Tuesday, January 15, 2008
I was in Reno, Nevada yesterday with former Nevada Common Cause Board Chair Jim Hulse and a group of activists who were calling on Senator Jim Ensign to explain his obstruction of a bill to require U.S. Senators to tell us who they are taking money from -- now.
Watch a video of our event here
Currently, Senators file campaign finance disclosure reports on paper. The paper reports are scanned into a computer, printed out, and then retyped to be placed on the Federal Election Commission website. This process takes about four months and costs about $250,000 in taxpayer dollars.
Senator Ensign has objected to a vote on the bill. He says he would like to attach an amendment that would require non-profit groups to disclose their donors if they file an ethics complaint against a sitting Senator. This amendment is controversial -- and appears more to be a ploy to prevent the electronic disclosure bill from passing.
This bill had been held up by an anonymous Senator for months. But then the Senate rules changed to forbid "secret holds." At that point, Senator Ensign stepped up to offer his amendment. See the real footage from the Senate as Senator Feingold explains the situation
My question for the Senator is this: "On whose behalf are you stopping timely disclosure of campaign finance information? Are there constituents from Nevada who have asked him to block this bill?"
For past Commonblog coverage of this issue, go here.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
When I head home for the holidays, my relatives sometimes have a hard time grasping what I do as a "reformer" and how that impacts their daily lives. This year, I'll point them to a recent story in the Seattle Times that describes how 96-year old Francis Taylor is about to lose her home of more than 40 years when banks foreclose on loans she took out from the now defunct lender Ameriquest.
After inventing the "sub-prime" mortgage industry, the collapse of which now threatens to throw the country into a recession, Ameriquest has gone into bankruptcy and sold its remnents to Citifinancial. The company settled a lawsuit with 49 states recently for $325 million out of claims of predatory lending. They also recently paid a fine for violating the do not call list. Greed has no bounds, certainly not privacy in your own home (that they plan to take away from you.)
The sad thing is, things didn't have to work out this way. Years ago, consumer advocates saw the crisis coming and urged state governments to put stricter regulations in place. Today's Sacramento Bee reminds us how the California legislature failed to enact reforms back in 2001. Ameriquest and others said this would make it harder for first time homeowners to buy their first abode, but it turns out that almost all of Ameriquest's loans went to existing homeowners -- many of whom the company probably knew could not make the payments and would end up losing their houses.
But rather than casting a skeptical eye toward Ameriquest's arguments, California legislators went to Hawaii on trips financed by Ameriquest. They ate $170 worth of cookies, supplied by Ameriquest lobbyists.
Common Cause has documented here and here how the mortgage industry spent millions lobbying Congress and doling out campaign contributions to try to get a federal law passed that would have pre-empted states from protecting folks like Francis Taylor. One small, but telling part of the story is how Ameriquest owner Dawn Arnall bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for president Bush's campaign and was then rewarded by being made ambassador to the Netherlands. No wonder many observers are saying that the new mortgage relief plan announced by the White House appears more aimed at bailing out the industry and preventing more sweeping reforms than at helping strapped homeowners.
The good news is that there are things we can do to make this better. Congress, to its credit, recently enacted ethics legislation to cut down on lobbyist funded trips. California legislators could do the same, but it would mean giving up those nice cookies in Hawaii.
Even more significantly, congress and the states could enact full public financing of campaigns as several states have now done. That would mean that politicians wouldn't have their hands outstretched to take campaign cash from the mortgage industry. Had they done so a decade ago, Francis Taylor might still have her house, and the house you live in might now be going down in value as the entire county's real-estate market goes down the tubes.
All too often, business groups fight political reforms that would weaken their grip on decisionmakers. But as the Ameriquest, and others like Enron who have gone before them (not to mention the whole Savings and Loan crisis -- remember that?) when greed goes unchecked by a government that looks out for the common good, we all wind up suffering.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
I could not make this up if I tried.
Yesterday, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) hosted a panel discussion among former and current elected officials in California. The topic was how to improve public confidence in the legislature. The PPIC has found in recent surveys that only 34 percent of Californians approve of the legislature's performance.
