Anyone that watched the latest JJOKE meeting was treated to the glaring reality that JJOKE commissioners have no clue what the Lobby Act they are supposed to be enforcing actually says.
And no I'm not talking about the most recent flip flop where they publicly emasculated their executive director and said that the proposed lobby regulations now do have the force and effect of law even though Agata was very clear last time that they were merely guidance. The fact that Mike Rozen was so clear that the proposed regs are actually regulations is a good thing. There can be no doubt now about the issue for my Article 78. I say JJOKE doesn't have the authority to issue lobby regulations JJOKE says they do, we will let a court decide.
No I'm talking about how foolish the JJOKE commissioners that commented on the proposed regulations sounded. They proved the adage that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.
Case in point Commissioner McAuliffe. I had heard from some friends that knew him from out west that he is a blowhard that loves to hear himself speak. His performance at the meeting validated the assessment. Here are a couple of his better moments:
At approximately the 30 minute mark during a conversation about coalitions (we will discuss coalitions shortly) McAuliffe chimes in with this beauty "this will include unincorporated 501c3 organizations correct?" WTF????? There is no such thing as an unincorporated 501c3 organization. Does McAuliffe know what a 501c3 is? does he know what the term unincorporated means. How is it even possible for the two terms to be combined? It's like saying a pregnant gelding. Gelding . . . get it like Agata after Rozen issued his statement on regulations.
McAuliffe had preceded that beauty with his discussion of applications by commissioned sales people for exemptions from being lobbyists. Does he understand anything about procurement lobbying? Does he know why commissioned salespeople are exempt? Why there is no process to apply for an exemption? Clearly not, he just wanted to hear himself bloviate. And he topped it by referencing the "quarterly reporting obligations" Quarterly? Who reports quarterly? Lobbyists report on a bimonthly basis. Bimonthly you know every other month. And nobody, not the staff nor the other commissioners correct him.
Then McAuliffe asks if reportable business relationships covered under 943.14 are effected by 943.4a2 that exempts lawyers providing legal services from the definition of lobbyist but requires registration after they are retained to lobby. Staff look at each other in utter confusion as the two sections have nothing to do with one another but no one says what the fuck are you talking about. Clueless clowns
Lastly a lively argument breaks out about who has to be included in coalitions for expense reporting purposes but no one seems to realize that coalitions can not report expenses as they do not exist and have no legal standing They can not have bank accounts, they can't deposit funds or expend them. They are merely aliases for groups each spending their own funds. Chew on this one guys and gals If I register a coalition how can that coalition report source of funding when they can not legally receive donations and or contributions? All you are doing with regulations allowing coalitions to register is promoting a mechanism to hide lobbying expenditures. And before you bring up the old lobby commission opinion allowing coalitions to register I wrote that opinion so I actually understand it. And I know it was written before source of funding disclosure was required. I would never have written that same opinion today. I'd follow New York City's lead and only allow actual legal entities to register as lobbyists or be reported as clients. But thanks for creating even more ways for my clients to follow your rules and shelter disclosure DOPES