[LSNN] City News: Political Reform Act of 2021 advances to Senate floor after tense hearing; bipartisan agreement wins out.

[LSNN]

 

 

 

Political Reform Act of 2021 advances to Senate Floor after tense hearing; bipartisan agreement wins out.

BY RANA KHATI

 

Los Santos, SA - The State Senate convened on the 15th of February 2021 for a hearing of the Senate Rules & Ethics Committee to deliberate on the Republican-proposed Political Reform Act of 2021; an act aiming to shore up election integrity and set much needed campaign finance regulation in place for elections throughout San Andreas. Notably absent were Senators Dwight Burris and Daniel Cardenas, leaving the committee with the minimum required for quorum. Cecil Grosvenor, former Senior Policy Advisor & Legislative Assistant to Senator Frank Ernst was called to the hearing before the Senate. Mr. Grosvenor is also notably on the shortlist for nomination to the State Treasurer position.

 

Senate Rules & Ethics Committee convenes with Senator Ernst (Left) as Chairman  Cecil Grosvenor (Right) provides his opening statement while seated.

 

Cecil Grosvenor's Opening Statement: 

Quote

 I'd like to begin by briefly explaining the purpose of the bill, this bill governs the disclosure of political campaign contributions and spending by political candidates. It fundamentally sets ethics rules for state and local government officials that impose strict limits affecting the official's financial interests - overall, it requires them to regularly report their earnings, their interest and involvement in other matters which may be deemed to hinder or affect their duties as a state official.

 

The theory here is to help ensure that they are free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of those who have supported them into public office.

 

It regulates lobbyist practices and financial disclosure and campaign financing to ensure there is complete transparency and public trust in the electoral system. The findings outlined in the Act present a very real problem we face at a state and local level, especially as we approach the next elections.

 

I believe we must make sure that we take all the necessary steps to ensure a precedent of fair and transparent elections, and to minimize the disproportionate influence over governmental decisions by lobbying and think-tank organizations via campaign financing and other contributions.

 

LSNN found broad bipartisan agreement on the spirit of the bill with Senator Ernst on behalf of Republicans telling us that it's "necessary to ensure transparency in our electoral process" and that "(g)iven San Andreas' history of corruption in its politics, this bill seeks to alleviate the issue. Ultimately, sunlight is the best disinfectant to corruption" and spokeswoman for the Democratic Party and Candidate for State Senate, Ms. Chloe Knight, telling LSNN that it is "obviously something that Democrats align strongly with. Transparency, honesty, and accountability in elections is paramount to the integrity of elections." 

While Mr. Grosvenor began with a strong opening statement on questioning he appeared confused at times with regard to the content of the bill, particularly regarding a provision that Democrats took particular issue with:

 

Political Reform Act- Ch III. Sec II. (a)

Quote

Candidates shall only accept a minimum of $50,000 per donation by an individual, business or any other organization per election cycle.

 

Marijuana Activist Baba Black outside of the first historic marijuana hearings held by SA State Legislature.

 

Senator Morales pressed Grosvenor on the provision:

Quote

Senator Morales: To make a quick reference to Section II(a), would you not agree that a minimum donation requirement would deincentivize people from poorer backgrounds, or defer grassroots donations and campaigns, and instead force only the richest and biggest businesses and individuals to donate?
 

Cecil Grosvenor: Sorry I don't understand, the section you just cited has nothing to do with the concerns you raised. It simply makes a statement that the government should attend the needs of all people of the state equally without discrimination.

 

Senator Morales:  My apologies, section two of chapter three.

 

Senator Ernst: The gentlewoman's time has expired, however, I'll extend time for Mr. Grosvenor to respond. Mr. Grosvenor, do you have a response to Senator Morales's questioning?

 

Cecil Grosvenor: Senator, it by no means deincentivizes anyone, what it does it stops campaigners for public office from receiving ridiculous amounts of money as donation, which would definitely be done in an attempt to manipulate and influence public policy, which is what this bill is trying to prevent. Furthermore, it makes sure that the amount is enough for the campaign, and not wasted on matters not connected with the campaign.

 

Senator Morales: Point of order, I believe the gentleman is looking at the wrong section.
 

 

With Mr. Grosvenor seemingly arguing that the $50,000 minimum donation to be some form of maximum cap, Senator Ethan Schmidt claimed time and concurred with Senator Morales line of questioning, driving the point home further. 

Quote

Senator Schmidt: Now it makes sense to me as to why there would be a cap set for campaign donations done by a single party, but I do agree with Senator Morales, that we should remove the minimum. Which would be section 2 a of Chapter three where it states that a candidate can only accept a minimum of $50,000. Or is there a reason for why that's there Mister Grosvenor?

 

The gallery descended into whispers as Chairman Ernst rose from the Speaker's Chair and descended for a sidebar discussion with Senator Schmidt before Mr. Grosvenor offered his response. LSNN asked the both the Democratic and Republican Caucus about the exchange. We provide the two responses below. 

 

Ms. Chloe Knight (D):

Spoiler

 The impromptu deliberation as you've called it was certainly inappropriate and given the time, and the nature of the discussion at the time, suspect. When Senator Morales aired the issue regarding the minimum, Republicans acted as if they had no idea what she was talking about. After the whispering, Ethan Schmidt was able to swoop in and advocate for striking the section - what Senator Morales was already blatantly trying to do. It's another showcase of 'wins' and optics being more important to the Republicans than good-faith legislating. While we'd certainly hope such conduct will not be repeated in further sessions, it's not productive to speculate. It is not something we are worried about, no.

