 Pictured is Democrat candidate (for Oakland County Treasurer, running against incumbent Patrick M. Dohany, who has helped maintain Oakland County's rare Triple A bond rating) Andy Meisner's giant mobile billboard, which has no campaign finance disclosure "Paid for" with address printed on it. While I believe it was an oversight, Meisner should correct the situation by printing some kind of adhesive addendum. The pictures demonstrate how much space is available, and we are not aware of any Secretary of State rules exception (there are exceptions for buttons, pens, and other items that don't have the physical space to permit a disclosure line). Meisner is a term-limited state representative, so he should be aware of the regulations, which apply to county wide candidates as well.
I would note that Meisner was quite polite when I approached him about another issue - the Democrats "sitting on legislation." While I didn't raise the billboard disclosure issue, I asked Meisner to help move a bi-partisan "no-brainer" proposed by Republican Marty Knollenberg, ironically on a campaign finance issue. The "no-brainer" is something I noticed personally last year when studying the issue of proposed Constitutional Convention, which is a question that might come up in 2011 if the people of Michigan vote yes to have a convention when the question appears on the November 2010 ballot (by law, every 16 years, the question of whether to hold the convention appears on the ballot). After I noticed it, I told my friend and my representative (and client, as a matter of full disclosure about my bias, but this issue speaks for itself on the merits) Marty Knollenberg, who agreed with me it was a clear oversight and loophole, and proposed legislation to resolve it.
While I oppose a Con-Con, if it occurs, there is currently no provision in Michigan's Campaign Finance Act to require Con-Con delegate candidates to report anything -- that is, it is a loophole. Since Con-Con delegates represent districts of the same size as state representatives (and state senators in a unicameral combination of the two), and the Constitution is arguably of paramount importance, if campaign finance law should apply to state representatives it should apply to convention delegates equally.
 Imagine Jon Stryker and Ward Connerly and others from anywhere pumping non-transparent dollars into 148 Convention Delegate races? This is a bi-partisan issue - the oversight occurred because the MCFA was passed in the late seventies after the 1963 Constitution was adopted, and convention delegates are such rare races that I suspect no one even thought about it. The only reason that I can see Marty Knollenberg's proposal to add Con-Con delegate to the defintion of reporting offices is not being taken up is that the Democrats don't want to give a Republican any credit. According to MichiganVotes.com, Marty's bill, the bill has languished with no activity since October 24, 2007, despite it even be co-sponsored in a bi-partisan way by Democrat Fred Miller.
I told Meisner the whole "sitting on bills" issue also suggests a second reform (oddly, "Reform Michigan Now" didn't address this in its 38 Con-Con-like changes) -- require that every bill that's proposed be voted upon within a certain time frame, regardless of sponsor, and prohibit stalling of bills or the Speaker from reassigning sponsorship of bills. This too would cut both ways - Democrats often express frustration at the Senate Republican leadership's use of this tactic, but if Democrats use it on the House side it would be foolish for the Republicans to unilaterally disarm on the Senate side. Change the rules in both. Let's get our legislators on the record on issues and ideas - we don't pay them to sit on ideas, intentionally sweep them under the rug, abstain, or use tricks of parliamentary procedure to avoid them.
Those are simple reforms. They may seem individually small or trivial. But good reform is built incrementally (not radically or in "log-rolled" packages of 38 changes), and it is built by bi-partisan forces taking action.
So, Andy Meisner, and Andy Dillon, you can start by applying the same rules to Constitutional Convention delegates as to representatives. I can't imagine the argument why not (Meisner suggested that the next Con-Con might be years away, but it also might only be in 2 years -- either way, the time to act is in advance, not at the last minute). Then, if you're really horny for "change," let's change the rules of procedure to prevent parliamentary tricks on both sides. |
