Atlanta, Georgia, February 7, 2011 –    After the disclosure of the creation of a Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment office, the League of Women Voters of Georgia are concerned about the direction and spirit of reapportionment.    “Reapportionment must be a fair and open process for all citizens of Georgia. While we are relieved that they did not choose a private company to conduct this work, we hope the priorities of this office are a commitment to non-partisan redistricting and a transparent, open process with many opportunities for citizen input,” said Tracey-Ann Nelson, executive director of the League.

The League of Women Voters of Georgia and several coalition partners will sponsor legislation in the upcoming weeks to include five standards in the redistricting process. These standards include drawing districts that do not favor political parties or incumbents, drawing districts that do not abridge equal opportunities for minorities and encouraging the use the of existing city, county, geographical and community boundaries. “We want to make redistricting as transparent as possible and remove partisanship from the equation and these five standards will do just that”.

Previously the Legislative Reapportionment Services Office was housed by the University of Georgia’s Carl Vinson Institute where they worked closely with the US Census Bureau in the collection of data and the General Assembly in the assistance of drawing district maps. The General Assembly failed to renew the contract with the University for these services in 2010. “The University’s role in redistricting is important because of the academic and institutional knowledge as well as nonpartisan posture. To lose that professionalism in this important democratic process is a threat to our democratic values.”

Entering into its 91^st year, The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.

May 9, 2010

Utah Sen. Robert F. Bennett was defeated Saturday in his bid for reelection, making the three-term Republican lawmaker the first congressional incumbent to fall in this angry election season.

Bennett, who upset many conservative activists with his willingness to work across party lines, became the first Utah senator denied renomination in 70 years. More broadly, his defeat at the state GOP convention made him a symbol of the festering anti-Washington, anti-establishment sentiment coursing through the country.

“He’s had his chance,” said Nick Whitehead, 17, a volunteer who greeted delegates at the downtown convention center with a giant placard touting businessman Tim Bridgewater, one of two Bennett rivals to advance to a June runoff. “It’s time for new blood.”

Bennett, 76, whose father served four terms in the Senate, was not particularly unpopular among the bulk of Utah Republicans. He fell victim, however, to the state’s unusual nomination process, which placed the choice in the hands of the most conservative — and most agitated — activists in one of the reddest states in the country.

A tearful Bennett told reporters there was not much he would have done differently. “The political atmosphere, obviously, has been toxic, and it’s very clear some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment,” he said. “Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn’t have cast them any differently, even if I’d known at the time it would cost me my career.”

A conservative by most yardsticks, Bennett ran afoul of many “tea party” acolytes and grass-roots Republicans by supporting the 2008 Wall Street bailout — which he deemed necessary to save the economy — and by working with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon on a healthcare bill that would have required Americans to purchase insurance. The provision was similar to the plan President Obama signed into law over the opposition of Bennett and every other Republican member of Congress.

Bennett also antagonized many by breaking his pledge to serve just two terms in Washington — though he managed to win reelection in 2004 without GOP opposition.

Under the nominating system, the field of candidates was culled to three in the first round of balloting Saturday. Bennett survived that initial vote and made one final plea to the nearly 3,500 delegates before they cast ballots a second time.

The question, Bennett said, was which one of the finalists could most effectively thwart President Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress. “Don’t take a chance on a newcomer,” the senator fairly shouted. “Keep a veteran on the floor when you’re playing the championship game, because there’s too much at stake to try things with a rookie.”

But convention delegate Argie Shumway, like many, dismissed the importance of seniority, which Bennett made the centerpiece of his campaign.

“We want principled senators in there, even if they’re freshman senators,” said Shumway, 70, a retired flight attendant from Provo, who supported attorney Mike Lee.