 

Senator Frank Ernst (R):

Spoiler

There's nothing unusual, against the Senate rules, or against decorum with having a side-bar conversation during a hearing. The fact that the opposition has highlighted this occurrence as a "corrupt" behavior, highlights their inexperience in government and the legislative process, and general unfamiliarity with the Standing Rules of the Senate. I wanted to communicate to my colleague, Senator Schmidt, that I was in agreement that there shouldn't be minimums in the bill.

 

Senator Morales and Ernst nonetheless shared a particularly contentious exchange before Mr. Grosvenor continued to defend the provision which was swiftly motioned to be struck down be motioned by Schmidt, one of the cosponsors of the bill.

 

The impromptu sidebar on the Senate Floor between Senators Schmidt and Ernst.

 

Quote

Senator Morales: Something you wish to share with the chamber, Senator Ernst?

Senator Ernst: Will the gentlewoman refrain from speaking out of order?

Cecil Grosvenor: The amount set is to make sure that individuals or organizations are not massively influencing the candidate running for public office. Any more than that and it may give the donator some form of entitlement harming the campaign. I do believe $50,000 per individual or organization, is reasonable enough.
 

Senator Schmidt: I would like to make an amendment. Strikeout Chapter 3. Section 2. Clause A.

 

Senator Ernst informed LSNN that the $50,000 dollar minimum amounted to a "clerical error during the drafting process" and noted to LSNN that the purpose of the hearing and amendment sessions were to look for errors like this and clarify them before put up for final vote. He provided no indication whether they intend to expand the maximum cap of $250,000 to individual donors rather than it's current purview over PAC's and Political Parties. Ms. Knight acknowledged it was an error but stated "absolutely, an error was made. An error that if left unaltered would have disenfranchised all poor voters in the state." With the impending election season heating up, it's clear that even routine hearings are becoming tests of public policy chops and will be more and more highly scrutinized by the public.

 

 

The Committees discussion turned to the topic of who should hold the reins on election integrity in Los Santos. With the bill proposed establishing an Office of the State Clerk, Chairman Ernst claimed time to press on the issue with Grosvenor, prompting a follow up by Senator Jones on the limited nature of the Special Counsel. Both found bipartisan compromise however in putting the purview of setting such authority under the office of the Attorney General:

 

Quote

Senator Ernst: Mr. Grosvenor, can you speak to the establishment of the Office of the State Clerk, its legal scope and responsibilities?

Cecil Grosvenor: The Act outlines the Office of the State Clerk responsible for the impartial administration, implementation and general enforcement of the provisions outlined. The State Clerk would become the local filing officer for all filings and statements required by the Act, which includes the campaign contribution and expenditure reports from candidates of all levels of government, as well as statements of economic interest from current and state and city officials and officers. Documents reporting financial statements is necessary and is required to be monitored in order to determine how funds are used and how much is donated.
 

Senator Ernst: Thank you Mr. Grosvenor. See, I'm all about government efficiency. Personally, after having some talks with stakeholders, I believe that these responsibilities run parallel to that of the Special Counsel. What do you make of that?
 

Cecil Grosvenor: On second thought, it would be best to let the Special Counsel handle this since his office is charged with investigating all types of government corruption and misuse of funds.

...

 

Senator Jones: While the office of the Special Counsel is charged with investigation on government corruption, I assume the position of the State Clerk would be a permanent one, whereas the Special Counsel is not. Therefore, I'm not sure if the Special Counsel is suited to deal with this, long-term. Unless we want to more clearly define the roles of the Special Council in the senate sessions, and provide ongoing definitions to the scope of his role. Do you have a comment on this, Mr. Grosvenor?
 

Cecil Grosvenor: If a bill is presented to firmly establish the Office of Special Counsel, then I'm sure we can incorporate it into the duties of the Special Counsel. Whether or not the plan was to make the office a permanent or temporary one, I am not sure. But I am sure some compromise can be made.
 

Senator Ernst: The gentlewoman's time has expired. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Alright, I think we are in general agreement here, but perhaps the duties of overseeing elections could be determined by an individual appointed by the Attorney General. that way we could ensure more longevity to the position.

Senator Ernst: Would Senator Jones be open to that?

Senator Jones: Yes.

Senator Ernst: Excellent. Mr. Grosvenor?

Cecil Grosvenor: Absolutely.

 

 

The hearing thereafter went smoothly, the entire Committee voting unanimously to strike the donation minimum, to amend the Office of the State Clerk to an analogous role under the Attorney General's purview, and finally to advance the much-needed legislation to the Senate floor for amendment, debate, and a final vote. But despite the three unanimous votes, recent events begged the question, will this bill if it passes in the Senate be spared the red VETO stamp by the elusive Governor Brandt?

 

 LSNN got final statements to see if either party was able to scry the potential of the bill in the executive branch. 

 

Senator Ernst:

Quote

We have spoken to the Brandt Administration. The decision to remove the establishment of the Office of the State Clerk was a compromise struck with them. We hope Brandt will do the right thing and sign this legislation into law when it comes to his desk. Having said that, when I met with the Administration on marijuana legalization, they indicated only full support for the issue, while vetoing the bill later. This administration, unfortunately, is unpredictable.

 

Ms. Knight:

Quote

We are confident that the Governor will sign this bill. 

 

Voters will certainly be looking at election integrity in this upcoming campaign cycle and LSNN will work ardently as ever to provide you the news you need to make informed decisions in choosing your next elected State Senate.

 

 

 

 

 

> Comments are enabled

 

Username: 

Comment: