Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table
of
Contents
Virginias
2015
Ethics
Reform:
An
analysis
of
HB2070
and
its
impact
on
gift
giving
in
Richmond
.................................................................................................................
1
Summary
..............................................................................................................................................
2
Impact
of
HB2070
on
2014
Reported
Gifts
...............................................................................
2
Loopholes
.............................................................................................................................................
4
Travel
....................................................................................................................................................................
4
Prohibited
givers
.............................................................................................................................................
5
Personal
friends
...............................................................................................................................................
5
Widely
attended
events
................................................................................................................................
6
Aggregate
gift
cap
............................................................................................................................................
6
Virginia
Conflict
of
Interest
and
Ethics
Advisory
Council
....................................................
6
Travel
Waivers
.................................................................................................................................................
7
Audits
...................................................................................................................................................................
7
Central
Watchdog
............................................................................................................................................
8
Summary
Around
8pm
on
Friday,
February
27th,
the
Virginia
General
Assembly
approved
an
omnibus
ethics
bill
with
little
debate.
The
conference
report
differs
significantly
from
the
original
ethics
reform
bills
introduced
in
the
House
of
Delegates
and
State
Senate
and
contains
loopholes
that
impact
its
ability
to
curtail
gifts.
Travel
loopholes
would
create
a
system
under
which
some
gifted
travel
would
not
only
be
unregulated
but
also
unreported.
A
change
in
the
way
the
gift
cap
is
applied
expands
the
ability
of
legislators
to
accept
freebies
from
lobbyists
and
lobbyists
principals.
Narrowly
defined
categories
of
prohibited
givers
provide
opportunities
for
entities
seeking
to
influence
business
in
Richmond
to
circumvent
the
rules.
And
the
failure
to
give
authority
to
the
ethics
council
to
audit
filings,
accept
and
investigate
signed
complaints,
and
refer
findings
for
prosecution
means
there
is
little
oversight
for
the
system
or
a
central
watchdog
for
citizen
information.
Key
findings:
79%
of
gifts
reported
by
legislators
in
2014
would
still
be
allowable
under
HB2070,
including
70%
of
gifts
from
lobbyists
and
their
principals.
Travel
loopholes
would
allow
for
any
lobbyist
or
principal
to
pay
for
a
legislator
to
fly
around
the
state
for
official
meetings
without
violating
the
cap
or
any
required
disclosure
Travel
loopholes
would
allow
unlimited
gifted
travel
to
conferences
such
as
ALEC
with
no
disclosure
Narrow
categories
of
prohibited
givers
provide
significant
opportunities
for
special
interests
to
circumvent
the
gift
cap
Eliminating
the
aggregate
gift
cap
opens
the
door
to
an
increase
in
special
interest
gifts
Significant
discrepancies
between
gifts
reported
by
legislators
and
lobbyists
underscore
the
need
for
a
stronger
ethics
council
Unsolicited
awards
Inheritance
Travel
disclosed
under
the
Campaign
Finance
Act
Travel
paid
for
by
US,
state,
local
government
or
a
subdivision
Travel
to
attend
a
General
Assembly
session,
legislative
committee
or
commission,
or
national
conference
approved
by
the
Rules
Committee
Travel
related
to
an
official
meeting
of
the
Commonwealth,
political
subdivision,
board,
commission,
entity,
or
affiliated
charity
the
official
is
appointed
or
elected
to
because
of
public
office
or
private
employment
Gifts
from
relatives
or
personal
friends
[Lines
2011-2045]
Additionally,
HB2070
creates
several
categories
of
gift
exemptions,
including
food
or
beverages
consumed
at
a
widely
attended
event,
gifts
from
foreign
dignitaries
that
are
accepted
on
behalf
of
the
Commonwealth
and
archived
by
the
library
of
Virginia,
a
gift
from
a
lobbyist
or
lobbyists
principal
who
is
also
a
personal
friend,
and
travel
for
which
a
waiver
has
been
granted
by
the
ethics
council.
[Lines
2098-
2112]
ProgressVA
Education
Fund
analyzed
the
impact
these
rules
would
have
on
gifts
reported
by
legislators
in
2014.
In
total,
members
of
the
legislature
accepted
753
gifts
in
2014,
with
a
value
of
$184,562.
Of
those
gifts,
79%
would
be
allowed
under
the
provisions
of
HB2070.
Gifts
from
lobbyists
and
principals
account
for
70%
of
the
total
gifts
received
by
legislators
in
2014,
worth
over
$100,000.
