Section 8 of Article II
Ethics in Government.—A public office is a public trust. The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse. To assure this right:
(a) All elected constitutional officers and candidates for such offices and, as may be determined by law, other public officers, candidates, and employees shall file full and public disclosure of their financial interests.
(b) All elected public officers and candidates for such offices shall file full and public disclosure of their campaign finances.
(c) Any public officer or employee who breaches the public trust for private gain and any person or entity inducing such breach shall be liable to the state for all financial benefits obtained by such actions. The manner of recovery and additional damages may be provided by law.
(d) Any public officer or employee who is convicted of a felony involving a breach of public trust shall be subject to forfeiture of rights and privileges under a public retirement system or pension plan in such manner as may be provided by law.
(e) No member of the legislature or statewide elected officer shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation before the government body or agency of which the individual was an officer or member for a period of two years following vacation of office. No member of the legislature shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation during term of office before any state agency other than judicial tribunals. Similar restrictions on other public officers and employees may be established by law.
(f)(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term “public officer” means a statewide elected officer, a member of the legislature, a county commissioner, a county officer pursuant to Article VIII or county charter, a school board member, a superintendent of schools, an elected municipal officer, an elected special district officer in a special district with ad valorem taxing authority, or a person serving as a secretary, an executive director, or other agency head of a department of the executive branch of state government.
(2) A public officer shall not lobby for compensation on issues of policy, appropriations, or procurement before the federal government, the legislature, any state government body or agency, or any political subdivision of this state, during his or her term of office.
(3) A public officer shall not lobby for compensation on issues of policy, appropriations, or procurement for a period of six years after vacation of public position, as follows:
(4) This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit a public officer from carrying out the duties of his or her public office.
(5) The legislature may enact legislation to implement this subsection, including, but not limited to, defining terms and providing penalties for violations. Any such law shall not contain provisions on any other subject.
(2) A public officer or public employee shall not abuse his or her public position in order to obtain a disproportionate benefit for himself or herself; his or her spouse, children, or employer; or for any business with which he or she contracts; in which he or she is an officer, a partner, a director, or a proprietor; or in which he or she owns an interest. The Florida Commission on Ethics shall, by rule in accordance with statutory procedures governing administrative rulemaking, define the term “disproportionate benefit” and prescribe the requisite intent for finding a violation of this prohibition for purposes of enforcing this paragraph. Appropriate penalties shall be prescribed by law.
(1) Full and public disclosure of financial interests shall mean filing with the custodian of state records by July 1 of each year a sworn statement showing net worth and identifying each asset and liability in excess of $1,000 and its value together with one of the following:
a. A copy of the person’s most recent federal income tax return; or
b. A sworn statement which identifies each separate source and amount of income which exceeds $1,000. The forms for such source disclosure and the rules under which they are to be filed shall be prescribed by the independent commission established in subsection (f), and such rules shall include disclosure of secondary sources of income.
(2) Persons holding statewide elective offices shall also file disclosure of their financial interests pursuant to
(3) The independent commission provided for in subsection
Section 13 of Article V
(b) A former justice or former judge shall not lobby for compensation on issues of policy, appropriations, or procurement before the legislative or executive branches of state government for a period of six years after he or she vacates his or her judicial position. The legislature may enact legislation to implement this subsection, including, but not limited to, defining terms and providing penalties for violations. Any such law shall not contain provisions on any other subject.
Schedule of Article XII
Prohibitions regarding lobbying for compensation and abuse of public position by public officers and public employees.—The amendments to Section 8 of Article II and Section 13 of Article V shall take effect December 31, 2022; except that the amendments to Section 8(h) of Article II shall take effect December 31, 2020, and:
|
From Huffington Post:
Fighting Corruption Is On The Ballot In 3 States And 2 Cities This November
Anti-corruption activists look to voters to enact ethics oversight of their state’s politicians.
After a series of corruption scandals rocked South Dakota between 2014 and 2016, residents of the state overwhelmingly backed a ballot initiative that submitted politicians to new ethics laws, curtailed the number of gifts lobbyists could hand lawmakers and created a public financing system for state elections. The governor and the lawmakers in control of the statehouse had trouble stomaching the proposal and swiftly repealed the entire initiative.
