"Inside California lawmakers’ paid trips to Maui"

Great to speak with Alexei Koseff for this piece. 

It may not make much of a difference to voters, who see moneyed interests able to buy a different seat at the table than they get, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said.

“It strains common sense to think that a special interest would fund a lawmaker’s trip to Hawaii and the lawmaker wouldn’t feel some modicum of gratitude,” said Levinson, who is president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

Legislators vehemently reject such a characterization.

“Especially on the left, whenever someone loses, they want to say it’s because the whole system is corrupt,” said Wright, who resigned from the Legislature last year after being convicted of eight felonies for lying about where he lived when he was elected. Now retired, he was attending the conference as a friend of Howle’s. “Maybe I just thought your idea was bull–.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article45406533.html#storylink=cpy

"California Assembly leaders single-handedly dictate spending"

Great to talk to Fenit Nirappil of the AP for this piece.

“This allows one person to have complete power of the purse strings,” said Jessica Levinson, a government ethics expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"Details Hidden on Legislative Lawyers Drafting Bills for Influential Groups"

Great to speak with John Myers of KQED for this piece. 

“Legislators are outsourcing their jobs to people in the shadows that we don’t know,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor of governance and ethics at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “I think the least they can do is give the public some information.”

Should we use "crowdsourcing" to craft legislation?

Assemblyman Mike Gatto says yes.

Sharon McNary of KPCC reports here, and Melanie Mason of the LAT reports here.

I'll be discussing this morning on KCBS.

Six California lawmakers took trip to Cuba with Capitol lobbyist

Quoted in this one in the Los Angeles Times. 

Six California lawmakers used political funds to take part in a March trip to Cuba with a top Capitol lobbyist, raising eyebrows among state government watchers.

The legislators disclosed the “cultural exchange” trip in campaign finance reports filed this week, visiting the communist country with lobbyist Darius Anderson, who heads a nonprofit group called Californians Building Bridges.

Anderson’s lobbying firm, Platinum Advisors, represents clients including AT&T, Anthem Blue Cross,DirecTV Group and Pfizer, some of which have also made political contributions to the lawmakers on the trip.

Those who dipped into campaign funds to pay for their trip included Sens. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) and Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) and Assembly members Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Katcho Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo), Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). Calderon has been in the news because his Capitol office was raided by the FBI in June as part of a corruption probe. Calderon declined to comment.

Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson, who studies government ethics, said it is a concern when lawmakers "spend a lot of time with a certain lobbyist. It means they may be more educated and attentive to the concerns of the lobbyist."

Cupid's work gets complicated as California lawmaker dates lobbyist

Quoted in this piece in the Sac Bee. 

"We are talking about a relationship where one person's job is to try to influence people in the other person's position: a lobbyist representing a certain constituency over which this lawmaker has some decision-making power," said Jessica Levinson, an expert in political ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"The concern is always the same – is this elected official doing a good job? Is he serving the public? Or is there any chance the elected official is serving himself and making decisions based on who he is dating?"

A review of legislation the California Medical Association is lobbying this year shows Maienschein frequently – but not always – votes its way.

...

Levinson and other government watchdogs said Maienschein should step down from committees that routinely vote on bills the medical association lobbies, such as the health and business panels.

"I don't think we can say, 'Drop out of office, or stop dating this person,' but I think we can suggest, 'There may be a more appropriate committee for you to sit on,' " Levinson said.

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/07/31/2608471/cupids-work-gets-complicated-as.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/07/31/2608471/cupids-work-gets-complicated-as.html#storylink=cpy

... 

Do California Lawmakers Actually Write Our Laws?

Who writes the law? Many of us assume that legislators or their staffers perform this task. But that answer may be only partially complete.

In California, a bill's "sponsor" is listed in legislative analyses. This purportedly gives the public important information about the identity of those supporting measures which may become law.

Who are these sponsors? Often they are special interest groups, and specifically lobbyists, who supported or authored proposed legislation. A recent report found that more than one quarter of the approximately 4,800 bills introduced in California last legislative session were sponsored bills.

But the listed sponsor may not tell the entire story. The rule requiring that sponsors be listed on bills appears to be inconsistently applied. Members of the public still lack information that would give them a complete picture of the lawmaking process. For instance, legislators may rewrite bills which were sponsored by a special interest before the legislative session, legislators may be squeamish about identifying bills as sponsored if the sponsoring group is unpopular, or staffers may fail to list as sponsored when writing an analysis.

