Ethics in Government HB 142-143 Georgia State University Law Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Georgia State University Law Review Volume 30 Article 8 Issue 1 Fall 2013 January 2014 Ethics in Government HB 142-143 Georgia State University Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Georgia State University Law Review, Ethics in Government HB 142-143, 30 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2014). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol30/iss1/8 This Peach Sheet is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. : Ethics in Government HB 142-143 ELECTIONS Ethics in Government: Amend Chapter 5 of Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Ethics in Government, so as to Change Certain Provisions Relating to Powers and Duties of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Definitions Relative to Public Officers’ Conduct and Lobbyist Disclosure; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Campaign Disclosure Reports; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Filing by Public Officers, Filing by Candidates for Public Office, Filing by Elected Officials and Members of the General Assembly, Electronic Filing, and Transfer of Filings from the Secretary of State to the Commission; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Lobbyist Registration Requirements, Application for Registration, Supplemental Registration, Expiration, Docket, Fees, Identification Cards, Public Rosters, and Exemptions; Regulate Certain Contact Between Lobbyists and Members of the General Assembly and the Making or Acceptance of Certain Expenditures; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Lobbyist Disclosure Reports; Amend Code Section 91 of Part 6 of Article 2 of Chapter 10 of Title 45 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to a Method for Addressing Improper Conduct by Members of the General Assembly, so as to Change Certain Provisions Relating to Filing of Complaints; Provide an Effective Date; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes CODE SECTIONS: O.C.G.A. §§ 21-5-6, -34, -50, -70, -71 (amended), -72.1 (new), -73 (amended); 45-10-91 (amended) BILL NUMBER: HB 142 ACT NUMBER: 134 GEORGIA LAWS: 2013 Ga. Laws 540 SUMMARY: The Act alters the way that lobbyists must register, disclose their expenditures, and interact with public officers. Beginning with an alteration 129 Published by Reading Room, 2013 1 Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 30, Iss. 1 [2013], Art. 8 130 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 30:1 of definitions relating to public officers’ conduct and lobbyist disclosure, the Act then changes the law for public officer filings and lobbyist registrations, including the addition of a section which prohibits registered lobbyists from making any expenditures or conducting certain meetings with lawmakers prior to official registration. This significantly limits the interaction between public officers and lobbyists and the ability of lobbyists to provide public officers with unreported gifts. Finally, the Act imposes disclosure report obligations, pursuant to certain conditions, on all registered lobbyists. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2014 ELECTIONS Ethics in Government: Amend Chapter 5 of Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Ethics in Government, so as to Change Certain Provisions Relating to Powers and Duties of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission; Revise Definitions Relating to Ethics in Government; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Campaign Contribution Disclosure Reports; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Filing Campaign Contribution Disclosure Reports; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Acceptance of Contributions or Pledges During Legislative Sessions; Change Certain Provisions Relating to Financial Disclosure Statement Filings by Public Officers, Filings by Candidates for Public Office, Filing by Elected Officials and Members of the General Assembly, Electronic Filing, and Transfer of Filings from the Secretary of State to the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission; https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol30/iss1/8 2 : Ethics in Government HB 142-143 2013] LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 131 Provide an Effective Date; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes CODE SECTIONS: O.C.G.A. §§ 21-5-3, -6, -34, -34.1, -35, -50 (amended) BILL NUMBER: HB 143 ACT NUMBER: 35 GEORGIA LAWS: 2013 Ga. Laws 173 SUMMARY: The Act requires public officials to submit a campaign disclosure report to the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission listing total expenditures and contributions totaling more than $100 as well as certain information about the contributor. Rules regarding the content of each report during an election cycle and how these rules differ for various types of elections and candidates are promulgated. Political campaign committees and independent committees must also file separate campaign contribution disclosure reports. Finally, the Act requires certain public officers and candidates for public office to file annual financial disclosure statements identifying specific information. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2014 History Under the United States Constitution, every state is guaranteed the right to a representative form of government.1 However, the U.S. Constitution goes no further in defining the rights to vote, thereby 1. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4. Published by Reading Room, 2013 3 Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 30, Iss. 1 [2013], Art. 8 132 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 30:1 leaving states to enact state-specific voting regulations and procedures.2 In the State of Georgia, the Georgia Constitution grants the right to register and to vote for elections to every United States citizen who is also a Georgia citizen and is at least eighteen years old.3 Administering elections in Georgia is the responsibility of both state and local governments.4 In Georgia, like in many other states, interest groups and lobbyists have a history of attempting to influence state and local elections and legislative policies.5 In the past, some believed that Georgia had “‘some of the weakest ethics rules in the country.’”6 These beliefs often arose because Georgia was relatively slow in adopting ethics reform laws.7 Dating back to the Watergate era, Georgia governors and legislators were hesitant to address ethics concerns throughout the 20th century.8 Only in 1986, did the Georgia General Assembly first pass the Ethics in Government Act.9 Along with amendments that were made to the Act in 1992, the Ethics in Government Act represented “‘the base for Georgia’s existing Ethics in Government Law.’”10 Then, in 2004, efforts to revamp the State’s ethics rules finally got underway.11 That year, Governor Sonny Perdue proposed what “would have been truly the most significant ethics reform in state history.”12 This bill would have “[given] the Ethics Commission more influence, authority, and visibility” and would have “[closed] many of the loopholes in the state’s ethics laws.”13 Though the bill passed through 2. See id.; Karen C. Handel & Wesley B. Tailor, Esq., Georgia Secretary of State, Election Law In Georgia: What City And County Attorneys Need To Know 3 (2008), available at http://www.sos.ga.gov/electionconnection/pdf/GA_election_law.pdf. 3. GA. Const. art. II, § 1, para. 2. 4. Handel & Tailor, supra note 2, at 3. 5. Jim Walls, Georgia: The Story Behind the Score, State Integrity Investigation, http://www.stateintegrity.org/georgia_story_subpage (last visited June 8, 2013). 6. Stephanie D. Campanella et al., Election, 21 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 129, 131 (2004) [hereinafter Campanella et al.]. 7. See Walls, supra note 5. 8. Id. 9. 1986 Ga. Laws 957 (codified at O.C.G.A. § 21-5-1 (2008)). 10. See Campanella et al., supra note 6, at 131 (citation omitted). 11. See Walls, supra note 5. 12. Bill Bozarth, Georgia General Assembly: Ethical Responsibility Wanes Sadly, Legislators Focus on Power, Forget the People, ATLANTA J.-CONST., Mar. 1, 2006, at A13, available at 2006 WLNR 3475810. 13. Press Release, Governor Perdue Introduces 2004 Honesty in Government Act, State of Georgia, Governor’s Office of Communications (Feb. 12, 2004), available at http://sonnyperdue.georgia.gov/ 00/press/detail/0,2668,78006749_92321069_92337353,00.html. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol30/iss1/8 4 : Ethics in Government HB 142-143 2013] LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 133 the Republican Georgia Senate, it did not make it through the Democratic Georgia House of Representatives. 14 Despite the leadership of Representative Mary Margaret Oliver (D-82nd) and the bipartisan support of the bill in the House Judiciary Committee, Purdue’s ethics reform bill could not survive the Democratic- controlled House Rules Committee.15 At the time, Democrats were heavily criticized for killing the reform efforts.16 During the next year’s legislative session, however, the blame shifted to Republicans for watering down House Bill (HB) 42, the 2005 ethics reform bill.17 In that bill, much of the reform came on the supply side, limiting only the actions of donors and lobbyists.18 The bill did very little to enforce more ethical behavior on the part of elected officials.19 In fact, the legislature failed to accept a proposal to “ban gifts to state workers, define acceptable campaign spending and stiffen penalties for