Many elected officials will now have to explain how wining, dining and other expenses are tied to government business.
SACRAMENTO, CA — The state ethics watchdog today made it tougher
for politicians to use campaign funds to enhance their lifestyles.
New rules imposed by the Fair Political Practices Commission
will force politicians to publicly explain how meals, gifts and
out-of-state travel paid for with campaign money are connected to
political or governmental business.
The panel’s unanimous vote comes four months after The Times
revealed that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) spent tens
of thousands of dollars from special interests and other political
donors on overseas travel, meals, wine and high-end retail goods with
no obvious connection to his official duties. The new regulations take
effect for campaign expenditures after July 1.
In a record response to its usually obscure actions, the
commission reported receiving 2,043 letters and 74 phone calls from the
public supporting adoption of the new rules. Most were form letters
sent by customers of CREDO Mobile, a phone company that urges customers
each month to weigh in on state and national issues.
The letters asked the commission to "stop elected officials’ misuse of campaign funds."
"Consumers and citizens care about this stuff," said CREDO
President Michael Kieschnick, "but they’re not usually asked about it
in a way they can respond."
State law requires politicians to spend the money they get from
citizens, corporations, unions and other donors on things at least
"reasonably" related to political or governmental purposes. But until
Thursday, they were not required to prove a connection to official
business in the periodic spending reports they must make public;
campaign expenditures were simply grouped under broad categories such
as "office expenses," "meetings and appearances" and "candidate
travel."
The new regulations will require officials to name gift
recipients and describe the nature of gifts. They must also provide the
dates and destinations of out-of-state travel, and disclose whether
campaign funds were used to pay for the travel costs of family members
or staff.
Similarly, the rules require politicians to describe the number
of people at a meal and disclose whether family or staff were among the
diners.
In the case of all gift, travel and meal expenditures,
politicians must "briefly describe the political, legislative, or
governmental purpose of the expenditure."
In adopting the regulations, the five-member Fair Political
Practices Commission rebuffed campaign lawyers, who had called the new
rules "overly burdensome."
In a letter to the commission, the president of the California
Political Treasurers Assn. noted that few politicians have been found
guilty in the last 15 years of using their campaign committees for
personal benefit.
"While there have been a few recent media reports about
candidate use of campaign funds for gifts and meals," wrote David L.
Gould, "those reports should not result in an overreaction by the FPPC
in imposing burdensome reporting and record keeping requirements upon
all candidates."
Consumer groups urged the commission to go further. They
suggested the commission apply the new disclosure rules to travel
within California and require politicians to attach travel itineraries
and explain how such activity as golf is related to official business
if it is paid for with campaign money.
"Campaign committees are meant to help politicians get elected,
not sustain an extravagant lifestyle once they are in office," wrote
Carmen Balber of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights in a letter to the commission.
The new regulations will apply to all state and local elected
officials and candidates who raise or spend more than $1,000 a year.
—————-
Contact the author at [email protected]
