RALEIGH DISPATCH: Pass the hat…or at least a beer
Sometimes, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, or pitch it all and go off to find a beer and gripe about the downfall of democracy. (Full column after the jump.)
That dilemma is part of the hazard of working around the state legislature and has come up a lot as the House debates over ethics reform have rolled along over the past few months.
The latest episode concerned House Bill 1846, which would tighten up a bunch of the laws about who can give campaign contributions and what exactly legislators would have to report. Among the provisions were a few lowering the amount of cash a candidate can take from anyone person and requiring tighter tracking of people who give cash and money orders.
There were objections, including from Greensboro Rep. Earl Jones. Although he had several priceless quotes, here’s a sample:
“It wouldn’t be practical for me to be at my church of some of the other local churches in my area where people support me and they decide to pass the hat, and I may not be present. And they pass the hat, and one little old lady may put $3 in the hat, another person may put $5 in the hat, another person may put $20 in the hat.
“And two month subsequent to that, I may get a check from one of those individuals…that exceed the $5 or $10 that were put in the hat…It’s just not practical.”
After that debate, “passing the hat” gained the sort of scorn that most people have thus far reserved for “snakes on a plane.”
For those without a handy copy of the General Statutes, here are at least some of the laws that the passing the hat scenario violates:
- Jones correctly identifies the problem of tracking contributors. Even if you don’t have to report an individual’s name on your campaign forms a contributor, you have to know who they are under state law. If you don’t know the name, you won’t be able to know when they trip campaign giving thresholds in the future.
- Oh yeah, current law requires you to know just who the heck is giving your campaign money, whether they’re over the threshold or not.
- Giving or collecting political donations in churches violates IRS rules and could threaten the church’s tax exempt status.
- Presumably, the person who passed the hat is not going to bother to list the name and amount of every contributor, so they could be violating rules against giving in the name of another.
All of which begged the question – “Um, Earl, tell me about this passing the hat thing?”
During a phone conversation Friday, Jones said that his was just an example.
“That was just a hypothetical,” Jones said.
Come on, really?
Jones stuck by that story.
“I don’t know of any specific circumstances other than Jess Jackson’s presidential campaigns.”
What now?
According to Jones, back in the 1980s, “passing the hat” was a common fund raising practice of the Jackson campaign.
So, Earl, have you ever passed the hat?
“Oh, no, no, not me,” Jones said.
Right.
“No, really. That was just a hypothetical.”
His performance on the floor was funny enough to earn Jones ribbing from fellow legislators – those that weren’t speed-dialing state board of election investigators about a member potentially admitting to a bunch of crimes.
“He’s the one with the hat,” said Rep. Alma Adams last week. Adams, a fellow Greensboro Democrat, is known for the array of hats she sports in the General Assembly. If anyone has a hat to pass, I suggested, it would be her.
“Only checks get passed in my hat,” Adams said, laughing with Jones – I think she was laughing with him.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In other news:
Sen. Stan Bingham, a Republican representing Davidson County and High Point, got his bill to make it illegal for teens to use a cell phone while driving through the Senate, although not without taking a few hits from the pro-familier than thee contingent in his party.
Keep in mind, the idea behind this bill is to cut down on distractions for kids as they gain experience behind the wheel. Research has shown that talking on a cell phone while driving can be more hazardous than a blood alcohol level just over the legal limit.
There was much discussion over whether kids should be allowed to take a call from their parents. To outlaw such a call, even temporarily until the teen can pull the car over, was down right un-American to listen to some of the opponents. Never mind that a parental conversation is no less distracting than any other or the fact that many will have to look at the phone – and not the road – to see who is calling.
The bill ended up getting amended on the floor to the point where it may be absolutely meaningless, but Bingham said that he’ll try to fix it as it goes through the House.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Not picking on you, just picking you. One of my pet peeves is the misuse of "begging the question," as you use it above.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
[snip]
More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed". In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase. The following is an example: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" This usage is often sharply criticized by proponents of the traditional meaning, but it has nonetheless come into common use.
As another example, this article contains: "This begs the question: how many other emails with important information have been barred by AOL?"
Argument over whether this usage should be considered incorrect is an example of the debate between linguistic prescription and description.
Posted on June 12, 2006 8:11 AM
Roch: You have now demonstrated why I struggled all the way through the one Logic class I took while in college. ;-)
Btw...I'm a big boy...pick on me all you want...everyone else does.
--binker
Posted on June 12, 2006 9:51 AM
I am confused. A politician is not allowed to pass around the hat at a church where the people are sober but others have fund raisers in licensed premises,bars or clubs where people are drunk and thats ok? Its time to enforce fund raising and gambling laws or get them off the books.
Posted on June 15, 2006 10:49 AM
Bill, you're talking about two different things.
The bill that Jones was trying thwart is all about reporting and being able to track who gives what.
Where somebody holds a fund raiser is a different matter, although one I'm sure it worthy of a look.
Of course, there are folks who say we should moved to a publically financed election system and get rid of all these odd little fund raisers all together.
Posted on June 15, 2006 10:54 AM