ILNews

House speaker proposes lobbying reforms

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Speaker of the House B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, will propose a comprehensive series of ethics reforms in the 2010 legislative session that he said will impact lawmakers, members of the executive branch, and people who do business with the state.

Bauer has proposed three areas of reform: legislative branch restrictions, executive branch restrictions, and state contracting and contributions.

Lobbyists would be required to report any gift of more than $50 to a legislator, legislative candidate, or legislative employee. Anyone who holds a state elected office may not register as a lobbyist for one year after leaving office. Lobbyists also won't be able to represent multiple clients if there's a conflict of interest between those clients.

The proposed reforms also will require:

- Anyone appointed to a position in the executive branch by the governor won't be allowed to register as a lobbyist for one year after leaving the post.

- Committees representing the governor or any gubernatorial candidate will be prohibited from soliciting contributions or having fundraisers during the long session of the General Assembly or for a time period around Organization Day.

- People with state government contracts or who bid on contracts will be prohibited from making political contributions to individuals who hold state office or run for state office. Those who bid on or receive contracts will have to register with the state's election division. Violators will receive civil and criminal penalties and may lose their state contracts.

"By enacting these guidelines, we will make sure that any expenditure of state funds are based upon the quality of a contractor's work product rather than the size of their political contributions. These are reforms demanded by the people of Indiana, and I will move quickly to see them become law in 2010," Bauer said in a statement today.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT