2009 House Bill 4381: Require candidate and state official financial disclosure

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Kate Ebli (D) on February 19, 2009, to require candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state senator, state representative, State Board of Education, elected state and university board members, current state office holders, and certain local offices that pay more than at least $87,040 annually to file personal financial disclosure statements that include the names of all of the person's family members; his or her employer; the source and amount of earned income and other income for the candidate and his or her spouse during the past year, and any gifts; a list of assets; certain transactions and liabilities; business ownerships; any trustee, director, etc. positions held in a business, union, non-profit, educational or other institution; any future employment agreements, including leave-of-absence agreements; and more.
- Referred to the House Ethics and Elections Committee on February 19, 2009.
  - Reported in the House on March 4, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on March 25, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details that do change the substance of the bill as previously described, except that details of reporting for judges are changed. See House-passed version. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on March 25, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R) on March 25, 2009, to apply the reporting mandate to all local public officials, not just those who are paid above a certain amount. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on March 25, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom Pearce (R) on March 25, 2009, to also apply the reporting mandate to registered lobbyists. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 25, 2009.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Kate Ebli (D) on March 25, 2009, to adopt a version of the bill that does not apply the mandate to lobbyists. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on March 25, 2009.
Passed 81 to 28 in the House on March 25, 2009, to require candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state senator, state representative, State Board of Education, elected state and university board members, current state office holders, certain executive branck officials, and certain local offices that pay more than at least $87,040 annually to file personal financial disclosure statements that include the names of all of the person's family members; his or her employer; the source and amount of earned income and other income for the candidate and his or her spouse during the past year, and any gifts; a list of assets; certain transactions and liabilities; business ownerships; any trustee, director, etc. positions held in a business, union, non-profit, educational or other institution; any future employment agreements, including leave-of-absence agreements; and more. Appellate and local judges and judge candidates would just have to report income beyond their paycheck.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on March 26, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Campaign & Election Oversight Committee on March 26, 2009.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4381 (Require candidate and state official financial disclosure ) by Admin003 on April 25, 2009

Rep. Haugh, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of House Bill No. 4381, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

During the House Session for March 25th I voted against HB 4381 and opted to give an explanation. I oppose the bill for a few reasons.

First, income and debt listing disclosure of spousal and children within the home is invasive and an inappropriate impositions on family members who do not choose to be in Public office.

Next, an elected official’s salary is already public information and they are required to abide by Ethic and Professionalism Rules. Beyond this, it is intrusive be required to list pension information, how much a person owes on their home or what a member of their family’s credit card balances are.

This bill places an undue burden on the spouses and children of elected officials. With that I thank you for the opportunity to explain my vote. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.”

Line

2) Re: 2009 House Bill 4381 (Require candidate and state official financial disclosure ) by Admin003 on March 25, 2009

Rep. Wayne Schmidt, having reserved the right to explain his protest
against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no because it would be disingenuous to vote for this version
(floor substitute H-5) with the idea it could be expanded later, when
in all likelihood this bill will just continue to be pushed through so
politicians can check off their list instead of addressing real reform.

Public officials at all levels of service make decisions that affect
their communities, as well as their role in the community. The whole
idea behind transparency and disclosure is so residents and voters know
about the candidates who will serve them, and the can determine if
there may be certain conflicts of interest in decision-making.”

Line

3) Re: 2009 House Bill 4381 (Require candidate and state official financial disclosure ) by Admin003 on March 25, 2009

Rep. Amash, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Although I strongly support increased government accountability and
have led the way in making my office budget transparent, I am deeply
concerned that HB 4381 primarily promotes incumbency and the political
class under the guise of promoting transparency.

Among my objections to this bill are the following:

(1) Like many of our campaign finance laws, this bill
disproportionately harms non-incumbent candidates who have few
resources. The level of precise documentation required under this bill
will be burdensome and complicated, giving increased advantage to
candidates, particularly incumbents, who have lawyers, accountants, and
advisors to spare. Independent, third-party, non-establishment,
low-income, and low-resource candidates will be further discouraged
from entering a race.

(2) This bill does little to prevent actual malfeasance. Any candidate
with a conflict of interest or who intentionally engages in
inappropriate activity may conceal that conflict or activity simply by
not disclosing it. Consequently, this bill will serve primarily to
produce and then punish honest mistakes.

(3) Because honest mistakes in trying to fulfill the bill’s
requirements are inevitable, this bill also opens the door to arbitrary

enforcement. I am reluctant to give the government greater latitude to determine which candidates are acceptable.

(4) Judges are inexplicably exempt from many of the bill’s
requirements, but impropriety on the part of a judge holds much greater
potential for harm than impropriety on the part of a legislator. A
legislator in Michigan is one of 148 to decide on a matter before the
Legislature, whereas a judge is often the lone decision maker in a
matter before the court.

Although I do not support this legislation because of its likely
consequences, I believe that the public benefits from having greater
awareness of the financial interests of elected officials. Therefore, I
commit to releasing a personal financial disclosure on or before May 1,
2010, and every year thereafter during my tenure in the Michigan House
of Representatives.”

Line

View Full Conversation