It would be interesting to determine whether outside groups have more influence over legislators after the advent of term limits. Thanks to term limits legislators have less seniority, experience, and expertise. It seems logically that they have to rely more heavily on outside groups.

With respect to the electoral process, campaign disclosure, meaning disclosure of political contributions and expenditures, gives the public information about who is trying to influence their vote on candidates or measures. The same is true with respect to the legislative process. Full and complete disclosure regarding who is sponsoring bills allows the public to obtain a fuller picture about which groups are seeking to work with our legislators to enact laws. Legislators are, after all, representatives of the people, sent to city halls, state capitols, and the nation's capitol to serve the public.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Should We Just Let Doctors and Legislators Do Their Jobs?

Having just recovered from a nasty bout of the flu, I have spent altogether too much time watching television, and thanks to the wonders of TIVO, a type of television I rarely watch otherwise: commercials. I learned some important lessons as a result of this experience. Apparently I would be happier, healthier, and far more productive if I simply started taking more prescription medication. Many of these medications have potentially terrifying side-effects, but I assume that there must be other medications for those as well. In sum, all I need to do is to ask my doctor, and then I will quickly be on the road to being a happier, healthier me.

This kind of patient-consumer choice about my medical care got me thinking about our political representatives. If pharmaceutical companies are to suggesting that I ask (and presumably to forcefully ask) my health care professional about my need for various prescription drugs, then what is to prevent me from directing my government representatives about my need for various programs, services, and tax increases?

In both cases am I simply being a smart consumer? An informed advocate for myself?

In the case of medical care I am a firm believer in asking questions, educating yourself, and being your own advocate. Should the same be true in the case of political representation? It's my representative's job to make decisions for the public good, and they often use my money (in the form of taxes and fees) to do that. It seems the same set of directives -- to inquire, educate, and advocate -- would also be useful to employ in the political arena.

But in both cases the patient or constituent may want to recognize that at a certain point it is beneficial for all involved to respect the expertise of the health care provider or political representative. We shouldn't try to bully doctors into giving us prescriptions for medications we don't need simply because the people on the commercials just look so darn happy. Similarly, we should let our representatives do their jobs, acknowledging that their job is to legislate for the best interests of their constituents, and our job is to advocate for our best interests and determine whether or not they have done so effectively. And in general we certainly shouldn't bypass our representatives, enacting legislation through the initiative process (legislation which we think will make us happier, but too often has unintended side effects). Sometimes the solution is worse than the ailment.

As patients and constituents we must always balance the need to be alert and informed with the need to allow those with expertise to do their jobs.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Time for 'Educational Trips' for Our Elected Officials

As the holidays approach many of you may feel like getting out of town. So do our elected officials.

Many take this time before the legislative session begins to go on so-called "educational" trips. In and of itself this could, at least in some cases, be a good idea: Officials can learn about various business and environmental issues. But the wrinkle is that special interests groups largely, if not exclusively, fund many of these trips, meaning they are often categorized as gifts.

The educational experience appears to vary widely among the trips. In some cases our officials meet with foreign officials; in other cases they appear to spend much of their time on recreational activities -- like golf.

Our elected officials should not be expected to stay home and/or avoid any contact with lobbyists and special interests as they often serve important purposes. However, it is of course important to remember that almost by definition these lobbyists and special interests are seeking to obtain favorable outcomes from elected officials and those officials must at times regulate those interest groups. Close relationships can, in other words, create or appear to create conflicts of interest.

Appearances are important. When it appears that elected officials obtain perks like trips paid for by the very interests seeking to influence them, the public can reasonably have questions about the propriety of those arrangements.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Top-paid California legislative employees get pay raises

Quoted in this article in the Sacramento Bee. 


As California lawmakers slashed funding for social services and state workers this spring, some of the Legislature's top-paid staff saw the size of their own salaries grow.
... 

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/20/4643546/top-paid-california-legislative.html#storylink=cpy

Jessica Levinson, an associate professor at Loyola Law School, said that while the increases may be earned or overdue, the use of taxpayer dollars to pad already high salaries won't sit well with voters who are struggling to find a job or make ends meet.

"Voters feel like 'the money in my wallet is going into their wallets and they're making more than I am,' " Levinson said. "There's something about that that doesn't feel fair or good or even permissible in a fiscal crisis."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/20/4643546/top-paid-california-legislative.html#storylink=cpy

State Lawmakers Passed a Budget, but Where are the Republicans?

