Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves issued the following statement.
SENATE SENDS CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW TO GOVERNOR
JACKSON – The Mississippi Senate today sent a plan to reform the state’s campaign finance laws to Gov. Phil Bryant’s desk for review.
Senate Bill 2689, by Sen. Sally Doty, R-Brookhaven, brings more transparency to political expenses and places restrictions on spending to campaign-related needs. The bill includes a prohibition on personal expenses, payments to relatives and loans to candidates.
“This common sense reform requires full disclosure of activity and clarifies that spending on personal items is not allowable,” Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said. “Supporters of political candidates expect their resources to be spent on political activity, and voters deserve to know that is actually happening.”
The bill requires candidates to disclose credit card expenditures. It also states that once a campaign account has been closed, the candidate can return the funds to donors, donate the funds to another political cause or charity, or send to state coffers. The Ethics Commission will oversee enforcement.
Speaker of the House Phillip Gunn issued this statement as well.
Speaker Philip Gunn Congratulates Senate on Passage of Campaign Finance Bill
Tighter Guidelines, Reporting of Campaign Finance Money by Elected Officials and Candidates
Jackson, MS—Today, Speaker of the House Philip Gunn congratulated the Senate on passing the Campaign Finance Bill that passed the House earlier this month by a bipartisan vote of 102-12.
Senate Bill 2689 outlines definitions and usage guidelines for campaign contributions by any elected official or candidate. Speaker Gunn authored a similar bill earlier in the Session.
“I am grateful that we have come to an agreement on the Campaign Finance Bill,” said Speaker of the House Philip Gunn. “We have worked hard to make this legislation as tight and as clear as possible. The entire Legislature should be commended on doing the right thing by passing this measure.
“We are expected, by those who elect us, to uphold certain expectations of integrity,” he continued. “This legislation effectively outlines the proper procedures for all elected officials and candidates in the handling and reporting of campaign contributions.”
Personal Use
Personal use is defined as any use, other than expenditures related to gaining, holding, or performing functions of public office, for which the candidate or public official would have to report as gross income to the IRS. Enactment of this legislation would prohibit using the funds for: 1) Residential or household items, supplies or expenditures including mortgage, rent, or utility payments for any residential property of a candidate, officeholder or family member; 2) Similar payments for nonresidential property used for campaign purposes if owned by a candidate, officeholder, or family member; 3) funeral expenses for themselves and family members; 4) clothing; 5) automobiles; 6) tuition payments other than those associated with training of staff or themselves; 7) country club fees, dues, gratuities; 8) salary payments to family members; 9) admission to entertainment events; 10) non-documented loans; 11) travel expenses; 12) payment of fines, fees or penalties issued under MS law.
Conclusion of Service/Campaign
Once an official files a termination report, any unused campaign contributions will be: 1) maintained in campaign account; 2) donated to political organization, PAC, or another candidate; 3) transferred to a new PAC or ballot question advocate; 4) donated to 501(c)(3) organization; 5) donated to the State of Mississippi; 6) returned to donor(s), not including the candidate.
Special Notes
Contributions accruing to a candidate’s campaign account before January 1, 2018, shall be exempt from the new provisions.
Credit card payments must be itemized for expenditures greater than $200.
Enforcement
Enforcement of this legislation will be overseen by the Mississippi Ethics Commission (MSEC). Those found to be in violation of the personal use section of this legislation will be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $1,000 and a state assessment equal to the misappropriated funds. A penalty up to $5,000 may be imposed by the MSEC on any political committee that fails to file information on contributions, expenditures, officers and other information required. The Secretary of State shall compile and provide a list of candidates and political committees that fail to comply with the disclosure requirements of this legislation to the MSEC who shall levy a $50 fine per day (max of 10 days) until the party complies. The MSEC is authorized to issue anonymous advisory opinions to candidates and officeholders regarding the requirements of this legislation.
This bill would go into effect January 1, 2018.
22 comments:
The "Special Notes" will allow Guv to keep his retirement fund and, thus, is the only thing that gives this long-needed legislation a shot.
Actually, @ 11:22 I saw here and in the traditional media that per his 2016 CFR (filed in January 2017) the Governor had donated nearly all of his campaign funds to the creation of a new PAC.
All donations made before Jan. 1, 2018, are exempt from the new rules.
According to news article. So many with "lots of cash" get to keep their retirement account.
Same old bull sh.., watching out for each other!
Like a hundred lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
@12:54- to use against the dicTATEr?
So, Jim Hood's brother is in charge of enforcement??
HUH?
Anytime a politician passes a bill on campaign finance, beware! They ain't George Washington. New laws just create black markets.
Every bill passed into law, 1:56, has to have an effective date and can't be retroactive. So, what are you actually bitching about?
10:28 pm That's hasn't true in this Nation's history. Some bills have been "grandfathered" and some have not. Has this legislature mucked up law that existed for good reason yet again?
The January '18 effective date is a joke. The majority of the new laws become effective July '17. This just gives some people time to cash out or spend before the new law takes effect.
Can you still donate campaign funds to a PAC or to another candidate? The PAC is a giant loophole because nobody reads those reports.
Plenty of time to load up on contributions.
The PAC is a giant loophole because nobody reads those reports.
That is bullshit. Nobody reads any of the reports, period.
You f'ing idiots (meaning you JJ Democrat harpies) should be happy with this major improvement in the law. It is a substantial step forward. It would have NEVER happened with McCoy.
This bill began as HB 479 presented by the Speaker himself. When I read it and saw that the enforcement tasking would go to the Ethics Commission, I smelled a rat.
