"Prosecutors ask judge to sentence Richard Alarcon to 180 days in jail"

Great to talk with Soumya Karlamangla for this piece in the Los Angeles Times.

Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, said the recommended sentence for Alarcon seems reasonable given the nature of the crime. Because these aren't violent crimes, prosecutors are less likely to push for the maximum possible sentence, she said.

"In a lot of ways, the victory is the conviction," she said. "It's the idea that you did this, you broke the law, that's a problem, and you will face some sort of punishment."

Work at Ridley-Thomas' residence went beyond security system

I am quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times. 

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School who studies governmental ethics, said that if the work at Ridley-Thomas' residence was ultimately deemed inappropriate, the supervisor would be responsible, no matter who first suggested the improvements.

"He's not unfamiliar with what it means to be a public official or the state ethics code," Levinson said. "He's the person who said yes to the work. Whether or not the idea started with him, he OK'd the project."

 

Special elections: They mostly just waste money

Here is my latest op-ed, which appears in the Los Angeles Times. 

Here is an excerpt:

There was a special election in Los Angeles County last week. Didn't know? Didn't vote? Didn't care?

Well, you're in the majority. Less than 9% of registered voters in the 54th Assembly District bothered to show up at the polls or mail in ballots. Angelenos, a generally disunited bunch, coalesced around apathy. But what does it say about us that the one thing we can agree on is indifference?

The appalling turnout last week is a symptom of a much larger problem.

 

Rep. Hoyle draws pay from Democrats’ fund

Quoted in this one in the Register-Guard. 

Jessica Levinson, a professor of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and member of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, sees it as a conflict of interest.

“Obviously, it’s not rare for caucus leaders to fundraise on behalf of other candidates, and part of their agenda is getting or keeping their party in the majority,” she said. “But I think there’s still some difference between that and being essentially a paid consultant to the party.”

“Once you’re elected (to represent a district), you can’t just serve the party,” she added.

Nonprofits tied to legislators collect cash out of public view

Quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times. 

SACRAMENTO — A federal allegation that state Sen. Ronald S. Calderon tried to hide a $25,000 bribe in a charity run by his brother has shed light on the use of nonprofits by California legislators to collect cash out of public view.

Some nonprofits, set up with the stated purpose of aiding a charitable or social cause, are also being used to benefit an elected official's career, public image or personal finances, say advocates for open government.

Several current and former California politicians or their relatives have established nonprofits in recent years. Some spent more money on travel, meals or entertainment than on direct assistance to their causes, according to their tax filings.

"This has become a huge loophole," a way to skirt campaign finance laws, said Jessica Levinson, an elections law professor at Loyola Law School.

Why not a Yelp to rate politicians?

Picked up by USA Today.

We Need a Yelp for Politicians, with Comments and Ratings!

My latest piece on Zocalo Public Square is up. 

Here is the first bit:

Yelp is a wildly popular web service that allows customers to offer public reviews of the companies and professionals they patronize. Diners rate restaurants, patients rate their doctors, dentists, and health clinics, and shoppers rate their malls. But, at least so far, Yelp does not allow constituents to rate their politicians.

That should change. We all need more feedback on those who represent, or seek to represent, us. Since Americans are, for the most part, in between campaigns, now is the perfect time to build out a website to provide the public with something almost unheard of—useful information about politicians.

Modern campaigns are dominated by less-than-helpful advertisements. In the run-up to elections, our televisions and radios carry ads extolling the virtues, or warning of the vices, of our candidates. Our mailboxes, both real and virtual, brim with mailers explaining why we absolutely must not, under any circumstances, vote for a particular candidate. But very few of these campaign missives contain independent, factual information; campaigns, after all, aim primarily to get you to go to the polls, not to undertake a searching review of candidates.

This lack of helpful, substantive information leaves an ill-informed electorate grasping for answers. What is the solution? Here is one suggestion. Let’s create a dynamic website that would allow us to review our politicians based on a number of objective factors. And unlike well-intentioned but snoozy websites (I’m looking at you, League of Women Voters) that provide constituents with information on politicians, let’s promote a robust comment and ranking system.