Senator Steele Pulls SB244

Update for those following SB244, which would have granted an exclusion in Indiana lobbying reporting laws to three groups (see yesterday's post for particulars), was pulled from consideration.  Senator Brent Steele (District 44), one of the bills sponsors, announced the action yesterday afternoon.  This is a very good development and I certainly support Senator Steele's decision.

SB 244 - Creating A Run Around Indiana's Lobbying Laws

Indiana law currently requires that lobbyists register and report all gifts made to all Legislators and the Governor.  But, with the ink barely dry, exceptions are being considered by the General Assembly.  Here's how Scott Smith of the Kokomo Tribune frames the situation:

One of the cornerstones of the Indiana General Assembly’s 2010 ethics reform bill was a ban on lobbyist-funded, out-of-state travel for legislators.

As it turns out, the ban isn’t quite an iron-clad rule.

And two years after the bill’s passage, legislators are busy trying to carve out additional exemptions to the rules.

If lobbyists can’t directly pay for a state legislator to go on a junket, they have another option.

By simply paying for membership in a group like the American Legislative Exchange Council, which brings together corporate lobbyists and a host of conservative legislators at conferences around the country, the lobbyists get unfettered access to influential legislators.

But, we get ahead of ourselves.  Let's start at the beginning.  Here is what the Indiana Code currently says about lobbying, in part:

IC 2-7-1-10
"Lobbyist" Sec. 10. (a) "Lobbyist" means any person who:
(1) engages in lobbying; and
(2) in any registration year, receives or expends an aggregate of at least five hundred dollars ($500) in compensation or expenditures reportable under this article for lobbying, whether the compensation or expenditure is solely for lobbying or the lobbying is incidental to that individual's regular employment.
(b) The following are not considered lobbyists:
(1) A public employee or public official.
(2) The National Conference of State Legislatures.
(3) The National Conference of Insurance Legislators.
(4) The American Legislative Exchange Council.
(5) Women in Government.
(6) The Council of State Governments.
(7) The National Black Caucus of State Legislators.
(8) Any other national organization established for the education and support of legislative leadership, legislators, legislative staff, or related government employees.

It must be that the activities of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, and the State Agriculture and Rural Leaders Association, are not clearly ones of education and thus exempt by # 8 of this definition.  These three groups are the subject of individualized legislation in the form of Senate Bill 244, which would codify their unique exemption status by naming them as groups who are not considered lobbyists.

So, who are these groups, how do they interact with our Legislators in particular, and where does the money come to support those interactions.

The CSF appears to be the parent of the NASC.  Their combined website is: http://www.sportsmenslink.org/.   

CSF has several events each year, among which is an Annual Banquet and Auction fundraiser.  This was last held on September 14 with individual tickets going for $1000 or a table of 8 for $6000, but with two seats reserved for VIPS.  Got to wonder who the VIPs were and who paid for the seats.  That information I could not find.

But, they do list their 'partners' on the CSF website.  These include such notable hunting and fishing sportsmen's groups as Alergen, Bayer Cropscience, CONSOL Energy, Oracle, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, BP America, Inc., Chief Oil & Gas, The Coca-Cola Company, Lockheed Martin, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, United States Steel Corporation, Aflac, Capitol Hill Consulting Group, National Mining Association, and NASCAR.

The NASC lists as its 'partners', among others, Comcast, Shell Oil, Aflac, Daimler, Exxon Mobile, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, and America's Natural Gas Alliance.

The website also notes legislation they'd like to see enacted.  Here's just one and how they describe it (emphasis mine):

Voter Registration
Introduction
Encouraging sportsmen’s involvement in the political process is an important method for preserving our outdoor heritage. Increased participation helps ensure that the sportsmen’s voice is heard, particularly though the ballot box, which also strengthens the sportsmen’s ability to collectively defeat anti-sportsmen groups. Facilitating voter registration for sportsmen at the time they purchase their sportsmen’s licenses is one way to increase the number of registered sportsmen voters.

Language
By incorporating the views of our partners and other state legislators who have passed this legislation, we present the following language:
“Each application to obtain a resident hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by the (Department of Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and made by an applicant who is within six months of such applicant's eighteenth birthday or older shall also serve as an application for voter registration unless the applicant declines to register to vote through specific declination or by failing to sign the voter registration application. (The Board of Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and the Secretary of State shall agree upon and design such procedures and forms as will be necessary to comply with this Code section, including without limitation procedures applicable to processing of applications received by persons approved as license agents for the (Department of Natural Resources).”