The Secretary of State's office (not just Hoseman), has done a fantastic job in past years at holding public officials and candidates responsible. There is no reason he shouldn't continue, instead of the Ethics Commission.
When I read that bill I contacted some members of the committee and told them that Ethics has only a tiny office with 6 people compared to over 110 in the SOS's 3 offices statewide. The SOS has a history that would fill a hard bound book or set of books at holding officials and candidates accountable. Additional responsibilities of this nature for Ethics would require increased manpower and money at a time when the Governor is cutting all budgets.
I sent a brief to all members of the committee and people started to listen. I received an email from a member of the House Committee who said that it was by then a half and half vote between giving it to the SOS or Ethics.
Then it went to the Senate and Doty's bill was written as a replacement with Ethics only having the authority to issue advisory opinions. The SOS would retain all enforcement authority. But then I am confident that "Tater" got involved. I started hearing from members of the House and Senate that my brief had touched all bases and made sense...but the new(and only) argument was that the Legislature didn't want to give that much authority to an elected official like Hoseman because he could go on political witch hunts at a time when state elections are coming up and maybe tarnish another competing candidate.
I then made the point (on deaf ears) that the AG is an elected official with much power of enforcement over state officials and that hasn't seemed to be a problem. I further noted that Judges are elected officials with plenty enforcement power over public officials so why was the SOS being singled out when his record of holding people accountable speaks for itself? The record of Ethics holding people accountable speaks for itself also, but in a negative way.
Two very high public officials (both with top level political aspirations) in charge of our state houses wanted this bill and purposely wanted a "Tiger with no Teeth" to have oversight. This no more than an attempt to keep the brothers in arms out of trouble but make it look like to the public they were doing something about campaign finance reform.
Ethics has no money, manpower or gonads to pursue these potential violators. They have no history of success at anything other than school teacher hand-slapping at best. The director Tom Hood (AG Jim Hood's brother) has no authority to do anything without the vote of the entire commission (all of whom are political appointees).
The third section, last paragraph of the Senate amendment gives a violator a way out. It talks about charges that could be made against a violator for late reports and fines assessed and so on. Then it is followed up by a statement that if the person subsequently files a report, he cannot be held accountable to the previous statement.
Remember, not as much in the House but in the Senate, nothing gets passed or quashed unless the "Tater" himself wants it to happen. And if you are a Senator and get on his bad side, you will never get another piece of legislation passed. Do we want a dictator in the Governor's mansion?
Please view this brief by clicking on the link below.
https://www.scribd.com/document/342833201/SOS-v-Ethics
I welcome responses and I don't speak anonymously .
Rick Ward (601) 665 6088 rickward47@hotmail.com
Rick Ward, I was going to read your latest book above, but once I got past the second sentence I couldn't quit laughing.
To say that the SOS has done a good job at anything, much less at any accountability in campaign finance reporting does nothing but show your total ignorance of anything about the subject. The group at the SOS office that oversees this whole area of elections is nothing but a joke; and the finance reports section is the worst of the worse.
The very last place the enforcement of this new bill should be placed there and that's not just related to the current SOS. Once you get past the incompetent group that can't shoot straight under Gilbert, you don't want an elected official to oversee other elected officials business on campaigns. I don't know that the Ethics Commission is much better under the ED Hood, but at least there is a COMMISSION there that consists of several quality people - not some self-annointed egotistical narcasist like you are suggesting is doing a good job.
But thanks anyway. Putting that sentence at the beginning of your tome saved me a lot of time I would have wasted reading the rest of your nonsense.
6:40 a.m.: We're not talking here about 'this nation's history'. We're talking about the Mississippi legislature. Name the last time a bill became law in this state, retroactively, regarding money held legally by persons or institutions.
7:21, The legislature took money from some of the vocational boards that came from dues. That is a retroactive active seizure of funds.
5:24, you come off as a small-minded enabler trying to defend dodgy behavior by throwing shade at the SOS. Your bullsh*t "aww shucks" brand of cynicism covers the ass of politicians who would turn us into a banana republic with their corruption and brazen greed.
I don't even like Delbert. To me, he looks like he's always impatiently waiting in a lunch line for his damn sandwich. Nevertheless, that Hosemann's office is less effective than you'd like does not disarm Rick's argument that his people are better equipped than the single-digit staff over in Tom Hood's office at handling these types of issues.
Frankly, your dismissive tone is that of a politician clutching for even more immunity.
Tom Hood's office is indeed understaffed and has had its budget cut over the last few years. They do their best but they are simply overwhelmed.
Well said 8:49 AM
Um....just donate the funds to a PAC you control and then hire yourself and your wife and kids. Very common in other states.
Hey Anonymous (from the comment on March 23 at 5:24), I didn't catch your name but would welcome a personal discussion on this issue with you if you would quit hiding behind an assumed name. You know its rude to not introduce yourself after somebody else has to you. At any rate, I doubt you quit reading when you got to the issue about Hoseman. You would just like readers to know how big you are by dumb ass comments. I am not a friend or fan of Hoseman either but I am not an enemy either. I am talking about the Office not the man. If you weren't so ignorant, you could make yourself less ignorant by reading the brief on the link. You would see the statistics of each office and only a moron could conclude afterwards that the Ethics Commission is more capable of handling it. The SOS (office) has a much stronger history of taking action against public officials. Most of the thieves will get their money out and spend it on what they want this year because the Legislature is making the law effective next year. HEY, PHIL BRYANT, IF YOU ARE READING THIS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER A VETO OF THIS BILL! Rick Ward
Post a Comment