Our
analysis
projects
70%
of
those
lobbyist
gifts
would
be
legal
under
HB2070.
An
additional
10%
of
lobbyist
gifts
were
not
reported
with
sufficient
information
to
determine
whether
they
qualify
for
an
exemption.
Total
gifts
Gifts
under
cap
Total
gifts
allowed
Total
lobbyist
gifts
Total
lobbyist
gifts
allowed
Total
lobbyist
gifts
prohibited
Total
lobbyist
gifts
unclear
Total
nonlobbyist
gifts
Number
of
gifts
Percentage
Value
753
$184,562
301
40.0%
$23,199
594
78.9%
$144,632
523
69.5%
$102,530
364
69.6%
$62,600
104
53
229
19.9%
10.1%
30.4%
$30,638
$9,292
$82,032
any
gifts.
While
HB2070
is
an
improvement,
the
numbers
also
demonstrate
the
impact
of
loopholes
on
Richmonds
culture
of
largesse.
In
2012,
members
of
the
legislature
reported
695
gifts
worth
$247,608.
While
the
total
value
of
gifts
has
dropped
significantly
over
two
years,
the
volume
of
gifts
has
risen
to
753
in
2014.
Loopholes
Travel
HB2070
carves
out
significant
loopholes
for
public
officials
when
it
comes
to
privately
financed
travel.
The
bill
excludes
travel
provided
to
facilitate
attendance
by
a
legislator
at
a
regular
or
special
session
of
the
General
Assembly,
a
meeting
of
a
legislative
committee
or
commission,
or
a
national
conference
where
attendance
is
approved
by
the
House
or
Senate
Committee
on
Rules
from
the
definition
of
a
gift.
[Lines
2028-2031]
Travel
for
these
purposes
is
not
a
gift,
no
matter
who
pays.
And,
because
this
travel
is
not
a
gift,
it
is
not
required
to
be
reported.
This
language
appeared
in
the
final
conference
report
but
was
not
included
in
previous
versions
of
the
House
or
Senate
bill.
In
practical
effect,
a
corporation
otherwise
subject
to
a
$100
gift
cap
could
fly
a
lawmaker
from
Southwest
Virginia
to
Richmond
and
back
for
the
legislative
session
without
violating
gift
limits
and
without
either
party
needing
to
disclose
the
transaction.
The
bill
also
excludes
travel
for
national
conferences
that
have
been
approved
by
the
House
or
Senate
Rules
Committee.
This
provision
essentially
allows
the
Speaker
and
the
Chair
of
Senate
Rules
to
provide
waivers
by
which
their
members
may
accept
free
travel
without
having
to
disclose.
For
example,
Speaker
Bill
Howell
sits
on
the
national
board
of
the
American
Legislative
Exchange
Council,
a
corporate
front
group
which
partners
legislators
with
lobbyists
to
write
model
legislation
behind
closed
doors.
Speaker
Howell
regularly
approves
requests
for
his
colleagues
to
travel
to
ALEC
conferences,
with
both
privately
subsidized
and
taxpayer
funds.
Just
in
2014,
ALEC
spent
$2,616
for
members
of
the
Virginia
legislature
to
travel
to
their
conferences1.
Since
2001,
ALEC
has
spent
close
to
$100,000
to
subsidize
Virginia
legislators
attendance
at
their
conferences2.
Under
HB2070,
those
gifts
would
no
longer
need
to
be
reported.
Furthermore,
ALECs
corporate
members
could
also
pay
for
travel
without
any
limit
or
disclosure.
Corporations
like
Dominion
and
Verizon,
which
bestow
thousands
of
dollars
of
gifts
and
campaign
contributions
year,
are
members
of
ALEC.
This
travel
loophole
would
allow
these
corporations
to
continue
to
make
substantial
gifts
to
1
Virginia
Public
Access
Project
2
Virginia
Public
Access
Project
members
of
the
legislature
while
circumventing
the
gift
cap
and
reporting
requirements.
Prohibited
givers
In
2014,
following
ProgressVA
Education
Funds
report
on
ethics
reform,
legislators
broadened
the
categories
of
prohibited
givers
to
include
not
only
lobbyists,
but
also
lobbyists
principals
and
individuals
seeking
to
do
business
with
the
state
(or
locality
for
local
officials).
HB2070
maintains
those
categories
of
prohibited
givers
for
local
officials,
but
deletes
the
prohibition
on
gifts
from
individuals
or
businesses
seeking
a
contract
with
the
state
for
members
of
the
General
Assembly
[Lines
2103-
2104].