Former Senate leader John Burton said that the problem was that politicians don't really get to know each other. As reported in the Sacramento Bee, he told a story about he and another member bonded while eating diner at a lobbyist sponsored event and watching a topless dancer. These opportunities came to an end upon passage of a reform measure that prevented lobbyists from spending more than $10 per month wining and dining legislators.
"You find out your kid plays Little League baseball, you find out that your daughter's in ballet, you find out you have things in common," Burton said. "But then something called Proposition 9 came in and said nobody could buy anybody anything more than $10 per month per person."Former Governor Pete Wilson said that legislators don't get along well because they are too sober:
"It may have something to do with the fact that when John, Willie and I were all in the Assembly, there was a great deal more drinking in the Legislature,"
Former Assembly Leader Willie Brown said that the problem is with reforms that put an end to backroom deals and made government more open and accountable:
"Unfortunately, much of that is done now where everybody in the world can see," Brown said. "When Randy Collier was the chair of the Senate Finance Committee and I served as the chair of Ways and Means, we had a private arrangement of the conference committee writing the budget. ...
"Some would say reforms set in the early '70s where they started requiring open conference committees, where they started requiring recorded votes, where they started requiring a number of things that inhibits good judgment," he added. "The results were that you now had this clear and present danger out there trying to operate and produce a result where every member is trying his or her best to protect his or her relationship with his or her constituency, and the results were stalemate or gridlock."
Imagine that. Legislators are more concerned about protecting their relationships with their constituents than they are at cutting back room deals with other politicians over a drink and a cigar.
It may be true that one reason for public dissatisfaction with the California legislature (as well as Congress) is that nothing seems to get done other than partisan bickering. It might even be the case that when exposed to the glare of sunshine, legislators are less likely to cut compromises that might sell their constituents short and that this leads to more gridlock.
But the solution to gridlock is not to allow lobbyists to grease the skids for special interest legislation to flow more easily. It is to create an elections process that allows voters to remove legislators who can't get things done, rather than further insulating them.
Former Assemblymember Jim Brulte had a better idea. Wouldn't it improve the legislatures standing with the public if they gave up the self-interested task of drawing their own political districts? That would be one step toward a more functional legislature.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
This will be my final entry to Democracy's Daily Posts. After three years since founding TheRestofUs.org, I'm moving on to tackle new challenges, including writing a book titled "The Recall's Broken Promise-- How Big Money Still Runs California Politics." I'll also be consulting to democracy groups on various campaigns and raising my second daughter, who is due in 3 weeks.
Thanks for all the tips and comments that readers have generated over the years. You can contact me in the future at cressman(at)PoplarInstitute.org.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Independent Expenditures Explode
Over the past year, California has seen a tremendous increase in so-called political independent expenditures. This is where a powerful donor spends money to praise or trash a candidate with their own ads or mailings rather than giving a contribution to the candidate to spend as they wish. This rise in independent spending is in part a reaction by donors to recently implemented limits on how much they can give a candidate directly. However, some of the independent expenditures we're now seeing dwarf the amounts that donors used to give to candidates even when there were no restrictions in place.
I've been asked to testify about independent expenditures before the California Assembly Elections Committee on September 12. You can read my complete testimony here, but this is a brief overview of what I'll be saying:
The underlying concept of one person, one vote, that promises political equality and gives legitimacy to majority rule is threatened when a few donors fund massive independent expenditures. The U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government erodes when elected representatives are accountable to a relatively small number of narrow interests as opposed to the public at large. If a handful of people have a louder voice than the rest of us, then the electorate does not have the balanced information from all perspectives that it needs to make an informed decision and the goals of the First Amendment are undermined.
Some examples:
1) Independent expenditures allow a few fat cats to unduly influence election outcomes. In the 2006 primary election for governor, developer Angelo Tsakopoulos and his family contributed $8.7 million to a committee set up by the firefighters union called Californians for a Better Government. This committee then ran ads that expressly promoted Phil Angelides for governor. It is likely that this expenditure played a decisive outcome in the race.
