I've begun a process of going back through the Model Code, adding
comments, alternative language, and possible additional provisions
inspired by the way various local governments have dealt with the
issues involved. As always, any and all comments are welcome.
I will report on and link to these changes in this blog. The first
changes and additions are as follows:
The New York State Commission on Public Integrity released a report
yesterday on the allegations relating to the Spitzer Administration's
attempts to gather and make public the travel abuses of the Senate
Majority Leader, in order to tarnish his reputation. See the
New York Times article.
According to a
recent article in the San Diego Union-Tribune,
the chair of one of the city's economic development commissions made an
unusual deal with, and a half-million-dollar instant profit from (the
purchase and sale transactions were filed at the same time), the
commission three years before he became a member.
In my recent entry about Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, I said
nothing about the fact that the university center he was seeking funds
for has his name on it. An excellent entry
by John Fund placed up on Huffington Post today focuses on
this part of the story.
The drug war is not really about drugs, it's about addiction. And
dependency is what powers addiction.
As it turns out, dependency is also what powers the drug war, at least
in Texas. Local government agencies, and often local governments
themselves, are dependent on the money that comes from asset
forfeitures related to the drug trade. We're talking hundreds of
millions of dollars.
You know you're in trouble when a grand jury foreman says about you,
"They need an independent organization to be an oversight ..., not just
the grand jury doing it once every few years."
Of course, the "they" here are local government agencies: five
community college districts in San Diego County, whose boards of
trustees are elected.