not be allowed unfair and undue influence over fellow candidates and public officials. Any unspent campaign funds should be returned to donors pro rata.
Lobbyist Gifts and Reporting:
- Limit the amount of any one gift to $0 (ZERO) from a lobbyist for any public official, their immediate family members and staff. This limit includes travel.
- Disclosure of gifts from lobbyists must occur within five days, punishable by a fine of $100 per day until the disclosure is submitted.
- Expand lobbyist disclosure to include all expenditures related to gifts for any public official and/or their immediate family members and staff.
- Adjust lobbyist registration fee to make fee more affordable for non-profit groups and small businesses (from $300 per lobbyist plus $10 for each additional client to $150 fee plus $50 for each additional client).
- Increase the amount of expenditures that require registration as a lobbyist from $250 to $1000 to help encourage true citizen lobbying.
- Enforce lobbyist registration and disclosure requirements at the local level.
State Ethics Commission:
- Rename the “Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission” back to the “State Ethics Commission”.
- Restore the rule making authority of the State Ethics Commission.
- Expand the oversight of the State Ethics Commission to include conflicts of interest and misconduct of all state and local public officials.
- Empower the Georgia Supreme Court to appoint all members of the State Ethics Commission.
- Toughen fines for major ethics violations and require minimum fines for such violations.
Campaign and Political Action Committee (PAC) Limits:
- Restrict the total of all transfers out of a candidate’s campaign account to other candidates, political parties, campaign committees and PACs to $0 (ZERO) in any two-year election cycle.
- Require PACs to disclose all expenditures.
- Limit the amount of contributions to PACs and Political Parties from individuals, corporations, unions and PAC to PAC transfers to $1,000.
- Limit how candidates and public officials can use campaign funds by clearly defining legitimate campaign expenditures in Georgia statutes.
- Clarify language governing candidate disclosure for city and county offices concerning campaigns that raise less than $20,000.
Conflicts of Interest and Misconduct:
- Georgia public officials at the state and local level or their immediate family members cannot hold state, local or authority contracts.
- No member of the General Assembly may serve as a lobbyist on any local, state or federal level.
- Expand the prohibition of lobbyist serving on state boards, commissions or authorities to registered federal lobbyists.
- Increase the one-year revolving door prohibition on lobbying for legislators to 5 (FIVE) years.
- Extend the new FIVE-year revolving door prohibition on lobbying for legislators to the executive branch and paid legislative staff members.
- Clarify procedures for handling complaints to House or Senate ethics committees by removing “firsthand knowledge” provision.
- Require financial disclosure like that of the Department of Transportation by other major department heads and members of state boards and commissions such as the Department of Natural Resources, Board of Regents, Certificate of Need Commission, etc.
- Require public disclosure if lawmakers do business with special-interest groups regarding legislation.
- Prohibit lobbyists who make illegal expenditures or transfers from lobbying for 5 years.
- Disqualify any elected or public official who accepts an illegal gift from holding any public office, being employed by any public office, serving as a lobbyist or in a position of trust in the government for 4 years.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
O. W. Planet
TaxPayer
January 13th, 2012
10:50 am
or do they just smell that way …
Indeed.
Adam
January 13th, 2012
10:50 am
RB, yes I would vote R if I agree with their positions.
^^^^^ THIS
Seriously, if the positions are good, that’s who I vote for. Party only matters insofar as trends go.
getalife
January 13th, 2012
10:52 am
Hope, unity and change.
Well done Jay and Kyle.
getalife
January 13th, 2012
10:58 am
I think we should give Jay and Kyle a standing ovation.
Bravo sirs Bravo.
Butch Cassidy
January 13th, 2012
10:59 am
0311/1811 – “MORE THAN HALF OF EMPLOYERS SAY THEY CAN’T FIND SKILLED WORKERS”
By skilled, do they mean someone with a stable work history and hands on knowledge of the industry in which they are hiring. Or some guy with a BS, BA, MS, MA, MBA behind his name. Because I assure you, the two are NOT one in the same.
Halftrack
January 13th, 2012
11:03 am
No one wants to hold the other person accountable. All of them make promises to change the code of ethics, if elected, but never do. It boils down to the fact that they know Ole Joe is on the dole but he lets me be on the dole some too.