Points of Interest
It is the duty of each caucus leadership team to determine the best means of action in your respective state and modify the above language as necessary.

History
The issue was introduced at the inaugural NASC Annual Meeting in 2004 by a Georgia legislator and was issued as a NASC issue brief during the 2005 legislative session. Sportsmen’s caucuses in Florida and Georgia have passed similar legislation and attempts have been made in at least six other states.

Just in case you were ready to buy into their role in education of Legislators, let me also link you to two places where CSF posted a job opening this past year for a fundraiser.  In one place they described THEMSELVES as an "Advocacy, Environment" organization.  In the other they say :

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, which coordinates interaction and idea exchange among federal and state legislators, sportsmen's groups, industry, and outdoor media to advance a pro-sportsmen's agenda in the U.S. Congress and state capitals, is seeking an Outreach Coordinator.

Clearly, the CSF and NASC are pushing for specific legislation and thus do not deserve an exemption from Indiana's lobbying laws.  They can also serve as a means to give their 'partners', current and future, a run around our laws by giving money to these groups and gaining face time with Legislators through the groups' events.

The State Agriculture and Rural Leaders group also has interesting 'partners' and educational methods.  The SARL website is http://www.agandruralleaders.org/.  They have an Annual Summit where invited Legislators listen to briefings and then adopt Resolutions.  The Summit was just held on January 6-8 in our Nation's Capital. 

Summit 'Partners' include, among others, BASF, Biotechnology Industry Organizations, International Associations of Fairs and Expositions, Kraft Foods, Land-O-Lakes, and Wine America.  At least their partners are not so far afield from the organization's base as those of the CSF and NASC.

The topic of the first Plenary Session was "How state/provincial policy makers can support our producers and communities".  During the Summit, the gathering adopted 10 Resolutions.  Here is one, just selected solely on the basis of its brevity (emphasis in last paragraph is mine):

2012 Legislative Agriculture Chairs Summit  

Resolution on Country of Origin Labeling

Whereas, the State Ag and Rural Leaders, (SARL) is comprised of agriculture and rural leaders of state and provincial legislative bodies from the US and Canada; and

Whereas,the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation has been a source of trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada; and

Whereas, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that the means by which COOL was implemented is not consistent with U.S. trade obligations; and

Whereas, the strength of the U.S.-Canadian trade relationship has created jobs and financial growth in both countries; and now therefore be it

Resolved, that SARL encourages the U.S. to waive an appeal of the WTO Dispute Panel’s ruling on COOL and further encourages the United States Congress to make a legislative amendment that would bring COOL into conformity with the U.S. WTO obligations without hindering the ability of the United States to continue to implement COOL for informed consumer decisions.

That sounds more like suggesting specific legislation than education.  The very fact that Legislators attending the Annual Summit are the ones actively adopting the Resolutions is a bit much.  Again, this group should not be exempt from our lobbying laws.

As far as news from the media on SB244, I have only found previously cited article by Scott Smith of the Kokomo Tribune.

I had not heard of this bill until Saturday, when Julia Vaughn, Policy Director of Common Cause of Indiana, was a Guest Presenter at McANA meeting.  That meeting is being televised by Channel 16, and you can access it from their archives.  Scroll down to 'other meetings' and select Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (Jan 21, 2012).

Vaughn provided me with this statement:

This bill would allow these groups, who appear to be funded by a diverse treasure trove of corporate and trade industry organizations, to fly Indiana legislators out-of-state for "educational" events where they will be greeted by the same lobbyists who are prohibited from funding out-of-state travel for legislators.  These exempted groups could provide a convenient way for big money special interests to avoid having to disclose their lobbying expenditures and get around the ban on lobbyist paid out of state travel.  It's a bill that weakens transparency and citizens should call their Senators ASAP and ask them to vote NO.        

You can find your Senator and their contact information here.

Lets not let them weaken the lobbying rules by, knowingly or not, putting in place a great runaround of the intent of our recently enacted lobbyist activities and gifting laws.

Indiana - The Hate State ?