After a third round of balloting, neither Bridgewater nor Lee emerged with the 60% needed to win the nomination outright. Their runoff on June 22 will be decided by GOP voters statewide. Given the party’s overwhelming advantage in Utah, Republicans are expected to hold onto Bennett’s seat regardless of who runs in November.

mark.barabak@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Just in case Florida’s U.S. Senate race wasn’t interesting enough, Palm Beach billionaire Jeff Greene plans to file papers this morning to enter the contest as a Democrat.

Greene, 55, rose from middle-class origins to make millions investing in real estate. Then he made hundreds of millions by betting that the real estate bubble would burst and investing in credit-default swaps. He established himself in Palm Beach last year by plunking down $24 million for La Bellucia on South Ocean Boulevard, where he lives with his wife and infant son.

Greene was rumored to be considering an independent bid for Senate before Gov. Charlie Crist beat him to it, dropping his failing Republican primary campaign and rebranding himself Thursday as a no-party candidate.

In a campaign video to be released this morning, Greene appeals to voters who are “fed up” and “frustrated” with Washington. He pledges to focus on creating jobs, cutting taxes for small businesses, investing in innovation and green technology and ending U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

“I am an outsider, the only candidate who isn’t a career politician. I’ve succeeded in the real world of hard work — the others have only succeeded at running for political office after office,” Greene said in a prepared statement.

If he’s willing to tap into his wealth, Greene could become a factor in a Democratic primary race that so far has been dominated by Miami U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, although former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre, and Kevin Burns, of North Miami, and Glenn Burkett, of Naples, also have qualified for the race. In a Quinnipiac University poll this month, 61 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of all respondents said they didn’t know enough about Meek to form an opinion.

Greene is pledging to refuse campaign contributions from “special interests” and to limit individual donations to $100.

He’s anticipating criticism involving his reputation as a “Meltdown Mogul” who got rich off of the foreclosure crisis.

In a one-page prebuttal statement, Greene says there’s a “big difference between what I did and what Wall Street did. What Wall Street did was wrong – they were motivated by greed and tried to win either way. That’s why I’m a strong supporter of President Obama’s efforts to reform our financial regulatory system.”

Greene said he made investments to protect any drop in his real estate assets. “Never did I imagine that the subprime mortgage market would implode, and I would make hundreds of millions of dollars.”

In his introductory campaign video, Greene also says he expects to be attacked “for my friends and my past when I was single. Some of it’s true but none of it matters.”

Troubled former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson was the best man at Greene’s 2007 wedding and, according to a Forbes magazine profile, “Hollywood Madam” Heidi Fleiss was once a yearlong houseguest of Greene’s after she served prison time. Greene told Forbes “we weren’t dating….She’s a nice girl. I’ve had her over to Passover dinner with my mom.”

Greene’s 83-year-old mother lives in Century Village of West Palm Beach. Greene grew up in Massachusetts and recently lived in California, but says his ties to Florida go back to 1970.

In a recent Palm Beach Post interview, Greene said he left a summer busboy’s job at The Breakers in 1973 for a telemarketing job in West Palm Beach and over the next four years was able to sock away more than $100,000 while working during vacations from his studies at Johns Hopkins University.

PITTSBURG, Calif. – As a “greeter,” the cheerful Betty Dukes is one of the first employees customers usually see as they walk through the front doors of the Wal-Mart store here.

As the first “named plaintiff” in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the ordained Baptist minister also is the face of the largest gender bias class action lawsuit in U.S. history — one that could cost the world’s largest private employer billions.

Her dual roles have turned her into a civil rights crusader for the company’s many critics, who have dubbed the legal battle “Betty v. Goliath.” It is a far cry from where Dukes expected to be when she enthusiastically accepted an offer in 1994 to work the cash registers part-time for $5 an hour. She dreamed of turning around a hard life by advancing, through work and determination, into Wal-Mart corporate management.

“I was focused on Wal-Mart’s aggressive customer service,” Dukes said in an interview during her lunch break, after first saying grace over a meal of fast-food hamburgers and chicken nuggets. “I wanted to advance. I wanted to make that money.”

But by 1999, her plans were in tatters. Several years of little advancement and frustration with her role culminated with an ugly spat with managers that resulted in a humiliating demotion and a pay cut, she said.

That also became the genesis of the federal class action lawsuit U.S. District Court Judge Martin Jenkins called “historic” while he was handling the case. On Monday, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Jenkins’ decision allowing the case to go to trial as a class action on behalf of as many as 1 million former and current female Wal-Mart employees.

Jenkins has since stepped down from the federal bench and the case will now be handled by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who is also deciding another high-profile case, the legality of California’s voter-approved ban of same-sex marriages.

Dukes’ lawsuit alleges Wal-Mart is violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. Dukes alleges that Wal-Mart systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men to higher positions at faster rates than women.

The Bentonville, Ark. retailer denies the accusations and argues that if there are any instances of discrimination they are isolated, and not an overarching company policy. Wal-Mart says any such cases should be handled as individual lawsuits, not as a class action.

The retailer has fiercely fought the lawsuit since it was first filed in federal court in San Francisco in 2001 and said it would appeal the most recent decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The incident that sparked the epic legal battle began while Dukes served as a customer service manager.

Dukes, 60, needed change to make a small purchase during her break. She asked a colleague to open a cash register with a one-cent transaction, which she claims was a common practice.

Nevertheless, she was demoted for misconduct. She complained to a manager that the punishment was too severe and part of a long campaign of discrimination that began almost as soon as she started working for Wal-Mart in this blue-collar city of about 100,000, some 45 miles east of San Francisco.

She believed the reprimand was partially motivated by race. She’s black and the managers were white.

When those complaints were ignored, Dukes sought legal advice.

She ended up being represented by Brad Seligman, an attorney had who launched The Impact Fund, a legal nonprofit, in 1992.

Seligman said he asked Dukes to serve as lead plaintiff in what would become a vast class action because of her strong personality.

“I’m somewhat in awe of her, particularly that she has managed to work at Wal-Mart for all these years,” Seligman said. “It is extraordinary difficult to find someone who wants to risk their jobs by filing a lawsuit against their employer.”

Seligman and other attorneys told Dukes that she wasn’t alone, that many other women had similar complaints. They said they would like to use her and five other former and current Wal-Mart employees to file the class action lawsuit.

“My jaw fell open,” Dukes said when told of the other complaining women. “I thought I was by myself.”

That was nine years ago. And with Wal-Mart insisting the lawsuit is without merit and vowing to continue its fight, it appears the litigation has more years to go.

Dukes is undeterred by that prospect and sanguine about the outcome.

“It’s a very courageous thing for a person to do, to stick with it over such a long period of time,” said Marcia Greenberger, founder of the Washington D.C. advocacy group National Women’s Law Center. “The individuals who step forward pay a very big price to be willing to tell their stories and to hold their records up to public scrutiny.”

The center has filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the Dukes lawsuit, as have the NAACP and Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also filed a brief supporting the lawsuit.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, fearful that a ruling in Dukes’ favor will expose other companies to costly lawsuits, have filed briefs urging dismissal of the complaint.

Ms. Magazine named her one of its “Women of the Year” for 2004, the same year Liz Featherstone’s book “Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers’ Rights at Wal-Mart” was published. Featherstone has compared Dukes to Rosa Parks, the civil rights crusader.

“I am very grateful that I’m on this platform,” Dukes said. “In this life, you have to stand up or be trampled.”

She leans heavily on her faith, believing she has God on her side and that she’s been called upon to fight for others.

Through it all, Dukes has remained humble, saying she lives with her mother because she can’t afford a place of her own on her $15.23 an hour salary.

“There are times that I can’t afford my lunch,” she said, wrapping her chicken nuggets in a napkin for later. “But I’m still blessed.”

She’s guarded about her past life, vaguely saying she has faced “many tsunamis.” Dukes mother moved the family from their native Louisiana to California 50 years ago. Dukes was married briefly but is single today and childless.