Butch Cassidy
January 13th, 2012
11:04 am
USinUK – “I just find it fascinating that we have so many skilled people who are out of work, yet none of them seem to have skills good enough to suit employers. It’s hard to believe that ALL the people who have been unemployed for more than a year are totally inept (especially as I’m good friends with one of them and she’s amazing) – it makes me wonder where the disconnect is …”
Agreed. I have known several people that had excellent careers for 10, 15 20 years that suddenly found themselves in the hiring line. The thing that amazed them most is the emphasis on the almighty degree. It’s like what do you want? Someone who has worked hands on in the industry for over a decade, or someone who studied the theory of the industry and worked for 2 years.
r u shocked
January 13th, 2012
11:04 am
let me see, we have an ethically impaired Governor who left Congress under a cloud, a state representative who managed to get elected in spite of having an affair with his mother in law, the ego’s of the current Republican leadership ( and I use the term leadership for lack of a more appropriate term), a city (Atl) whos last 4 mayors 1. began the whole airport patronage problem 2. indicted 3. daughter involved in dealing drugs, continued the airport patronage 4 still cashing in on the airport. Why do you expect from this cross section of Ga politicians?
Dearie
January 13th, 2012
11:05 am
Oops, Wrong Planet
January 13th, 2012
10:50 am
Thanks OWP. I will be following your lead. I challenge others to do the same.
Doggone/GA
January 13th, 2012
11:06 am
“It’s like what do you want? Someone who has worked hands on in the industry for over a decade, or someone who studied the theory of the industry and worked for 2 years.”
Anytime the talk turns to degrees I remember something that happened to me many years ago now. I could not get a promotion I wanted, in an IT (computer center) job that I had been doing for 15 years because I did not have a degree. So what did they do? Hired someone with a degree in MUSIC.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 13th, 2012
11:07 am
Talking Head: “The problem in housing is employment; there just aren’t enough qualified buyers any longer. ”
You’re right, the problem is demand deflation.
“And the problem in employment is an administration that keeps pushing short-term, gimmicky tax breaks that make for great headlines but do nothing to allow for long-term planning for investors, while increasing the ambiguity of future investment costs with bad regulation like Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, which turns over rulemaking to the whim of bureaucrats”
I don’t necessarily agree with you in your emphasis on investors or about Dodd-Frank here, but you’re absolutely right about the “gimmicky tax breaks”.
But therein lies the central problem of a supposedly leftist president who would roll back the economic policies of recent years. In truth, it’s clear that he fundamentally agrees with the general ideological trend that has shaped our policy-making for a long time now concerning taxation and economic growth.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 13th, 2012
11:10 am
Well, seems to me if the lobbyists don’t pay for the golf trips to Scotland and such then us taxpayers will have to. Taxes is already sky-high so I say let them pay for it. They’re going to get what they want anyway, might as well let them pay a little something for it.
Have a good Friday everybody. I’m out here in my long johns hauling and lugging to get you ready to swap weird music tonight. My You-Know-Whats are shriveled up to nothing in this cold. I hope you appreciate my sacrifice when you start guzzling.
Matti
January 13th, 2012
11:12 am
I’m gonna write my reps about this, so I can get a good chuckle out of their responses.
Butch Cassidy
January 13th, 2012
11:18 am
Doggone/GA – ” So what did they do? Hired someone with a degree in MUSIC.”
Thanks you for proving my point. It’s not that I don’t value education, I got my degree, and nefver looked back. But to make it a primary factor in hiring is retarded. I wonder how a hiring manger would feel if he decided to build a new home and his choices were: A. A skilled tradesman who’s been building homes for over 20 years and knows the business inside and out. or B. A guy who got his degree in Communications and decided that he liked building things and has been working for 2 years in the industry. Hmmmmmm…..decisions, decisions.
Adam
January 13th, 2012
11:21 am
Sheets, felines
Mr. Holmes
January 13th, 2012
11:24 am
Email sent to my new rep (B.J. Pak) and cc’d Ralston.
0311/1811
January 13th, 2012
12:13 pm
UK:
Supply and demand. Either take the job or not (if you have the skills).
I started with an annual salary way below most of my contemporaries because that’s the career I wanted.
It’s all about choices.
0311/1811
January 13th, 2012
12:17 pm
UK: Well, here you go …….. as I said ……. all about choices !
