Tuesday, July 19, 2005

FPPC Fun!

Democrats file complaint on Schwarzenegger ethics violation

The FPPC has 180 days to act on the complaint the party filed today. I'm sure if they hadn't file it, someone else would've.

And in a showing of renewed reason since his attempt to intervene in the Prop. 77 litigation, Speaker Nunez says he'll stay out of this one:

Although one of the complaints filed with the FPPC came from the Democratic Party, the ranking Democrat in the Assembly said he was not interested in conducting a legislative investigation.

"My decision is to stay as far away from this as possible," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. "It's going to take a lot to convince me that the Legislature ought to have a role."
Note too a similar complaint was filed by Petaluma parents who claim their son's death was tied to steroid use. It'll (obviously) be easier for the Gov to browbeat the CDP over their complaint than a teary-eyed Mom and Dad.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't forget, the Speaker is no stranger to outside income and potential conflicts of interest, having some personal experience in this area!

Anonymous said...

Re Phoblographer's "FPPC Fun" - the inference that the Speaker's attempt to intervene in the Prop 77 litigation was anything but reasonable (not to mention legally sound)is simply wrong. The Speaker (and Senate President Pro Tem Perata) should be commended, not castigated, for taking a stand against Prop 77 backers' bait and switch tactics. After all, since the Elections Code allows the Legislature to hold public hearings ballot measures (see Section 9007) it seems pretty reasonable (and just plain common sense) that the leaders of the Legislature would want to be clear about which measure - if any - will be on the ballot measure before holding those hearings.

cd said...

I don't believe I ever said it was legally unsound. I said it was, PR/politically speaking, unwise. (see: http://www.phoblographer.com/2005/07/this-should-do-wonders-for-negotiation.html)

As far as "bait and switch" tactics go, I have yet to see proof of baiting and switching. Clerical errors happen. Strictly applied substantial compliance doctrine will get this tossed. But we don't know which way the court will go yet.

As far as EC Sec. 9007 goes, the end of it says "However,
nothing in this section shall be construed as authority for the
Legislature to alter the measure or prevent it from appearing on the
ballot."

I'm not sure when was the last time a legislative committee held such a hearing, but tossing out a code section isn't strengthening your argument - especially since you're conflating the issues distinct legal and political aspects.

I'm all for legislative leaders sticking up for our (read: the CDP's interests). However, I'm less in favor of it when it will set them up as obvious punching bags. They should not sacrifice their own effectiveness when others had already brought the appropriate cause of action.