Much of the news coming out of Sacramento concerns the Legislature's passage of a budget by the constitutional deadline -- June 15 -- last week. In the past the Legislature has blown right past that constitutional deadline. What is different?

Back in 2010 California voters approved Proposition 25, which lowered the requirement for lawmakers to pass a budget from two-thirds of members of the State Senate and State Assembly to a simple majority of both legislative houses. Proposition 25 also sweetened the deal for voters by providing that legislators would lose their pay if they "didn't do their jobs" and failed to pass a budget by June 15.

The consequence of Prop 25 is that Democrats can pass a budget without needing even one Republican vote. But what does this budget look like?

Well, only a simple majority is needed to impose spending cuts, but in order to impose revenue increases, either by increasing fees or taxes, two-thirds of both legislative houses must agree. That means Republicans must get on board in order to either raise revenue, or put a measure on the ballot asking voters whether they will agree to raise revenue. In what may be the understatement of the decade, it is safe to say that members of the GOP are averse to raising either fees or taxes.

Last year Governor Jerry Brown involved Republicans in budget talks because he wanted them to agree to put his tax proposals on the ballot. These efforts were unsuccessful, and Brown instead used the initiative process to gather enough signatures to put his proposals on the November 2012 ballot. This year Republicans seemed to play a much smaller role in the budget process.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

California's Addition to Direct Democracy Continues

My latest post on KCET.

Suit up. It is almost time for another election in California. We all know what that means: more ballot initiatives. (Insert sighs, grumbles and other sounds of disappointment here).

In June we will be asked to vote on a proposed cigarette tax. Opponents of the measure -- big tobacco companies, including Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco -- have raised almost $15 million to defeat the measure. But if you're looking for ads from them, it will be much easier for you to look for the committee they have funded, Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending. (Note to California legislators, time to improve disclosure and transparency for ballot measure spending).
Proponents of the measure have raised almost $3.2 million. The committee receiving those funds is called Californians for a Cure.

These costly electoral campaigns hardly capture the public's imagination. If anything, they perpetuate the feeling that our government doesn't function well and instead every election we must endure endless battles over the fate of ballot initiatives. For the many who may not differentiate between legislatively-initiated ballot measures and citizen-initiated ballot measures, it just feels like another expensive political campaign.

Here is an idea that will never happen. Let's treat these ballot initiative campaigns like lawsuits. Instead of duking it out and either failing to pass an initiative only to bring it back in the next election, or passing an initiative which will end up being litigated well past the next election, let's try settling. In the case of the cigarette tax, both sides would donate the amount they are prepared to spend supporting or opposing the initiative to the end goal of the initiative. Of course this won't always work (or let's be honest, mostly it won't even be feasible). But in this particular case, this would mean $18 million for cancer research 3 months before the election. There is no doubt that number will rise.

Finish reading the post on KCET.org.

"Can Californians Gamble Their Way Out of the Budget Deficit?"

Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.

"While fears about consequences to individual gamblers are not unwarranted, neither are worries about the state's lack of funds. We need money, now. This is not a time when we can be picky about the source of revenue coming into the state."

"Goodbye Term Limits?"

Jessica Levinson's latest piece on KCET.org is here.

Here is an excerpt:

I think term limits should be repealed all together. Under the current regime lawmakers do not have the time to develop the knowledge and expertise necessary to develop into topnotch (or at least better) legislators. That means lawmakers are more heavily dependent on staffers and lobbyists, two unelected groups who we may not want running things from behind closed doors. In addition, lawmakers are consistently eying the next prize. Presumably, and quite naturally, lawmakers will be distracted by trying land their next political job.

"California Legislators Want Their Gifts"

Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.

Here is an excerpt:

Last week California lawmakers killed a bill that would have prohibited them (and members of their families and other officials) from accepting certain gifts from lobbyists and their employers. Those seeking to curry favor with Golden State legislators take note. The gates of access remain open, for some.

Should lawmakers receive limited immunity from arrests?

"The majority leader, Scott Bundgaard, told Phoenix police officers that he was a state senator, and he cited a provision of the Arizona Constitution that gives lawmakers limited immunity from arrest, the police said. Police Department lawyers were consulted, and they ordered that Mr. Bundgaard be uncuffed and released."

The NYT has more. 

"Court says Legislature can't write own ballot language"

Breaking news from California:

"A state appeals court today ruled that the state Legislature did not have authority to draft its own ballot language for the successful high-speed rail bond measure lawmakers placed on the 2008 ballot"

The Sacramento Bee has this report. 

"Lawful travel gifts for city officials called into question"

The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.