Gifts from Restricted Sources
Gifts from restricted sources, that is, from those doing business with
the local government (and their lobbyists), are exceptionally damaging, in that they make the public believe their officials can be bought or that their officials are running a pay-to-play government. It's too bad that at least some members of the Los Angeles ethics commission don't recognize this.<br>
<br>
It is a problem that restricted sources are usually allowed to make
large campaign contributions to candidates, but both sides argue that they
have that right under the first amendment. However, there seems to be no
excuse for restricted sources giving gifts to officials. This creates a clear
appearance that they are buying preferential treatment and/or that the
government works on a pay-to-play basis, whereby officials must be
enriched by anyone who wants to do business with the city or county.<br>
<br>
Since there is such a simple solution to this problem — banning all
gifts to officials by restricted sources — it is surprising how rarely
this solution appears in ethics codes, and how hard it is to get such
prohibitions passed.<br>
<br>
The <a href="http://ethics.lacity.org/" target="”_blank”">Los Angeles City Ethics
Commission</a> is facing just this issue, at a time when there is a
controversy involving the mayor taking numerous sports tickets from
restricted sources. The EC staff put together <a href="http://ethics.lacity.org/pdf/agenda/2010/August/081010_A13_GEO_Review_G…; target="”_blank”">an
excellent memo on gifts</a> for consideration by the EC. The staff
recommended a ban on gifts from restricted sources, just like the ban
on gifts from the restricted sources' lobbyists that already exists.
There would be some reasonable exceptions to this ban (see pp. 3-4 of
the memo).<br>
<br>
As it is now, the state allows up to $420 per year per source, and the city
allows up to $100.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-la-ethics-gifts-20100811,0,1035…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Los Angeles <i>Times</i> last week</a>, not only did the EC
fail to accept the staff's recommendation at its August 10 meeting, but two members want to
raise the city's limit from $100 to the state's $420. The EC president argued that
making city and state law the same would make it easier for companies
to comply, as if companies don't have compliance databases to consult
and compliance professionals overseeing their compliance. If she really
cared about making compliance easier, she would have spoken out in
favor of striking all exemptions. They're what makes the compliance
process complicated, not differing numbers.<br>
<br>
The EC president is quoted as saying, "We are not lessening any of our
regulations.We are not allowing for more corruption." That simply isn't
true, and this statement ignores the importance of appearances to the
gifts issue.<br>
<br>
Ironically, the city comptroller, who selected the other EC member who
spoke in favor of raising the gift limit to $420, has spoken out in
favor of a total ban on gifts from restricted sources.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---