Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Abidingly corrupt OC

County Won’t Name Everyone Who Broke Campaign Money Laws (Voice of OC)
     Orange County enforcement officials declined this week to make public the names of all candidates and donors caught violating the county’s campaign money laws, while similar enforcement offices elsewhere in California post such information online.
     The county’s campaign money law limits candidates to receiving $2,000 per donor each election cycle and requires disclosure of each donor’s occupation and employer. Intentional violations are a misdemeanor.
     County officials, who report to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, took on the non-criminal enforcement duties in April 2017, after voters approved an ethics enforcement measure.
     But supervisors structured the county enforcement so that when violators are caught by the county enforcement officials, they can return the illegal money and the matter can go away quietly.
. . .
     Terry Francke, an expert in California public records law, said he’s not aware of any exemptions that would allow the county to keep the campaign money complaints and findings secret.
     “It sounds kind of dubious to me,” said Francke, who serves as general counsel of the transparency group Californians Aware and is Voice of OC’s public records consultant, adding he’d be interested in seeing their full legal justification for it.
     County officials didn’t have an answer Tuesday when asked what their legal justification is for keeping the information secret....
The Democratic Alternative (Inside Higher Ed)

     The minority party offers its take on the Higher Education Act, including free community college, larger Pell Grants and tougher accountability -- including regulations targeting for-profit colleges.
     Just in time for midterm election season, Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday released details of a comprehensive higher education bill they say will ensure every student has the chance to get a postsecondary education without debt.
     The bill has no chance of passage with Republicans in control of Congress and the White House. But Democrats plan to contrast the proposals in the bill with GOP legislation to overhaul the Higher Education Act. And the bill signals where Democrats might go on higher ed policy if they regain control of the House of Representatives in the fall.
     The GOP bill, the PROSPER Act, eliminated regulations on for-profit colleges, would have dropped benefits for student borrowers like Public Service Loan Forgiveness and streamlined other student aid programs.
     The Democrats’ bill is almost a point-by-point rejection of PROSPER, making current accountability rules tougher and directing new federal funds to student aid and programs for college readiness and completion. Virginia Democrat Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the House education committee, said the legislation stands in stark contrast to the PROSPER Act....

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

While most of this is about power and money, some must be vindictive--Democrats want more $$ for education, environments, social security and medicare along with better relations with our neighbors Canada and Mexico (both, by the way, are part of North America).

Roy Bauer said...

12:17, if you have something to say, say it clearly. Wanting more money for education is "vindictive"? WTF?
Yes, Canada and Mexico are part of No. America. Your point?
Good grief. the heat has fried your brain or mine.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Roy. My comments were not clear because I hurried after reading about continued OC corruption.

The vindictiveness is against folks who know more money is needed for education but won't fund it--usually conservative Republicans.

The points about Canada and Mexico are really part of our extended boundaries of what and who North Americans are--they are not all citizens of the US.

Bob

Roy Bauer said...

Thanks for the clarification, Bob. I'm going back to my cold shower now.

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...