Headline AJC: “Men snap up scarce jobs as women exit workplace
“When the restaurant management field dried up on him after 25 years, Steve Moore took a chance on a whole new field: selling cars. (It helped that people had told him for years that he’d be good at it.)
When Meaghan Kenagy felt unsatisfied in her marketing job, she quit to pursue dual master’s degrees in business and public administration at Kennesaw State University.
Their stories mirror a national pattern. With jobs still scarce, men are filling about two-thirds of the available positions, according to recent analysis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In many cases, they’re taking a step sideways or even a step down to land those jobs, economists say.
More women, meanwhile, are making a temporary exit from the labor market, returning to school to sharpen their skills.”
http://www.ajc.com/news/men-snap-up-scarce-1301479.html
ken
January 13th, 2012
12:34 pm
And Obama loves Goldman Sachs, RETIREMENT $$$$$$$$$$$$
Lobbyist Own Obama
January 13th, 2012
12:50 pm
Barrack Obama has taken and been given more money than any other politican in American HistoryObama is corrupt and a liar.
Lobbyist Own Obama
January 13th, 2012
12:56 pm
Warren Buffet was given Goldman Sqachs for five billion dollars by Obama so that they can profit from the climate change control lie. Remember we the American People bailed them out. They are going to share the commissions from the brokerage deal that Obama would give to Goldman Sachs. That’s a 4 percent commission on a 10 trillion world-wide business.00 Billion to Goldman Sachs. Check out Shore Bank in Chicago and the Chicago Exchange deal for the facts. You can google it for yourself.
Lobbyist Own Obama
January 13th, 2012
12:57 pm
That’s 400 bilion dollars to Goldman Sachs.
Lobbyist Own Obama
January 13th, 2012
1:00 pm
But Jay won’t talk about that or the inside trading deals from Pelosi and the democrat crowd.
Jerome Horwitz
January 13th, 2012
1:09 pm
Sorry LOO the insider trading crud is bi-partisan. Nice try tho’.
Lobbyist Own Obama
January 13th, 2012
1:16 pm
Horwitz that’s true but the mainstreet media liars won’t expose the democrat’s side of corruption. And Jay is one of the cheerleaders for the democrats.
Janney
January 13th, 2012
1:52 pm
So glad you and Kyle are starting this campaign, Jay! We can’t get discouraged, we need to press our representatives. There is power in numbers.
truth
January 13th, 2012
2:00 pm
I e-mailed my State Rep about this issue last year. His rely was, ” I think we already have enough ethics.”
JB
January 13th, 2012
2:10 pm
Rangel has been in Congress for 30 years. He went in middle class money wise, maybe a little below, and is now rich. All that on most of the time making less than 100K per year….and keeping up two homes in NY and DC, two of the most expensive places to live in the US……………..He’s rich…………….HELLO?????
JB
January 13th, 2012
2:22 pm
Obama’s economic plan broken down like it would be at your house…No difference…..You owe 20,000 on your credit card, say Visa.You’re getting $ 500 advances on your Master Card with a 5,000 dollar limit to make the payments on the 20,000 card. In the meantime, your wife is going to the Mall every month and spending $600 on the $ 20,000 card. Your logic is you need a 30,000 limit on the 20,000 Card to make things better, and as to have a little room for Cash advances to make the $100 payment on the $5000 dollar card………………That folks is Obama’s economic plan………And if the Banks are OK with all that, you’re OK with all that……..And it ain’t far from what the thinking it up there.
Obozonomics
January 13th, 2012
2:35 pm
Gifts from lobbyist a problem, really? The gifts are not the issue, it is the fact that lobbyist are even legal at all…
man behind the curtain
January 13th, 2012
2:50 pm
And what about gifts of lucrative jobs to members of politician’s families?