2) Because large expenditures unduly influence elections, they also unduly influence legislation. Also in the 2006 primary election, car dealers financed an independent expenditure campaign to promote Alex Padilla for the California Senate. Mr. Padilla was running against Cindy Montanez, who as an Assemblymember had sponsored a car buyers’ bill of rights that gave consumers two days time to return used car. The car dealers thus identified Ms. Montanez as detrimental to their financial self-interest and spent at least $122,000 to promote her opponent. While the legislature may occasionally do stupid things, legislators themselves are not stupid people. Legislators are smart enough, I submit, to figure out that if they too stand up to the car dealers that they might fall victim to a large independent expenditure in a future election. Interestingly enough, as the 2006 legislative session ended Senator Torlakson gutted a bill that had previously dealt with air quality issues and replaced it with a last minute increase in vehicle document preparation fee that car dealers charge customers from $45 to $55. This favor to the car dealers is like raising the car tax by $10, only the money doesn’t even go to the state to cover public expenses but instead goes into private interests’ bank accounts.
3) Because large expenditures unduly influence elections, they can also unduly influence other government decisions. This summer, while they were negotiating a contract with Governor Schwarzenegger, the prison guards’ union publicly announced that it might spend $10 million on independent expenditures to influence the upcoming governor’s election. Governor Schwarzenegger knows that the guards’ track record of damaging Diane Feinstein and aiding Gray Davis in previous elections demonstrates that they are a powerful interest. This threat of an independent expenditure completely undermines Governor Schwarzenegger’s pledge not to accept contributions from public employee unions that he is negotiating with.
4) Because corporations can make large expenditures to unduly influence elections, they give inappropriate political advantage to citizens who organize their interests through business corporations. This spring, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce financed ads that promoted Arnold Schwarzenegger’s accomplishments as governor. Because these ads avoided the magic words of telling viewers to vote for Schwarzenegger, the Chamber did not have to disclose the funding sources, although clearly the Chamber relies heavily on contributions from business corporations. Some media reports estimate $10 million was spent. It is wholly appropriate for citizens who want to support a pro-business regulatory climate in California to make political contributions as individuals and to form political associations and organizations to pool their contributions together. But it is inappropriate for these individuals to make contributions or expenditures to influence elections using money from the corporate treasury, which comes from customers who are making an economic purchase from the corporation but who do not necessarily support the corporation’s political agenda.
Fortunately, there are several options available to California to deal with these problems of massive independent expenditures.
1) Repeal contribution limits for candidates. This non-solution tends to be a favorite approachy among many officeholders who would much prefer to have big money flowing into their own campaigns instead of independent committees who they cannot control. Even when a committee is trying to help a candidate, their message and tactics may not fit well within the overall strategy of a candidate and may in fact be counter-productive. Plus, it’s just downright uncomfortable to have other folks out there talking about you. But, some discomfort is par for the course when you offer yourself for public service. It’s a noble act to be willing to serve, but even nobler to have the confidence that voters will support you even when critics assail you through independent expenditures. Raising or eliminating contribution limits to candidates is akin to having the state start selling crystal meth at a discount in order to prevent private drug dealers from selling it. The donor influence is still there, both on election outcomes and on legislation, only it is more corrosive and less obvious.
2) Ban corporate independent expenditures. For the last century, federal law has banned corporate contributions to federal candidates. It is high time that California caught up with this basic reform. Courts have long upheld these rules. Further, in the case Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a complete ban on independent expenditures by corporations precisely because they can accumulate vast sums of wealth that bear no relation to political support for the corporations ideas. Proposition 89 on this November’s ballot would ban corporate expenditures to independent campaigns to $1000.
3) Place similar contribution limits on independent committees as exist for candidate committees. California’s current system of unlimited contributions to independent committees is an open invitation to evade the candidate contribution limits. Federal law applies a $5000 limit on contributions to a political action committee that conducts independent expenditures. Congress is currently considering legislation that would extend these limits to so-called 527 committees that promote, support, attack, or oppose candidates but currently accept unlimited individual contributions. Congress has already required these committees to disclose their donors and banned corporations from funding TV ads that attack or promote candidates near elections even if they fall short of an independent expenditure. While California is leading the country in tackling global warming and other issues, we are embarrassingly far behind the federal government and other states in dealing with this problem of independent expenditures. Prop 89 would place a $1000 limit on contributions to independent expenditure committees.
