
Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to Register as Lobbyists - us0r
http://www.techwire.net/news/governor-vetoes-bill-requiring-procurement-consultants-to-register-as-lobbyists.html
======
tyre
These conflicts of interest are rampant.

Here is a recent example from San Diego by a company called Accela:

    
    
      Another hopeful using [lobbying company] Presidio’s services 
      is Accela, which wants to get a “contract for IT support 
      services within the Development Services Department.” 
      Whether by coincidence or  not, John Sasson of Orinda, 
      California, who is listed as  working in “business 
      development” for Accela, kicked in $1050 for
      [San Diego Mayor] Faulconer’s  reelection campaign on March 
      17, according to a March 18 disclosure report.
    

Maybe Mr. Sasson is deeply interested in San Diego politics, despite living
500 miles away.

[http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/mar/30/radar-beer-
mo...](http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/mar/30/radar-beer-money-
influence-accela/)

~~~
cstejerean
So anyone can get government contracts by contributing $1000 towards a mayoral
reelection campaign? Seems really cheap.

~~~
seanp2k2
Buying political influence is generally a great deal. It should be taxed at
90% or so IMO.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _In March, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) voted to oppose
> the bill and sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to reject it, raising
> concerns that it would expand the commission’s mission to a “highly
> specialized area” of state contracts best overseen by the Department of
> General Services, the Department of Technology and other state agencies._

Is the bill being vetoed to be re-worked, or is this an excuse to kill it?

~~~
nickff
It is usually hard to know what the real reason is in this type of situation.
Politicians will say they are veto-ing to allow for a rework when they are
really just killing it.

------
benberkowitz
At SeeClickFix we have a policy that board members and officers may not
contribute to political campaigns for this reason. Wrote this post about why a
while back: [http://benjaminberkowitz.blogspot.com/2013/09/donations-
by-g...](http://benjaminberkowitz.blogspot.com/2013/09/donations-by-
government-contractors-and.html?m=1)

------
JoshTriplett
The title on HN is blatantly editorialized. The actual article title:
"Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to Register as
Lobbyists".

~~~
blazespin
I disagree. Editorialized implies opinion. I don't think the fact that the
bill is "transparency legislation" is an opinion. I think everyone agrees
that's exactly what it's for. Whether it achieves it, is another question, and
might worthy of a veto because it does not. But that's what it's trying to
achieve.

~~~
argonaut
Even if that was true, it is opinion that picks which "facts" to put in the
title. If the title was "Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Cost State $1.3
Million," that would also be factual, but it is quite blatantly editorialized.

> Whether it achieves it, is another question

If a bill doesn't achieve transparency, then it isn't a piece of transparency
legislation. It's a piece that someone claims to be transparency legislation,
and that others disagree about, making it a matter of opinion.

~~~
r00fus
Just because "some people" don't think a fact to be true, doesn't mean it's a
matter of opinion.

This is a case of argument to moderation [1] - presenting dissenting opinions
to factual evidence doesn't mean the "truth is somewhere in-between".

Example: Obama presents birth certificate, but "some people" (notably the
current GOP frontrunner/nominee) dispute this. The reality is not somewhere in
the middle... one side has facts.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation)

~~~
argonaut
Sure, but none of that refutes my point. All you've done is point out a
logical fallacy in a side comment I made, my argument didn't rely on the side
comment.

If the bill _does not in fact_ achieve, or cannot be proved to achieve, more
transparency, then saying it promotes transparency is opinion.

And my point about the _mere selective choice_ of words in a headline being
subjective still stands.