She preaches often at her church on Sunday and said that fellow employees often approach her for spiritual counseling. She slipped into preacher mode when asked about Betty versus Goliath characterization.

“David had five stones but only need one,” she said, comparing the biblical victory to the single lawsuit that she hopes will be decided in favor of Wal-Mart’s women employees.

Dukes said that there have been few problems with managers and co-workers since the lawsuit was filed in 2001. She said the work atmosphere gets a “little chilly” after courtroom victories are reported in the media.

Seligman, her lawyer, said her involvement in the lawsuit may even have benefited her.

“It seems like that at every pivotal moment in the litigation,” Seligman said, “Betty gets a raise.”

As this year’s legislative session loomed, former House Speaker Glenn Richardson was forced to resign from that post, and to leave the legislature, as the result of an extramarital affair he’d had with a utility company lobbyist while shepherding legislation favorable to the utility through last year’s General Assembly session.

Richardson’s replacement, state Rep. David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge – chosen by his House peers – wasted little time as this year’s legislative session got under way to reassure Georgians that a new day had come to the statehouse.

Ralston signaled at his election to the speaker’s post that he understood, in his words, that the people of the state “need to know now more than ever that their state government belongs to the working families and people of this state and not to the special interests.”

So, with the legislative session winding down, it would be reasonable to expect that the people of Georgia would be seeing, if they had not already seen, their lawmakers putting in place some strict controls on lobbying.

Well, the reality is … not so much. It was, in fact, only in late March that an ethics reform package backed by Ralston got its first committee hearing. And by that time, Ralston’s impassioned rhetoric from earlier in the session had cooled to the point that he was telling The Associated Press, “I made a commitment to ethics reform. I didn’t make a commitment to do what I can’t do, which is make people behave.”

That verbiage is, of course, the very definition of a distinction without a difference.

And, in the end, neither Ralston nor any other lawmakers seemed particularly interested in behaving all that well anyway. Here, in brief, is what the people of Georgia got from their elected representatives on the 38th legislative day of a 40-legislative-day session:

Senate Bill 17, for which a House bill eventually was substituted, will, among other things, require lobbyists to report more frequently on the gifts and meals they buy for legislators, and will increase the fines assessed against lobbyists and lawmakers who miss deadlines for filing disclosure reports.

The bill is most notable for what it doesn’t contain, which is any sort of cap on lobbyists’ spending on legislators – a provision that a bipartisan group of lawmakers had worked to place in the bill, but that didn’t make it into the version approved with a 168-2 House vote and a 47-0 Senate vote on Wednesday.

As Common Cause Georgia succinctly noted Thursday in comments posted on its website regarding the legislature’s lackluster attempt at ethics reform, “it is disappointing that the 2010 reform bill lacks any substantive changes that would address the culture of coziness between those who make the laws and those who seek to influence them.”

Disappointing, yes, but the legislature’s failure to deal meaningfully with a clear need for ethics reform is something else, too. It’s not hyperbole to suggest that the weak bill passed by lawmakers is a breach of faith with, if not an outright thumbing of the nose at, the people of Georgia.

Voters across the state would be wise, when they go to the polls later this year, to remember the utter lack of respect that lawmakers showed to them, with their failure to get state government out of the hands of lobbyists.

Athens Banner-Herald Published Monday, April 26, 2010

With a $17.7 billion state budget all but wrapped up, and a transportation funding bill that will at least start helping move metropolitan Atlanta out of gridlock passed, there is precious little of substance left for lawmakers to do as the clock ticks down the final hours of the Georgia General Assembly session.

That may, in part, explain why a number of bills and amendments either already considered by the House and Senate, or that could be considered today, don’t address particularly pressing issues – not pressing, that is, unless you’re a candidate looking to exercise some advantage over any challenger you might have.

Consider, for instance, the case of state Sen. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, who at this moment is facing at least a GOP primary challenge from Tallapoosa businessman Pete Bridges. On Tuesday, Heath was successful in pushing a Senate amendment to House Bill 1005, which was written to create a special Zoo Atlanta license plate, to allow drivers to affix an “In God We Trust” decal to their license plate. The decal may be displayed in the space normally reserved for the county name decal, and is to be made available to any motorist who wants one at “no more than the cost … for the manufacture and distribution of such decal.”

Heath’s rationale for the amendment, as related to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is interestingly disingenuous. Heath told the Atlanta newspaper, “Some people don’t want their county’s name on their tag. You go to a high school football game. You don’t want your county on your plate. Especially, if you win.”

Of course, in the absence of any notable reports of car-burning high-school football fan hooliganism, it’s easy to see Heath’s move for what it is – a shameless play to part of his voter base.

Consider, too, the resolution sponsored by a host of House Republicans led by Rep. Mark Hatfield of Waycross – including Calvin Hill of Canton, who will face at least a Democratic general election challenge this year, and Charlice Byrd of Woodstock, who will have at least a Republican primary opponent – that’s clearly aimed at whatever constituency they think might subscribe to the view that President Barack Obama hasn’t adequately proved his U.S. birth.

The resolution, whose other sponsors are Cassville Republican Barry Loudermilk, who’s leaving the House to run for a state Senate seat; Steve Davis, R-McDonough; Bobby Reese, R-Sugar Hill; Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta; and Jeff May, R-Monroe, would require that an affidavit be filed in Georgia by candidates for president “stating the candidate’s citizenship and age and (including) documents that prove the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age, and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in … the United States Constitution.”

According to media reports, the resolution won’t be passed in this year’s legislative session, but certainly could be back for next year’s session. Not that any of that matters to its sponsors, for whom the resolution will serve nicely as a political signal to fringe supporters.

In both instances outlined here, state taxpayers were forced to pay for what are clearly nothing more than political machinations. And, if the legislative session wasn’t ending today, the bill for such blatant legislative campaigning almost certainly would have been higher.

Athens Banner-HeraldPublished Thursday, April 29, 2010

SB 321 introduced by Senator Chip Pearson (R-51), dubbed the Georgia Public-Private Water Facility and Supply Act of 2010; Recreates the term “water facility” to include recapture reservoir, well, collection and distribution system, water transportation system and other collection methods of water for public usage. Furthermore, this bill also provides private operation or ownership of new public water supply reservoirs. In February the Senate Economic Development Committee chaired by Pearson, favorably reported the bill our of committee.

That bill if made into law this week in the two days left in the legislature, would benefit a client of Pearson’s economic development consulting business, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has learned.

The legislation would let private developers build reservoirs with state approval without having to set up a partnership with local governments or water authorities.

Under current law, private companies can build reservoirs if they partner with local governments or authorities, which have water condemnation rights and can apply for permits from the federal government.

Pearson (R-Dawsonville) submitted legislation in January that would allow the state to take over that role. Pearson’s legislation allows the state to serve as the government partner with a private company in building a reservoir or water system.

Two months earlier, Republic Resources of Atlanta, a client of Pearson’s business partner Craig Lesser, abandoned talks with a water authority in Pearson’s district and set out to develop a $650 million reservoir in Dawson County without it.

Pearson told the AJC last week that he did not write the legislation for his partner’s client and that their consulting business, Pendleton Consulting, has nothing to do with project.

“The particular project in Dawson County, it’s not a client of Pendleton; it’s a client somebody [Lesser] had prior to Pendleton,” Pearson said.

Initially, Republic was working on the reservoir proposal with officials at the Etowah Water and Sewer Authority. Etowah officials were amazed when Republic left them and suddenly became a competitor. Then they saw a bill, SB 321, written by their own state senator, that would legally allow local water authorities to be cut out of such a reservoir project.

