5 ms·

Is using your political office to benefit your spouse's business a criminal offense in California? If not, it damned well should be. This is pretty blatant corr

Is using your political office to benefit your spouse's business a criminal offense in California? If not, it damned well should be. This is pretty blatant corruption.

buran77 7y ago
Usually when having any kind of public function you are covered by an ethics framework that expects you to come forward whenever you are involved in taking any decision that can look like a conflict of interest. Even if it is not a crime it should still be reason for dismissal. If nothing is done it incentivizes any person in a position with power of decision to try to benefit from it by simply hiding behind the feeble and unprovable claim that "it's totally unrelated".
toast0 7y ago
> No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest. [1] A government official has a financial interest in the employment of their spouse (who in this case, also more than likely has stock/stock options/RSUs from his employer) Edit to add: my spouse was a small time elected official in California, and there are lots of rules and required disclosures. Complying with the gift policy can be tricky -- if you meet your friends at their cabin for a ski trip it's allowed, but if you plan to meet them, but they were unable to make it, you can't stay there without them, it's not allowed to stay in their cabin without them. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=87100 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- tzs 7y ago
  As written, that seems awfully broad. For example, if a person who owns a farm in Merced county were elected to the legislature and then were to support any legislation that benefits farmers in general they would have run afoul of that law. I assume that it is interpreted more narrowly than that. So, say, a farmer in the legislator trying to get, for example, a new aqueduct project approved to lower water costs for farmers in a large region would be OK even if they themselves would benefit from lower water costs, but that same legislator trying to get the state to pick their spouse's excavating company when awarding the construction contracts for the project would not be OK.
  - toast0 7y ago
    Section 87102.5 goes on to say: > (a) The remedies provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 83100) shall apply to any Member of the Legislature who makes, participates in making, or in any way attempts to use his or her official position to influence any of the following governmental decisions in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest: ... > (3) Introduction as a lead author of any legislation that the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation. > (4) Any vote in a legislative committee or subcommittee on what the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation. > (5) Any rollcall vote on the Senate or Assembly floor on an item which the member knows is nongeneral legislation. Non general legislation is defined [2] as: > (a) “Nongeneral legislation” means legislation as to which both of the following apply: > (1) It is reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have direct and significant financial impact on one or more identifiable persons, or one or more identifiable pieces of real property. > (2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have a similar impact on the public generally or on a significant segment of the public. > (b) For purposes of this section and Section 87102.5, all of the following apply: > (1) “Legislation” means a bill, resolution, or constitutional amendment. > (2) “Public generally” includes an industry, trade, or profession. > (3) Any recognized subgroup or specialty of the industry, trade, or profession constitutes a significant segment of the public. > (4) A legislative district, county, city, or special district constitutes a significant segment of the public. > (5) More than a small number of persons or pieces of real property is a significant segment of the public. > (6) Legislation, administrative action, or other governmental action impacts in a similar manner all members of the public, or all members of a significant segment of the public, on which it has a direct financial effect, whether or not the financial effect on individual members of the public or the significant segment of the public is the same as the impact on the other members of the public or the significant segment of the public. So --- it's not quite as broad as the earlier quote. But, I guess the question becomes is companies that like to retain more information than they need to do their job a recognized subgroup of the industry? The point of the conflict of interest rules, though, is to make it crystal clear that any sort of appearance of conflict is to be avoided, which includes conflicts by virtue of marriage. Based on the definition of nongeneral legislation, I'm guessing this is probably fine (but is worth a look by the commission), but if it is OK, the legislator should say as much, and not claim independence from the spouse -- because the law does not allow for such independence. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=87102.5.&lawCode=GOV https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=87102.6 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
75dvtwin 7y ago
> Is using your political office to benefit your spouse's business a criminal offense in California? If not, it damned well should be. This is pretty blatant corruption. Receiving bribes and 'integrating' them into economy, through a network of relatives, is not that uncommon, unfortunately. More sophisticated forms take 250K per hour speech fees, book+documentary 'deals', and buying expensive property much cheaper than market price (from the willing 'donors'). To find info on links between a politician and his/her bribe loundering network, you have to use non-google/non-yahoo search engine. And plugin the names of the relatives. As examples, Pick federal Congress representatives from your district that have not changed for, say, 7-10 terms or more, and that live 4mln+ homes. And do the search. Politicians who sit on the committees dispensing money (eg aid), or government contracts tend to be more corrupt (proportional to how much money they oversee being dispensed out).
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Why such a search engine? Defamation take downs?
- sjg007 7y ago
  >As examples, Pick federal Congress representatives from your district that have not changed for, say, 7-10 terms or more, and that live 4mln+ homes. And do the search. How about an example? Your claims are extraordinary..
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    Dianne Feinstein is a good example; I only know about this from living in Berkeley for 20 years, and hearing about her corruption as it relates to her husband's real estate business (which impacted a lot of Berkeley landmarks). The claims are reality. American politics is absurdly, laughably corrupt and has been for a long time. I've said this for years: everything we accuse the Russians (our evil doppelgangers) of has been true here for a long, long time.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Is using your political office to benefit your spouse's business a criminal offense in California? If not, it damned well should be. This is pretty blatant corruption.