Jamal Jenkums
January 13th, 2012
4:34 pm
Yeah 140 years of democRATS lining their pockets and suddenly it is shameful and HAS to stop. Jay is a hypocrite as usual. You never heard a PEEP out of him when his liberal buddies were carting off the cash. You’re too easy Jay. Pathetic.
williebkind
January 13th, 2012
4:39 pm
I will support this with action!
sheepdawg
January 13th, 2012
5:15 pm
ignorant sociopathic idiots
Sounds Like A Plan
January 13th, 2012
5:45 pm
Oops, Wrong Planet
January 13th, 2012
10:50 am
Well stated…
fomr dem
January 13th, 2012
5:48 pm
I remember a former legislator from the Winder Area and I being asked to lunch at the Legislative Office Building one day during session. The lunch was relatively cheap, 8 or 9 dollars for each of us but the former Legislator graciouslly declined the offer of lunch from the lobbyist. I accepted. I however always felt a certain respect for the gentleman from Winder. If I remember correctly, he was defeated in next election because his district had gone Republican pretty rapidly. He’s the only Legislator I can remember never having taken a gift or food from a lobbyist I later learned. He also had a great military career. Probably one of the nicest most honorable people I ever knew.
catlady
January 13th, 2012
7:28 pm
…(N)one of them seem to have skills good enough to suit employers.” and it seems like one skill employers expect is the skill to take on more and more for less pay, not complain, and get by, perhaps on foodstamps and Peachcare (courtesy of the taxpayers). But boy, they’d better not complain, because there are a million more folks out there who would LOVE this job….
middleground
January 13th, 2012
8:27 pm
Today at 3:30 our Lt. Gov. was shopping for ties at the Nordstrom outlet near the mall of GA. Is he under attack because he has a driver and a shinny large black SUV with dark tinted windows.
His driver assistant helped him in the store. So whats this costing us every year.
What do you think the gas costs us for this lifestyle of the rich government official?
THEY ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THE BILLS!!!!!!!!
1/15: Ethics legislation: Limit dollar distractions | Atlanta Forward
January 14th, 2012
10:34 am
[...] of interest: AJC columnists Jay Bookman and Kyle Wingfield weigh in on the [...]
Morning Reads for Saturday, January 14, 2012 the Short Stack edition — Peach Pundit
January 14th, 2012
11:28 am
[...] Wingfield and Jay Bookman have both written columns in support of limiting lobbyist gifts to elected [...]
Morning Reads for Saturday, January 14, 2012 the Short Stack edition
January 14th, 2012
12:54 pm
[...] Wingfield and Jay Bookman have both written columns in support of limiting lobbyist gifts to elected [...]
captguitarman
January 15th, 2012
4:25 pm
Kudos to you, Jay, and to Kyle Wingfeld and the AJC for putting this long over due issue front and center and under a bright spotlight. Please keep it there, and perhaps voters will begin to signal their reps that it’s way past time to put an end to doin’ bidness under the Gold Dome. As you noted, this is not a partisan issue, and it is going to be easy to wean House and Senate reps of both parties from their “legislative lifestyle.” Until the legislators begin the feel voter heat, things will not change. Opposing arguments are interesting and almost comical — and make you wonder how stupid they think the voters are. I liked the one legislator who complained that a $100 gift limit is too low because of the price of meals at fancy restaurants – showing they are so addicted to lobbyist crack and the legislative lifestyle that they can’t even understand why voters might question what a lobbyist buying $100 plus meals for legislators might really be after. Despite the phony and cynical objections from the objets des largesse, it these genrous gifts clearly buy extraordinary access and attention that the vast majority of voters can only dream about. And I just had to shake my head at the column by the ethics consultant, Rick Thompson. His “concern” is driving the lobbyists and their activities underground if individual gifts are capped at $100. Doesn’t that beg the question of how that could even happen if the legislators are obeying and complying with the ethics gift cap laws — even if the lobbyists are trying hard to get around it. His argument doesn’t hold water if you make the assumption that Geogia’s legislators will fully obey the law, as they are sworn to do. Just taking a moment to noodle through Mr. Thompson’s canard should be enough to make all voters of both parties insist on caps. They all claim that it’s not that important to them, and that it doesn’t buy anything, and they are all too ethical to be bought, blah, blah, blah. OK, I’ll buy that – but it makes me wonder then, why this cap is such a concern then, and why are they all so opposed to it if it doesn’t matter any way. If you are going to err, err on the side of complete honesty and propriety in legislative matters.
lawrencevillelions.org » Morning Reads for Saturday, January 14, 2012 the Short Stack edition
January 16th, 2012
2:10 am
[...] Wingfield and Jay Bookman have both written columns in support of limiting lobbyist gifts to elected [...]