H.B. 142, commonly known as the "Ethics Reform Bill", is a bill proposed for the purpose of limiting lobbyist gifts and ensuring accurate reporting to the public. In simplified terms, the proposed law defines lobbyists, bans most types of gifts from lobbyists, and sets out stringent reporting requirements for lobbyists so that the citizens know what highly paid lobbyists are influencing their legislators. So far, so good. But it gets bad.
The proposed law requires that any citizen who influences a legislator regarding legislation is a lobbyist subject to a fee of over $300 and stringent reporting requirements. This has few exceptions. In effect, these provisions take every Georgian's First Amendment Constitutional Right to petition their government officials and throws it out the window. The proposed law requires that private, unpaid citizens who would never consider themselves "lobbyists" must pay over $300 and subject themselves to stringent reporting requirements and bureaucracy if they wish to communicate or even "influence" any elected official other than one from their own House or Senate district.
In practical terms, that means if you, as a concerned citizen, really want a bill to pass or fail, and its passage depends on a Senate or House member from a neighboring district, you either pay over $300 and register as a lobbyist just to be able to communicate with them, or you better keep your mouth shut and let the legislature pass whatever they want without your input.
I have seen reports of the proponents of the legislation stating that the bill will likely be revised. While that may be a good idea, damage has already been done. As an attorney, I am sure I am more capable than many at reading and understanding legislation, but am certainly not as good at it as those people who hold elected office. That said, it took me less than 30 minutes to read and understand the proposed 13 page bill, and less than 5 minutes more to realize how bad it is for free speech and good governance. The first words from the people who proposed the bill should have been: "I'm sorry, we didn't read it, and we will fix it." Instead, they defended it as an attempt at ethics reform. If it was truly an honest attempt at ethics reform, the legislators would have talked to the private concerned citizens who wanted reform instead of writing a bill that prohibits communication with private concerned citizens who want reform.
Unless it was sincerely proposed out of ignorance, the only logical reason for this bill being proposed and defended in its current form is to intentionally enrage citizens and grassroots activists so that they will eventually agree to some sort of lukewarm compromise on ethics reform, one that allows elected officials to keep receiving expense paid trips. This is unacceptable. This poorly conceived law, though only sponsored by 6 legislators (including House Speaker David Ralston), has hurt the faith of many Georgians in their government and in the Republican Party. Republicans hold a majority of the State House, State Senate, and all Constitutional Offices in this state and have the opportunity to show transparent, ethical, honest leadership and to actually listen to the citizens. That is the type of leadership that Georgians expect and deserve and that the Republican Party has an obligation to provide. If we fail to provide such leadership, it won't be long until someone else will.
Jordan "Alex" Johnson
(2010 Republican Nominee for State Senate in District 41 and Current Candidate for Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org)
(2012 Republican National Convention Delegate from Georgia and Current Candidate for First Vice-Chair of the Georgia Republican Party and can be contacted at email@example.com.)
How did those lame names happen?
I’ve often wondered what process is used to determine the mascot name for a football team. Is there a committee formed to do this? Is it thrown out to the public in the form of a contest to come up with a moniker? Were two drunks in a bar involved?
- Rant and Rave for 12/05/13
In retrospect, tragedy seemingly gains new light
It’s often said that hindsight is 20-20. Many of us have instances in our lives where that thought would have application.
Now comes the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case. As you recall, Zimmerman, described by some as a cop wannabe who couldn’t make the grade, killed young Martin. The jury acquitted Zimmerman of homicide charges. Many felt the prosecution was weak.
- Rant and Rave for 12/04/13
Tis’ the season when scammers hone their deeds
It might be the season to be jolly, and we all might hope for peace and goodwill, but the fact is this is also the season for scammers.
- Rant and Rave for 12/03/13
‘Black Friday’: It’s a subset of our capitalism
Someone asked me what the term “Black Friday” meant. Well my understanding is that it means businesses would like to end the year in the “black” as opposed to being in the “red” financially. So they have a big sale.
- Rant and Rave for 11/29/13
Purple bows are back
A few years ago I wrote an article for the Moultrie Observer regarding the purple bows that were on the wreaths on the doors at St. John’s Episcopal Church at 609 South Main Street. In 2012 there were no purple bows or wreaths on the doors, as the church sat empty when the members of St. John’s left The Episcopal Church to form St. Mark’s Anglican Church. However, 2013 will mark the return of the purple bows, and the new spiritual home of St. Mark’s Anglican.
- Rant and Rave for 11/28/13
- More Opinion Headlines
- How did those lame names happen?