Despite unanimous support of 38-0 in the State Senate and 99-0 in the Virginia House of Delegates, Governor Terry McAuliffe (on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend), has just vetoed an ethics bill meant to curb political donations in the wake of “gift gate.”
The bill is related to the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and is not the primary ethics bill under debate, but important nonetheless and signals that the governor may not be that serious about changing Virginia’s ethics laws.
Political contributions and gifts; prohibition in connection with the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund. Provides that the Governor, his campaign committee, and any political action committee established on his behalf shall not knowingly solicit or accept a contribution, gift, or other item with a value greater than $50 from persons and entities seeking loans or grants from the Fund. The bill also restricts such gifts and contributions from persons and entities seeking loans or grants from the Fund. The bill provides that any violation shall result in a civil penalty of $500 or up to two times the amount of the contribution or gift, whichever is greater. This bill is identical to SB 650.
Commenting on the governor’s action is Speaker of the House William Howell:
“At a time when all Virginia elected officials should be working hard to restore the public’s trust, Governor McAuliffe’s decision to veto a bipartisan ethics reform bill that unanimously passed both the Republican House and Democratic Senate is a disappointing and unfortunate step in the wrong direction. This legislation was a key part of the General Assembly’s efforts to strengthen and improve Virginia’s ethics, transparency and disclosure laws.”
Updates, as necessary, to follow.
From RPV Chairman Pat Mullins:
“Truly bipartisan, common-sense legislation is a rare thing in Richmond. House Bill 1212 and Senate Bill 650 were just that. Under these bills, companies or individuals seeking grants from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund would have been barred from giving gifts or campaign donations to the Governor. They both passed unanimously, and the Governor’s efforts to weaken them were flatly rejected.”
“These bills gave Terry McAuliffe a chance to rise above his reputation as a Democrat bag man, concerned with nothing more than raking in more donor dollars. He failed. This veto is just further evidence that Terry remains exactly what he’s always been – a fundraiser, first and foremost. Virginia deserves better.”
How new AP reporter Alan Suderman covers it:
The bill passed with unanimous support from both chambers of the General Assembly. It would have limited donations from companies seeking money from the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund, a $35 million pot the governor can use to help attract businesses to Virginia.
McAuliffe’s veto came after he unsuccessfully tried to amend the bill to include the same fundraising restrictions on state lawmakers.
Per the state constitution, Article V, Section 6(c)iii:
“for bills returned with his recommendation. The Governor shall either sign or veto a bill returned to him from a reconvened session. If the Governor vetoes the bill, the veto shall stand and the bill shall not become law.”
In other words, this bill is dead.
From Senate Republican Majority Leader Tommy Norment:
“I am deeply disappointed that Governor McAuliffe has vetoed Senate Bill 650 and House Bill 1212. This decision mars what has otherwise been an extremely productive and successful year of enacting landmark reforms to Virginia’s ethics laws.
“Although the focus of this measure will have to be dealt with in a future session, Senate Bill 649 and House Bill 1211 will become law on July 1. Those bills represent an important step forward in ensuring that Virginia’s ethical standards for public officials are strong and stringent.”
From Del. Jim LeMunyon, the bill’s architect:
“In vetoing this legislation, the Governor states that the provisions of HB 1212 and SB 650 should apply to the General Assembly as well as the Governor. On first glance, this may seem to carry an aura of fairness. But it is not practical or necessary in the context of the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund.
“As I indicated in my remarks on the House floor on April 23, other than approve the overall budget for the Fund as one of hundreds of items in the state budget, legislators have no say regarding which companies receive awards from the Fund, only the Governor decides. The names of applicants for awards from the Fund are kept confidential from the public and are not known to legislators, only to a handful of people in the Executive Branch. Therefore, there is no possibility of a conflict of interest occurring, or even the appearance of one, with respect to the Fund and legislators.
“In addition, including legislators in HB 1212/SB 650 would mean that the confidential list of Fund applicants would have to be made known to 140 state legislators, and likely their campaign treasurers and legislative staff. Updates would need to be provided to all of these people every time a new application is received by the Fund. This means a few hundred people would become privy to this confidential information–but for no practical reason since legislators have no decision making authority with respect to who receives money from the Fund. The risk of leaking this confidential information would increase substantially.”