Gifts
from
any
other
source
are
not
subject
to
the
$100
cap
and
are
not
required
to
be
reported.
A
perusal
of
gifts
received
in
2014
illustrates
how
officials
might
circumvent
these
rules.
Thirteen
legislators
reported
receiving
gratis
tickets
to
Virginia
Tech
football
games
from
the
University.
An
additional
five
legislators
reported
free
tickets
to
University
of
Virginia
sporting
events3.
Under
HB2070,
none
of
these
gifts
would
be
prohibited,
because
the
university
proper
does
not
employ
a
lobbyist.
Instead,
each
school
employs
lobbyists
through
an
affiliated
foundation.
Similarly,
while
associations
such
as
the
Old
Dominion
Highway
Contractors
Association
or
the
Virginia
Agribusiness
Council
employ
lobbyists
and
therefore
are
subject
to
the
gift
cap,
their
members
are
not.
Any
individual
business
member
could
legally
provide
gifts
over
the
cap
even
though
a
lobbyist
is
representing
their
interests
in
Richmond,
so
long
as
they
do
not
directly
serve
as
the
principal.
Personal
friends
HB2070
exempts
gifts
from
regulation
in
two
ways.
First,
it
narrowly
defines
what
is
considered
a
gift
to
apply
the
regulation
to
a
small
range
of
freebies.
Second,
the
bill
also
separately
carves
out
exemptions
for
some
gifts.
These
two
treatments
create
significant
confusion
around
gifts
from
personal
friends.
Under
HB2070,
freebies
from
personal
friends
do
not
qualify
as
a
gift,
and
therefore
are
not
regulated
and
not
required
to
be
reported
[Line
2039-2041].
That
exemption
only
applies
to
gifts
from
personal
friends
who
are
not
a
lobbyist
or
lobbyists
principal.
However,
the
bill
separately
sets
criteria
by
which
a
lobbyist
or
principal
could
qualify
as
a
personal
friend
and
therefore
exempt
a
gift
from
the
$100
gift
cap
[Line
2123-2134].
Unlike
the
other
specified
exemptions
from
the
cap,
however,
HB2070
does
not
specifically
define
whether
gifts
over
the
cap
from
lobbyists
who
are
also
personal
friends
must
be
disclosed.
Because
the
bill
does
not
specify,
legislators
could
likely
accept
gifts
over
the
cap
from
lobbyists
who
meet
the
personal
friend
criteria
without
disclosing
the
gift.
3
Virginia
Public
Access
Project
Widely
attended
events
HB2070
creates
a
gift
exemption
for
food
or
drink
consumed
at
widely
attended
events,
which
are
defined
as
events
to
which
25+
people
have
been
invited
or
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
so,
or
that
are
open
to
the
public,
or
meet
one
of
the
below
qualifications:
o Open
to
people
who
share
a
common
interest
o Members
of
a
public,
civic,
charitable,
or
professional
organization
o Are
from
a
particular
industry
or
profession
o Represent
persons
interested
in
a
particular
issue
[Line
2093-2097]
However,
unlike
a
similar
congressional
ethics
rule
regarding
widely
attended
events,
HB2070
does
not
specify
the
event
sponsor
must
provide
the
food
and
drink.
In
2014,
Norfolk
Southern
Corp.,
a
lobbyists
principal,
provided
Senator
Emmett
Hanger
and
his
wife
with
$300
worth
of
meals
at
the
Fiddlers
Convention
in
Galax4.
While
this
amount
would
exceed
the
gift
cap
under
HB2070,
the
Fiddlers
Convention
qualifies
as
a
widely
attended
event
so
the
gift
would
not
be
prohibited.
This
example
illustrates
how
the
loophole
might
be
exploited
by
special
interests
in
the
future.
Aggregate
gift
cap
While
HB2070
lowers
the
gift
cap
from
$250
to
$100,
in
practicality
it
expands
the
number
of
gifts
any
official
might
receive.
The
$250
cap
instituted
in
2014
was
an
aggregate
cap,
meaning
any
combination
of
gifts
from
a
single
source
could
not
exceed
that
level.
The
Senate
omnibus
ethics
proposal
would
have
maintained
the
aggregate
provision
while
lowering
the
cap
to
$100.
HB2070
eliminates
the
aggregate
cap
altogether
and
applies
the
$100
limit
to
any
single
gift
[Line
2098-
2112].
In
practice,
then,
any
official
could
accept
unlimited
gifts
valued
at
$100
or
less
from
a
single
lobbyist
or
principal.