If the State Legislature doesn't change course, it will push Indiana into the unholy position of the most hateful State in the Union.

Besides its headlong rush to vilify unions and gut collective bargaining, the Legislature is pushing bigoted anti-GBLT and anti-Latino bills through. I do not know if Governor Mitch Daniels has to sign these bills in order for them to become law. That certainly is a significant question.

HJR 6 seeks to put discrimination into the Indiana State Constitution by banning same sex marriage or civil union, partner benefits, and anything else that can be interpreted as being 'substantially similar to marriage'. This bill passed the House prior to the Democratic Caucus' self-imposed exile to Urbana, IL. There is a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill scheduled for tomorrow, March 16, beginning at 9 am in the Senate Chambers. If it passes this year, it must pass again in either 2013 or 2014. If it passes through the General Assembly a second time, it would have to pass a vote of regular Hoosiers through a public referendum, for the Constitution to be so amended.

SB590 seeks, among other things, to require Indiana's police to ask for proof of legal residency from anyone they 'suspect' could be here as an illegal alien. It is doubtful that a Canadian accent would be deemed sufficiently suspicious. A Spanish accent, however, would certainly qualify the speaker for unconstitutional requests to produce proper papers or be detained (aka, arrested), until such papers could be produced. This bill passed the Senate and has been referred to the House, where the Democrats are in exile.

While I tend to believe that the human rights, the civil rights, and old fashioned decency are enough reason for these bills to be defeated, others bring up economic costs to the State should these bills be enacted.

Gay bashing laws tend to make States less inviting to a very talented and upper income population. This impacts the ability of companies to attract and retain valued employees. This impacts the decision of companies to locate or expand or remain in those States.

Latino bashing laws tend to make States less inviting for tourism; a consequence clearly seen in Arizona. Increased costs for policing efforts are said to be significant and ill considered in this economy at any price.

While the push for these hate-filled laws is illuminating the radical agenda of the Republican controlled General Assembly, these are not issues that attract complete Republican support. There is significant Republican antipathy to both of these bills. This fact alone makes it incumbent upon those Republican Senators and Representatives to do all they can to kill these hate bills.

The Democratic Caucus exile can help with SB590 - but for how long? Additionally, influential Senator Luke Kenley is now asking for amendments, which is a positive sign, but may not mean much to House members who now control that bill.

Thus far, HJR 6 doesn't have any high profile Republican Senators pushing against it. That is a travesty and does a huge disservice to Republicans in the general public who do not support this attack on themselves, their friends, or their family members who are gay or lesbian.

All of the majority's radical agenda is alarming for another reason. While control of the House swaps back and forth from year to year, control of the Senate does not. Should any piece of the radical agenda be passed, it will be years, if not decades, before a Senate could be voted into office that would allow a bill reversing the hate to be considered.

If there ever was a time to call your Senators and Representatives, it is now. Stand up and be counted if you oppose Indiana rocketing to the bottom, to be known and codified as the 'Hate State'.

HB 1604 - CIB bailout bill - how they voted

HB 1604 which authorizes the City-County Council to increase a variety of taxes, the revenue from which is to go to the CIB, has passed out of the Senate with a vote of 33 aye and 17 nay.

Those voting nay were:

Jean Breaux (D, District 34)*
Johnny Nugent (R, District 43)
Marlin Stutzman (R, District 13)
John Waterman (R, District 39)
Mike Delph (R, District 29)*
Lonnie Randolph (D, District 2)
Karen Tallian (D, District 4)
Richard Young (D, District 47)
Sue Errington (D, District 26)
Earline Rogers (D, District 3)
Greg Taylor (D, District 33)*
Lindal Hume (D, District 48)
Connie Sipes (D, District 46)
Greg Walker (R, District 41)
James Lewis (D, District 45)
Tim Skinner (D, District 38)
Brent Waltz (R, District 36)*

* = part of their district falls inside Marion County

Senator Delph Wants Study Committee on Redistricting Process

From an editorial in today's Indianapolis Star, I have learned that Senator Mike Delph has authored Senate Concurrent Resolution 95, which would create a 'Census Data Study Committee' to examine the processes that could be used in 2011 to redraw new Districts according to the population numbers to be generated by the upcoming Census.

The editorial quotes Delph as saying, "Voters should pick their elected officials rather than elected officials picking their voters." Well said, sir. Well said.

