There is nothing easy about ethics reform. As lawyers who represent elected officials (one of us is counsel to House Speaker David Ralston’s campaign committee, and the other has represented two U.S. speakers of the House), we can confirm that it takes public servants of character and determination to take on this issue amidst the institutional opposition to any change that holds politicians and lobbyists more accountable. In Georgia, Speaker Ralston said he would make it happen, and he did.
No ethics reform is ever enough for some, and critics are always quick to attack any action as too little. In the case of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Act passed overwhelmingly by the Georgia Assembly and signed by Gov. Sonny Perdue, however, such attacks ignore the significant improvements the bill will make to Georgia’s ethics laws. As lawyers who were invited to testify and/or provide input on parts of the bill, our view is that the bill is a significant step forward. In a world where the tendency is “all or nothing,” legislators in both political parties should be commended for opting for better. Here are the specifics.
The act, which goes into effect in January, will dramatically increase transparency at the county and municipal level. At present, candidates for county and municipal office file their campaign and personal financial disclosure locally. As a result, these candidates have flown under the radar of the Internet and watchdog groups. The reports are not accessible online in most cases, and even getting a hard copy can be difficult. This system is also a textbook in bureaucratic inefficiency, since it requires every county (159 different counties) and municipality (almost 1,000) to put in place its own separate system to accept, maintain and track disclosure reports.
What no one will learn in the media is that the new ethics law will increase transparency and improve government efficiency by requiring county and municipal candidates to file their reports with the State Ethics Commission. Importantly, the act increases the ability for Internet policing by every citizen, media person and watchdog group of every significant candidate. Reports must be also filed electronically if a candidate accepts or spends more than $20,000.
For the first time in Georgia history, candidates will now have to report the aggregate amount of debt held by their campaigns. This is an important tool in ensuring that campaigns do not overstate their cash-on-hand figures by not listing outstanding obligations.
The bill also expands the Ethics Commission’s enforcement powers. The potential penalties for repeat violators will more than double, increasing up to $10,000 for second violations and up to $25,000 for third violations of the same provisions.
The fees for late filing of campaign reports, which previously have been meaningless, increase dramatically. The late fee for tardy campaign reports will increase 400 percent (from $25 to $125); and 400 percent (from $50 to $250) if more than two weeks late; with an entirely new penalty of $1,000 for a report that is 45 days late. These fees cannot be paid out of campaign funds, meaning as a practical matter that they have to be paid personally by the candidates.
The new law also increases disclosure obligations on lobbyists. For the first time, a lobbyist will have to disclose any lobbying expenditure made by his or her employer if he or she has actual knowledge of it. This closes a long-standing ambiguity and loophole in the law.
The penalties for late-filed lobbyist disclosure reports when the Legislature is not in session will increase to $275 for a late-filed report; $1,000 after two weeks; and $10,000 if a report is 45 days late. For reports due during the session, there are shorter deadlines. The new law also prohibits anyone convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude from serving as a lobbyist for at least 10 years.
The act also takes an important step toward eliminating the politicization of the ethics process. Until this legislation, opposing candidates and political parties have been able to abuse the process by filing politically motivated, but frivolous, complaints without consequence. Indeed, complaints are often released to the press at the same time — or even before — they are filed with the Ethics Commission, with the goal being simply to generate press coverage that will influence an election. Under the new law, this tactic is subject to consequence. The bill allows the Ethics Commission to award attorneys’ fees against those who file frivolous complaints or who don’t bother to show up for the preliminary hearing on a complaint they have filed. Those who file genuine ethics complaints have nothing to fear under this provision. But those who have other purposes now have a reason to think again.
Language cleaning up the prohibition on contingent compensation by lobbyists will improve the integrity of the process by eliminating improper incentives: It will confirm that no one may hire a vendor lobbyist under an agreement that provides that the lobbyist will be paid only if he is successful in obtaining a state contract for the client. This and other improvements have been largely overlooked by some critics of the bill.
Meaningful ethics reform involves real changes that improve transparency, facilitate enforcement and punish violators. This legislation does that.
J. Randolph Evans, a partner at McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, has served as counsel to former Speakers of the U.S. House Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich.
Douglas Chalmers Jr., a partner at FSB FisherBroyles in Atlanta, is counsel to Georgia Speaker David Ralston.
About the Author
