Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 19, 2009

The vote was 81 in favor, 28 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 87 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Meekhof, 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:

This bill does not include the appointees by any governor. If we are truly concerned about officials looking out for their own interests, we should include the executive branch appointees.”

Rep. Agema, 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 fully support financial disclosure for public officials, but this bill as written invades the privacy of family members who are not elected officials.

As a result, I cannot support this legislation at this time. I’m sick of us picking winning and losers. At the expense of other businesses we give tax breaks to those we select. While I support energy efficient programs, when we select one over the other, someone else pays.”

Rep. Genetski, 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 oppose HB 4381 with the concern that the amendments that would have had this bill apply to department heads that were added in committee were stripped out on the floor. I feel this bill loses its effectiveness without those provisions.

While I very much support financial disclosure for public officials, by exempting appointed officials, this bill would become a very weak law.”

Rep. Womack, 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 believe in transparency but the disclosure language in this bill is too far reaching.”

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.”

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.”

 

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.”