4) Provide public funds to match independent expenditures. Disclosure, contribution limits, and corporate bans would go a long way toward reducing the undue influence of big-money independent electioneering. But they would not eliminate the problem. Just as current court rulings allow a wealthy individual to spend an unlimited amount on their own candidacy; they also allow a wealthy individual to spend an unlimited amount on their own independent expenditure. So, California could prevent Angelo Tsakopoulos from making a large contribution to the firefighters’ independent committee, but it could not prevent Tsakopolous or anyone else from unlimited spending as an individual and unduly influencing election outcomes. California could make things more fair by ensuring that candidates who are targeted by massive independent expenditures can respond. This session, the Assembly wisely passed AB 583, which would have provided candidates who entered a binding system to accept no private contributions would receive a limited amount of public funds to respond to independent expenditures that attacked them or promoted their opponent. Think of it as opening a free methadone clinic next to every drug dealer. Unfortunately, the Senate did not consider the bill. Proposition 89 contains similar provisions for matching funds and offers an immediate, and workable, solution to the challenges posed to democracy of large independent expenditures.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Earlier this week, TheRestofUs.org called on ten Wisconsin legislators whose name had come up in the trial of former Wisconsin politico Scott Jensen to demand a vote on a bill to strengthen ethics and campaign finance enforcement. Unbelievably, yesterday, one of the Assembly leaders said he thinks the ethics bill is "unlikely to be brought up," because he's heard "nothing at all" about it from other members.
That seems like something that could change. Wisconsin politicians seem to think the fact that one of their own finally got caught and went to jail means that there is no problem with the current system. If Wisconsin citizens disagree, the should let their representatives know -- LOUDLY. Here's a clip from the Wisconsin Radio network with more.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Ned from TheRestofUs.org was on Capital Public Radio's Insight program yesterday along with former Senate Pro Tem John Burton, current Chair of the California Republican Party Duff Sundheim, Donna Gerber of the California Nurses Association, John Sims of McGeorge Law School, Shane Goldmacher of Capitol Weekly, and Armando Viramontes of Assembly Member Loni Hancock's office. You can listen to it here: http://www.capradio.org/programs/insight/default.aspx?showid=1826&programid=10
The group discussed two main topics of interest. First, whether or not California should adopt clean money campaign finance systems similar to what Maine and Arizona have done. Donna Gerber put in a plug for the ballot initiative that the Nurses Association has filed (with input from TheRestofUs.org) and are currently gathering signatures to qualify for the ballot. It lowers limits on what big donors can contribute to parties and PACs, bans corporations from contributing to candidates and ballot committees, and provides qualified candidates the option of giving up all private contributions in exchange for a limited amount of public campaign funds. Read more about it here: http://www.cleanmoneyelections.org/
Armando Viramontes spoke about AB 531, a legislative bill that provides the clean money option but not the measures to limit big money for all candidates and ballot measures. Due to the strong demand for reform that was created by the backlash against Arnold Schwarzenegger's fundraising for his special election last year, this clean money bill has sailed through the Assembly and has a real chance of clearing the Senate as well. If you live in California, now would be a good time to contact your state Senator to express support. The bill may head to a big committee vote as soon as next Tuesday.
Duff Sunstein was clearly invited to the show to act as the opponent, but he actually expressed support for the concept of campaign finance reform and had some interesting comments. He noted that because of the Supreme Court's ruling in 1976 called Buckley v. Valeo, big donors can still spend money to influece elections by creating their own TV ads even if they don't make contributions to candidates. He and law prof. John Sims agreed that both the Nurses initiative and the Hancock bill would be upheld by the courts, but Sunstein argued that the money would just flow out of the system. Sims said that what we really need is a constitutional amendment to overturn the wrongheaded Supreme Court ruling in Buckley.
Ned helped set the record straight by noting that the Nurses initiative included a limit on how much someone could contribute to an independent campaign to support or smear a candidate. He also reminded listeners that the Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of spending limits in a case right now, with a ruling expected by June. (read the brief submitted by TheRestofUs.org and other reform groups here.)
It's quite possible that the Supreme Court will again rule against mandatory spending limits and that future court rulings could even strike down limits on independent expenditure campaigns. If so, Duff Sunstein may be right about the need for a campaign finance amendment to the US Constitution. The rest of us should give credit to the head of the California Republican Party for his bold prediction.