Delph's Resolution has gained other authors; Senators Sue Landske (R, District 6), Timothy Lanane (D, District 25), and Connie Lawson (R, District 24). It passed out of the Senate Elections Committee on April 6 with a unanimous 'do pass' recommendation. The Star editorial reports that it was approved by the Senate on Monday and now awaits an uncertain future in the House.
There are two co-sponsors in the House; Representatives Matt Pierce (D, District 61) and Jerry Torr (R, District 39).

The Star sees this as an opportunity for Indiana to move past the old and tarnished practice of gerrymandering districts to ensure the incumbents retain their seats. This is the very thing that could kill this measure. The resolution does not carve out any particular aim of the study committee to bring Indiana out into the sunshine, rather it suggests

SECTION 1. That the Legislative Council is urged to direct the Census Data
Study Committee to study the topic of redistricting and to make recommendations on processes that could be utilized by the Indiana General Assembly to promote the establishment of easily identifiable boundaries that keep communities of interest together.
SECTION 2. That the Census Data Study Committee, if so directed, shall review the redistricting process and make recommendations on ways to improve the process for 2011. As part of this review, the committee shall investigate computer programs that are available to assist in the redistricting process and make recommendations on the use of such programs. In addition, the committee shall make recommendations on methods to include the public in the process, such as, holding public meetings or holding advisory meetings with community leaders.
SECTION 3. That the committee, if so directed, shall operate under the direction of the Legislative Council and shall issue a report when directed to do so by the Council.
SECTION 4. The Secretary of the Senate is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Legislative Council through the Executive Director of the Legislative Services Agency.

Surely the House can find a way to support a study committee that would look at the process of determining Districts. The House Democrats in particular are being quite obstructionist in this General Assembly. Crafting only one year's budget and rolling back the referendum process come immediately to mind. Nothing will scream 'absolutely, totally, obstructionist' quite like killing Delph's Resolution.

Lets talk.

Progress on Open-Door Laws In Jeopardy

Representative John Bartlett (D), Chairman of the Indiana House Government and Regulatory Reform Committee, has pocketed SB 232, which would strengthen Indiana's Open Door Laws by putting forth penalties for government officials who wantonly ignore the public's right to access and require posting of meeting notices on a governmental website.

Mr. Bartlett represents District 95 which is wholly inside Indianapolis. (link to the district map) Generally, the district is within Lawrence Township, straddling I-465 with a western boundary approaching Binford Blvd., a southern boundary along E. 38th St., the northern boundary encompassing Fort Harrison State Park, and the eastern boundary just past German Church Rd.

You may contact Representative Bartlett with your comments at h95@in.gov or 232-9600. Make sure you mention if you live in District 95.

SB 232 passed unanimously out of the Senate Local Government Committee on February 18 and unanimously out of the Senate on February 4. It was referred to Representative Bartlett's committee on March 3 and there it has sat.

Here is the Legislature's digest of the bill:

Public access issues. Provides that the court may impose a civil penalty against an officer or employee of a public agency, or the public agency for violating the public records law or the open door law of: (1) not more than $100 for the first violation; and (2) not more than $500 for any additional violations. Provides that a public agency (excluding a state agency) may provide to persons who annually request notice of meetings, notice by: (1) electronic mail (if the agency has the capacity to transmit electronic mail); or (2) posting the notice on the agency's web site at least 48 hours before the meeting (if the agency has a website). Provides that a public agency may withhold personal information from public disclosure regarding an individual less than 19 years of age who participates in an activity conducted or supervised by a state educational institution, including personal information regarding the individual's parent or guardian. Requires (rather than allows) a court to review public records in camera to determine whether redaction of the records violates the public records act. If a formal complaint is filed, requires the public access counselor to review public records in camera without redaction (excluding redacted information that is work product of an attorney) to determine whether the redaction of the records violated the access to public records act. Creates an education fund for a program administered by the public access counselor to train public officials and educate the public on the rights of the public and the responsibilities of public agencies under the public access laws.

According to an editorial in today's Indianapolis Star, Representative Bartlett remains silent on why he has pocketed this bill and refused to schedule it for hearing, even though it commands wide support and even as the clock ticks toward a deadline for bills to move out of committee.

Let's talk - to Representative Bartlett