“I’m just astounded by the audacity of it all,” said Brooke Anderson, general manager of the Etowah Water and Sewer Authority.

This week the bill appeared to stall as the AJC began asking questions about it. Though it passed the Senate, as of Friday it was mired in a House committee. However, the bill’s language could still be added as an amendment to other legislation before the session is scheduled to end this week.

News of Pearson’s bill aiding Lesser’s client comes two weeks after the AJC reported that Pearson, chairman of the House Economic Development Committee, had set up Pendleton Consulting with three partners including Lesser, a lobbyist and the former state commissioner of economic development.

Lesser said he has never discussed SB 321 with Pearson. “I don’t discuss anything with him about legislation,” Lesser said.

Gerald Daws, the industrial developer who heads Republic, said he has met with Pearson several times to update him on the reservoir project, but only because he is a prominent official in Dawson County.

“I had absolutely no conversations about his legislative efforts whatsoever,” he said.

The bill, which Pearson labeled the “Georgia Public-Private Water Facility and Supply Act of 2010,” would aid Republic in its effort to develop the gigantic reservoir without the participation of the local water authority.

The legislation promotes at least a partial privatization of the water supply, though its main focus is limiting local water authority involvement in a project. That would presumably benefit Republic in any legal dispute with the Etowah Water and Sewer Authority.

The legislation would authorize the state Department of Natural Resources to:

● Put out or receive unsolicited bids for private reservoirs. The state would become the de facto partner on the project for securing federal approvals.

● Use state funds for project development of a private reservoir, though the funds would have to be paid back.

● Approve reservoir projects without the participation of local water authorities, though those agencies would be informed and allowed to provide input. After criticism by county governments, a provision was added over Pearson’s objections that required local government approval for such projects.

Neill Herring, state lobbyist for the environmental group The Sierra Club, opposes the Pearson legislation because he believes a private business should not control such an important public resource as water.

“It sounds like these lobbyists have found a way to eliminate the middle man: They have elected a lobbyist,” Herring said.

The proposed Dawson County reservoir would be one of the largest water projects in Georgia since Lake Lanier. The plan is to buy 10,000 acres in the county (now owned by the city of Atlanta), then develop 2,200 acres into a reservoir that could provide water for 1 million people in the Atlanta region of 5.5 million.

Anderson, of the Etowah Authority, said his agency has been developing the plan for about two years as a way to expand the region’s water supply after recent court rulings that could limit drinking water drawn from Lake Lanier.

He said the authority had the right under the state constitution to use condemnation for water projects within Dawson County, so anyone working on such a project has to work with it. Anderson, the engineer in charge of the authority’s reservoir project, said he thought everything was going well.

He said Lesser was in many meetings with Daws. “We worked with Craig to gain an understanding of state-level issues,” he said.

Then one day in October, Anderson received a voice mail from Daws saying Republic was leaving to set up its own project.

Anderson hasn’t spoken to Daws since. He said Pearson never discussed his legislation. Lesser never mentioned to the authority that he had a business relationship with Pearson.

Daws, reached at his Atlanta office, said he left the project and launched his own effort because of a disagreement with some investors lined up by Etowah Water and Sewer. Asked about his reservoir project, Daws said, “We are moving full-speed ahead.”

Late Wednesday, (April 22, 2010) Rep. John Meadows (Dist. 5) stood at the well of the House and announced that there would be an Insurance Committee meeting to discuss SB 407. Inside of the quickly assembled Insurance Committee meeting, SB 407 was then completely striped of all of its original language and was replaced with HB 1184 that was originally introduced by Rep. Mat Ramsey (Dist. 72). HB 1184, (now SB 407) authorizes insurance companies to offer individual accident and sickness insurance policies in Georgia that have been approved for issuance in other states. Policies would be regulated by Georgia’s insurance commissioner, who would identify at least 5 other states with insurance laws consistent with Georgia laws to be a part of the pool. Provisions would also require the issuance of a disclaimer on all out-of-state insurance policies, exempting them from Georgia laws governing required benefits and consumer protections. Currently, Georgia law allows only health plans that have been specifically approved for Georgia to be sold in the state because they incorporate all of the state’s coverage mandates which require extended coverage to include procedures such as preventative screenings.