John Burton, by the way, said that he hated fundraising while in office and that the only two people he knew who liked it were Gray Davis (recalled as Governor of California after voter disgust with his fundraising) and Alan Cranston (former CA Senator who left office in a cloud after being one of the Senators named in the Keating Five Scandall.)
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
We get a lot of e-mails from citizens who are fed up with a government that doesn't seem to listen. Here's one we got today that seems to put the finger of what a lot of people are feeling:
Who cares about us anymore? The gov't used to be about us, the people, now it's about themselves. They really don't care about what our feelings are about anymore. It's about what they can get and take for themselves. Look at our older people, our homeless, we still have alot of this going on here in our home towns, states and our nation and still the gov't does nothing about it. Many people are on fixed incomes, but, does the gov't care? NO! All they care about is helping other countries and themselves. They get good benefits and wages, so why bother with the little people, who put them there. They need get rid of all the OLD people that have been in the white house for too many years and put some new blood in there that care for us people. I really don't care who anymore, as long as they care for the peoples interest and not just their own.
I am sick of the different parties in gov't. They should be there just for us and our well being. We work hard for our money and we pay our taxes to pay to the gov't so they can take care of us and our homeland. But they spend so much money on going to mars and other planets that mean nothing to us. We need to put the money for our homeless and poor and those who need medical assistance (insurance). Here in the United States of America!!!!!!
How can I put my trust in our gov't, when they can't take very good care of us???
I need some answers! I have so much to say, but I don't think anyone will listen.
Mike J
Stanislaus County
Monday, April 10, 2006
State Representative Russell Pierce is pushing an amendment to basically undo most of Arizona's campaign finance laws. His idea is to increase contribution limits from around $300 to $5000, repeal public financing for candidates who refuse to take any private dollars, allow lobbyists to give candidates cash "loans" that might not be paid back, and repeal restrictions on contributions by corporations.
The House Appropriations Committee will consider this idea Tuesday afternoon at 1:30 p.m.
Readers in Arizona may want to ask the members to vote NO on the strike everything amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1013.
(For details of this 38-page measure, please click on this link www.azclean.org)
Below are the phone numbers and e-mails of the legislators on the committee.
Chairman Representative Russell Pearce Email: rpearce@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5760
Vice Chairman Lucy Mason Email: lmason@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5874
Representative Andy Biggs Email: abiggs@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-4371
Representative Tom Boone Email: tboone@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-3297
Representative Judy Burges - Email: jburges@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5861
Representative Eddie Farnsworth Email: efarnsworth@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5735
Representative Pamela Gorman Email: pgorman@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-4002
Representative Trish Groe Email: tgroe@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5408
Representative Laura Knaperek Email: lknaperek@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-4225
Representative Jerry Weiers Email: jpweiers@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5894
Representative Amanda Aguirre Email: aaguirre@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-4430
Representative Jack Brown Email: jbrown@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-4129
Representative Olivia Cajero Bedford Email: ocajerobedford@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5835
Representative David Lujan Email: dlujan@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5829
Representative Albert Tom Email: atom@azleg.gov Tel: (602) 926-5862
Monday, February 13, 2006
Ohio Governor Taft called last Friday for prohibiting gifts from lobbyists to elected officials. Taft oughta know the problems associated with this sort of thing. Last summer, he pleaded no contest to failing to report several gifts from Tom Noe, a George W Bush pioneer who had taken Taft golfing several times, which Taft failed to report.
Interestingly, Noe was indicted today on 53 counts including grand theft, forgery, money laundering, tampering with records. You gotta wonder if Taft saw this coming....