Now, South Dakotans will get a second chance. The state’s Nov. 6 ballot features a constitutional amendment, Amendment W., that would enact stringent ethics and lobbying rules. The amendment includes many of the same provisions as the repealed 2016 initiative: lowering contribution limits, imposing ethics rules and limiting lobbyist power — but not the public financing system.
“We won the first battle,” said Josh Silver, executive director of the national group Represent.Us, which has backed the anti-corruption effort in South Dakota. “The establishment politicians won the second battle. And if we win Nov. 6, we will win the war.”
South Dakota is one of a handful of states and cities where citizens will vote on ballot initiatives that enact anti-corruption laws, including campaign finance, ethics and lobbying reform. Ballot initiatives that seek to correct the corrupting role of money in politics have multiplied across the country since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which legalized unlimited campaign spending by corporations and the super-rich.
Although, in these cases, each ballot initiative has its own local story.
South Dakota’s grassroots campaign to enact ethics rules has inspired a group of activists across the border in North Dakota. An informal “coffee and cookies” get together of 12 North Dakotans led to the writing of a constitutional amendment that would: ban lobbyist gifts and foreign money; require all campaign spending be disclosed; create a nonpartisan ethics board; strengthen conflict of interest rules; establish a two-year cooling-off period before lawmakers can become lobbyists; and prevent candidates from using campaign money for personal uses.
The activists learned from the South Dakota campaign and wrote their measure as a constitutional amendment so that lawmakers angry about their lobbyist gifts being taken away would not be able to thwart the will of the voters.
Three members of the original group that launched the campaign ― Dina Butcher, Ellen Chaffee and Kathy Tweeten ― hit the road to advocate for the amendment as the “Badass Grandmas,” a name bestowed on them by a friend of one of their grandsons. They gathered 36,000 signatures to put the amendment on the ballot and are now driving from town to town to drum up support ahead of Nov. 6.
“The sense I get from the citizens of North Dakota is they’re for this,” said Butcher, a former official for two Republican governors. “They think we do need some kind of a standard for our legislators, just like other professions.”
North Dakota received terrible grades on the Center for Public Integrity’s 2015 State Integrity Scorecard. The state routinely receives an “F” grade for executive and legislative accountability, public access to information, lobbying and campaign finance disclosure, and ethics enforcement management. The amendment aims to address the lack of rules and oversight for huge amounts of political and government operations in the state.
The amendment is opposed by the state’s oil and gas companies, which have spent nearly $300,000 against it, and Americans for Prosperity, the political arm of the billionaire Koch brothers. They’re doing so “because [the amendment is] putting the power back in the hands of the people,” Butcher said.
In Missouri, voters will cast a ballot on a wide-ranging constitutional amendment that would put limits on lobbying, lower campaign contribution limits, expand freedom of information laws to the legislature, and create a nonpartisan redistricting process for the state. The amendment is supported by a bipartisan cast including Republican state Sen. Rob Schaaf, who has championed ethics reform in the state legislature, and Tishaura Jones, the Democratic treasurer for the City of St. Louis.
A small group of cities also have campaign finance-related initiatives on the ballot for voters this November.
If approved, a ballot initiative in Baltimore, Maryland, would give the city council the power to update the city’s public campaign financing system, establishing a fund to match public dollars to candidates raising small-donor contributions. The city was inspired to ask the public to help update its public financing system after voter-backed initiatives created small-donor matching programs in both Montgomery and Howard counties.
In Denver, Colorado, activists have put the Democracy for the People Initiative on the ballot. This proposal would require the disclosure of dark money spent on city elections, prohibit corporate donations to candidates, lower contribution limits and create a small-donor public matching system for campaigns.
Albuquerque voters will have to wait until February to vote on an initiative creating a new public financing system based on Seattle’s program, which provides voters with small-dollar vouchers to give to candidates of their choice. The activists behind the initiative hoped to get their proposal on the November ballot but the city council refused and decided to hold a special election for it later.
The city initiatives aimed at establishing or updating public financing systems could inspire other cities and municipalities to do the same and give candidates a path to electioneering that’s not raising large contributions from wealthy donors.
“We hope to be a national example,” said Javier Benavidez, director of the Albuquerque initiative campaign. Benavidez added that he is already in contact with other cities like Austin, Texas, and Chicago.
No comments:
Post a Comment