Proponents of HB 1184 believe the bill would increase the pool of eligible insurance companies and create more market competition and lower prices. SB 407 was the Senate alternative to HB 1184 and is sponsored by Sen. Judson Hill (Dist. 32). The original bill was amended to ensure that products sold in Georgia still contain almost all of the state-required coverage mandates, except for athletic trainers. However, in the new language of SB 407, these minimal coverage mandates have been removed. Opponents of the bill believe the coverage mandates that have been in place for the past 15 years have lead to enhanced health outcomes for Georgian across the state as well as strong preventive care access. Additionally, detractors of to the bill believe the legislation would create more problems as out-of-state policies will be marketed to the most desirable and least “risky” clients. Consumers in Georgia’s individual market who are not attractive to underwriters will be left in their current policies. As the state’s remaining pool of customers shrinks and becomes less healthy, those remaining will face rate increases.

“It strengthens our ethics laws in every respect,” Ralston said.

The bill passed unanimously, after two amendments offered by Democrats failed. One would have limited lobby gifts and one would have barred executive officials from lobbying for one year after leaving office.
Ralston said he supports having lobbyists report all their gifts so the public can see what is being spent, but he opposes a cap on lobbyist expenditures.

“Trust the people to make those judgments with the information they can get with the click of a mouse,”

he said, referring to lobbyist financial reports which are posted online by the state.
An earlier proposal by Ralston, to ban lobbyists from texting legislators during session or committee meetings, was dropped after the Democrats objected.

The legislation falls short of earlier proposals that would have required legislators to report gifts, trips and meals from lobbyists, and would have capped lobbyist spending. Ralston’s proposal does require lobbyists to more frequently disclose gifts and meals they have provided legislators.

The bill is now moving forward after months of clamor for ethics reform following House Speaker Glenn Richardson’s resignation last fall. Richardson, once one of Georgia’s most powerful politicians, left office after his former wife alleged he had an affair with a lobbyist and had threatened to use state agencies to force his wife to reconcile.

If the legislation passes Wednesday, it will be sent to the Senate for approval. Rep. Joe Wilkinson (R-Sandy Springs), chair of the House Ethics Committee, has been working closely with Ralston on the legislation for months. He said Tuesday that he had a five-hour meeting with Senate leadership and everyone seemed to be in agreement on the bill.

By Cameron McWhirter
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Sen. Jack Hill, R-Reidsville, said the council will still be cut by the $1.7
million that Gov. Sonny Perdue recommended, but under the Senate version the
council would continue to operate.

Last week when the House passed its version of the budget for the next
fiscal year, it went beyond Perdue’s recommended cuts by wiping out the
entire appropriation for the council, shutting it down completely. The House
would transfer about half of what Perdue left to the Department of Community
Affairs to dole out in grants to local communities and use the balance for
other government services.

Hill said he had been bombarded by e-mails from people complaining about the
proposed demise of the council.

The council administers a grant program for local communities and individual
artists, devoting much of its focus on smaller communities that provide
little in local funds. The council’s grants often form the match required
for the programs to receive much larger federal grants.

“In some ways, it may be harder to defend funding for the arts, but it’s a
good deal for the state,” Hill said.

The Senate hasn’t voted yet on its version of the budget. Hill predicted
that would come Wednesday. Then a conference committee of senators and
representatives would have to negotiate the differences in the House and
Senate versions.

Tuesday, the House and Senate vote on the negotiated compromise worked out
on the mid-year adjustment to the budget for the remaining two months in the
current fiscal year. Hill said there were few changes in the final
agreement.

By Walter C. Jones
Savannah Now