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
GOP plan: New body should draw maps IndyStar.com
Thursday, December 22, 2005
New Republic on Arnold's failed promise
Here's an interesting article that lists Schwarzenegger's excessive fundraising as a big reason for his loss of support among independent voters:
"Schwarzenegger lost important support among the state's independent voters, who now make up almost a quarter of the electorate and serve as the swing voters in state elections. According to voting analyst Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California, they are primarily white, middle-class suburbanites who are socially liberal and fiscally moderate and who fear that government and the parties have been captured by special interests. In the October 2003 exit polls, 54 percent of them favored a recall, and they backed Schwarzenegger over his nearest rival by 15 percent. But, as Schwarzenegger began touring nationally to raise money from wealthy donors for his initiatives, erstwhile supporters like Derek Cressman, director of the nonpartisan watchdog group TheRestofUs.org, expressed their disillusionment. "He told us that he would not need to take money from special interests," Cressman wrote on his organization's website last February, "Yet now he's become the Donald Trump of campaign cash--he just can't get enough." Schwarzenegger's following among independents fell accordingly. In a mid-June Field poll, only 36 percent of moderates and 35 percent of independents said they would vote for his reelection. "
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
I was sitting on my porch steps hanging out with my daughter this morning when Armand Legare walked up and handed me a business card. He's running for Congress in my district and is going door to door giving folks his campaign's website address. He asked me to take a look, and if I agreed with what he's doing to help out.
My first thought was that this guy is nuts. Doesn't he know that it takes more than a million bucks to run for congress? He can't possibly win simply by going around and talking to people.
He's running against Doris Matsui. She raised $1.7 million to win a seat previously held by her husband in a special election last fall. He was head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a key fundraising post. Her campaign website is here http://www.matsuiforcongress.com/
Legare is running on a promise to set up an internet system that informs his constituents what's going on in congress, and asks them their positions. He also stakes out where he stands on several key issues like the Iraq war, gun control, abortion, etc. He says he'll then vote the wishes of his constituents. Imagine that, a representative who sees it as his job to represent people, rather than make decisions for them.
Then it occurred to me that maybe Mr. Legare wasn't so nuts. After all, by going to both his and Doris Matsui's websites, I had enough information to know which one I preferred as a voter. I don't really feel like I need to see a lot of TV ads or slick mailings to make up my mind. Maybe campaigns shouldn't have to be about seeing who can raise $1.7 million dollars. Maybe if candidates could raise no more than say $50 from anyone, they'd all spend time walking their districts instead of schmoozing with lobbyists at fundraisers. Maybe that wouldn't be such a crazy way to elect our representatives after all.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Carol Migden is a cheater. No two ways about it. This is what happens when we have an electoral system that produces people who think that getting their way is more important than honestly representing the will of their constituents and letting the chips fall where they may.
From today's Sacramento Bee story:
"Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, pushed the voting button of a GOP assemblyman who was temporarily away from his desk.
Her action violated Assembly rules and drew an angry response from Republicans."
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Representative Chris Newton has plead guilty to accepting bribes in an FBI investigation that has rocked Tennessee politics. See the story in today's Chattanoogan.
He's announced that he'll step down from the legislature on Nov 1. Here's what he said:
"After much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to enter a plea of guilty in the case against me arising out of the 'Operation Tennessee Waltz' investigation. This has been an especially difficult decision for me. For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to be of service to the citizens of this State. Being elected to the Tennessee House of Representatives at the age of 23 was, in many ways, a dream come true.
"During my time in Nashville, I was able to help accomplish a lot of good, both for my constituents and for the people of this state generally. However, I also became caught up in business as usual in Nashville. It is time for us to acknowledge candidly that the legislative process has become saturated with money and special interests. While many in our legislature have the best interests of the people at heart, the people deserve representatives who are entirely free from the corruptive influence of money in politics.
"As I told the court, I acknowledge and recognize that I was part of the problem. I agreed to support and sponsor the E-Cycle bill, at least in part, in return for the funds that I received from Charles Love. Although I considered the money to be a contribution to my campaign, I know now that what we call the money does not matter. It was wrong to accept the money at least in part for my agreement to support the bill, and my actions today are in recognition of my role in this matter.
"I am here to take responsibility for what I have done and to do what is right for the citizens of our state. We need to begin the process of rebuilding public trust in our institutions of government, especially the Tennessee General Assembly. This process begins with me today. The public deserves the right to know that their elected officials are considering and voting for legislation with integrity, without fear or favor, and without partiality or favoritism.
"Finally, I want to acknowledge that the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have handled this investigation with the utmost professionalism. The people can rest assured that I stand willing to be of whatever assistance I can be to help restore the trust of the public in its government."