Delegate
Luke
Torian,
for
example,
reported
two
golf
trips
paid
for
by
Hunton
and
Williams
in
20145.
While
together
they
would
exceed
$100,
HB2070
allows
the
gifts
because
each
instance
was
under
the
cap.
elected
officials
for
privately
financed
trips
that
bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
the
office
holders
official
duties.
Governor
Terry
McAuliffes
blue
ribbon
ethics
and
integrity
commission
suggested
multiple
reforms
that
were
not
adopted
by
the
General
Assembly,
including
granting
the
Council
the
authority
to
randomly
audit
ethics
filings,
receive
and
investigate
signed
complaints,
or
refer
findings
for
prosecution6.
Travel
Waivers
Under
HB2070,
the
Council
shall
approve
requests
for
travel
waivers
for
trips
that
are
privately
financed
and
which
bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
the
requesters
official
duties
[Line
2868-2892].
This
vague
wording
leaves
significant
leeway
for
the
Council
to
approve
or
deny
requests.
However,
HB2070
also
provides
that
any
waiver
which
is
not
acted
upon
in
five
business
days
will
be
deemed
approved,
providing
an
unusual
out
where
the
Council
could
deadlock
or
decline
to
rule
on
the
appropriateness
of
a
trip
and
the
requester
would
still
be
able
to
legally
receive
the
gifted
travel
[Line
2900-2902].
Additionally,
earlier
versions
of
both
the
House
and
Senate
bills
required
approved
travel
waivers
to
be
posted
online
by
the
Council.
That
requirement
was
deleted
from
the
final
version
of
HB2070.
Audits
Unlike
an
earlier
version
of
the
Senate
omnibus
ethics
proposal,
HB2070
does
not
give
the
Council
authority
to
randomly
audit
ethics
filings
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
law.
Under
HB2070,
the
council
may
inspect
filings
for
completeness
and
request
filers
submit
a
complete
form,
but
those
requests
are
exempt
from
the
Virginia
Freedom
Of
Information
Act.
Audits
like
those
recommended
by
the
Governors
commission
would
identify
discrepancies
on
disclosure
forms
to
ensure
the
public
receives
accurate
information.
In
a
review
of
2014
gifts
disclosed
by
members
of
the
General
Assembly
and
lobbyists,
ProgressVA
Education
Fund
found
multiple
instances
in
which
lobbyists
reported
providing
legislators
with
gifts
that
were
not
also
reported
by
the
legislator,
and
vice
versa.
In
many
cases,
those
gifts
exceeded
the
reporting
threshold
and
should
have
been
disclosed
by
both
parties.
The
prevalence
of
these
errors
undermines
confidence
in
the
accuracy
of
disclosure
forms.
Empowering
the
Council
to
serve
as
an
independent
watchdog
to
oversee
and
verify
filings
would
be
a
significant
step
towards
ensuring
disclosure
forms
accurately
reflect
Richmonds
generosity.
6
Interim Report of the Commission on Integrity and Public Confidence in State Government
Central
Watchdog
HB2070
does
not
empower
the
Council
to
receive
or
investigate
signed
complaints
by
citizens,
a
key
proposal
from
the
Governors
blue
ribbon
commission.
While
the
Council
will
receive
and
make
available
online
some
disclosure
forms,
they
are
not
authorized
to
serve
as
a
central
repository
for
ethics
information
or
watchdog
for
the
public.
Under
HB2070,
state
officials
and
constitutional
officers
are
required
to
file
their
disclosure
forms
with
the
Council
[Line
1166-1271].
Local
officials,
however,
will
file
the
form
with
the
local
clerk.
It
is
unclear
if
those
forms
will
be
included
in
the
Councils
searchable
online
database
of
filings.
The
various
filing
systems
facilitate
a
lack
of
transparency
in
disclosure
and
promote
an
inconsistent
standard.
Since
the
Council
has
no
real
investigatory
or
enforcement
power
under
HB2070,
its
unclear
where
a
citizen
should
turn
with
a
question
or
whistleblower
complaint.
HB2070
clarifies
that
a
willful
violation
of
the
ethics
provisions
is
a
class
5
felony.
The
Attorney
General
has
the
authority
to
provide
a
written
advisory
opinion
and
assist
in
collecting
civil
fines
for
violation
of
the
statute,
but
is
not
tasked
with
explicit
authority
to
investigate
suspected
wrongdoing.
Citizen
whistleblowers
would
likely
need
to
direct
complaints
to
state
or
local
police,
or
a
local
Commonwealths
Attorney.