buran77 7y ago

Usually when having any kind of public function you are covered by an ethics framework that expects you to come forward whenever you are involved in taking any decision that can look like a conflict of interest. Even if it is not a crime it should still be reason for dismissal. If nothing is done it incentivizes any person in a position with power of decision to try to benefit from it by simply hiding behind the feeble and unprovable claim that "it's totally unrelated".

toast0 7y ago

> No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest. [1] A government official has a financial interest in the employment of their spouse (who in this case, also more than likely has stock/stock options/RSUs from his employer) Edit to add: my spouse was a small time elected official in California, and there are lots of rules and required disclosures. Complying with the gift policy can be tricky -- if you meet your friends at their cabin for a ski trip it's allowed, but if you plan to meet them, but they were unable to make it, you can't stay there without them, it's not allowed to stay in their cabin without them. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=87100 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

tzs 7y ago
As written, that seems awfully broad. For example, if a person who owns a farm in Merced county were elected to the legislature and then were to support any legislation that benefits farmers in general they would have run afoul of that law. I assume that it is interpreted more narrowly than that. So, say, a farmer in the legislator trying to get, for example, a new aqueduct project approved to lower water costs for farmers in a large region would be OK even if they themselves would benefit from lower water costs, but that same legislator trying to get the state to pick their spouse's excavating company when awarding the construction contracts for the project would not be OK.
- toast0 7y ago
  Section 87102.5 goes on to say: > (a) The remedies provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 83100) shall apply to any Member of the Legislature who makes, participates in making, or in any way attempts to use his or her official position to influence any of the following governmental decisions in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest: ... > (3) Introduction as a lead author of any legislation that the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation. > (4) Any vote in a legislative committee or subcommittee on what the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation. > (5) Any rollcall vote on the Senate or Assembly floor on an item which the member knows is nongeneral legislation. Non general legislation is defined [2] as: > (a) “Nongeneral legislation” means legislation as to which both of the following apply: > (1) It is reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have direct and significant financial impact on one or more identifiable persons, or one or more identifiable pieces of real property. > (2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have a similar impact on the public generally or on a significant segment of the public. > (b) For purposes of this section and Section 87102.5, all of the following apply: > (1) “Legislation” means a bill, resolution, or constitutional amendment. > (2) “Public generally” includes an industry, trade, or profession. > (3) Any recognized subgroup or specialty of the industry, trade, or profession constitutes a significant segment of the public. > (4) A legislative district, county, city, or special district constitutes a significant segment of the public. > (5) More than a small number of persons or pieces of real property is a significant segment of the public. > (6) Legislation, administrative action, or other governmental action impacts in a similar manner all members of the public, or all members of a significant segment of the public, on which it has a direct financial effect, whether or not the financial effect on individual members of the public or the significant segment of the public is the same as the impact on the other members of the public or the significant segment of the public. So --- it's not quite as broad as the earlier quote. But, I guess the question becomes is companies that like to retain more information than they need to do their job a recognized subgroup of the industry? The point of the conflict of interest rules, though, is to make it crystal clear that any sort of appearance of conflict is to be avoided, which includes conflicts by virtue of marriage. Based on the definition of nongeneral legislation, I'm guessing this is probably fine (but is worth a look by the commission), but if it is OK, the legislator should say as much, and not claim independence from the spouse -- because the law does not allow for such independence. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=87102.5.&lawCode=GOV https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=87102.6 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

75dvtwin 7y ago

> Is using your political office to benefit your spouse's business a criminal offense in California? If not, it damned well should be. This is pretty blatant corruption. Receiving bribes and 'integrating' them into economy, through a network of relatives, is not that uncommon, unfortunately. More sophisticated forms take 250K per hour speech fees, book+documentary 'deals', and buying expensive property much cheaper than market price (from the willing 'donors'). To find info on links between a politician and his/her bribe loundering network, you have to use non-google/non-yahoo search engine. And plugin the names of the relatives. As examples, Pick federal Congress representatives from your district that have not changed for, say, 7-10 terms or more, and that live 4mln+ homes. And do the search. Politicians who sit on the committees dispensing money (eg aid), or government contracts tend to be more corrupt (proportional to how much money they oversee being dispensed out).

im3w1l 7y ago
Why such a search engine? Defamation take downs?
sjg007 7y ago
>As examples, Pick federal Congress representatives from your district that have not changed for, say, 7-10 terms or more, and that live 4mln+ homes. And do the search. How about an example? Your claims are extraordinary..
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  Dianne Feinstein is a good example; I only know about this from living in Berkeley for 20 years, and hearing about her corruption as it relates to her husband's real estate business (which impacted a lot of Berkeley landmarks). The claims are reality. American politics is absurdly, laughably corrupt and has been for a long time. I've said this for years: everything we accuse the Russians (our evil doppelgangers) of has been true here for a long, long time.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago