Written by: CCGA Board Member, Terry Taylor

My happy weekend mood took a nosedive when I looked at the front page of the Atlanta Journal Constitution on Saturday, May 11. Here are the titles for three out of the four stories on that page:

• Confidence shattered in VA
• Libya talking points altered – senior officials wanted no mention of terrorists, their emails indicate
• IRS says it’s sorry it targeted tea party

The ongoing Veterans Administration story alone is alarming. VA executives have been receiving bonuses – that’s right, bonuses – for performance universally recognized as breathtakingly wretched. Only now in the midst of public outrage are some of these bonuses being withheld.

These problems at the VA must be a budget thing, where a blackguard Congress has held back critical dollars, right? However, according to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, that’s not correct. In a March 24 interview on CNN, he noted that the VA budget is up 40% over pre-Obama levels, and he went out of his way to stress that the backlog is not a resource or person-power issue. That’s what he said, so let’s take him at his word.

The Libya mess and denials of political machinations behind what we were told is increasingly disturbing. I initially accepted the fog-of-war explanations, and I sincerely felt the GOP was stirring the muck. Now I don’t, and there is more than a hint that politics influenced what were we told while a campaign was going on.

And the tea-party targeting by the IRS? The disclosure came on Friday, May 10 by Lois Lerner. Never heard of her? I’m not surprised – she is an obscure IRS bureaucrat. Friday, of course, is the day you make announcements you want buried.

Complaints surfaced in early 2012. When the question was put to the IRS, the agency denied it. At a House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing in March 2012, Commissioner Douglas Shulman said, “There’s absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people if they want to get tax-exempt status.” Oops – maybe he meant the exact opposite of what he said. That happens sometimes. Ms. Lerner became aware of what was going in June 2011, and perhaps knew as early as 2010. Maybe she chose not to bring this up to her boss.

Schulman’s successor was told of the targeting in May 2012. But he did not correct the answer his predecessor had given, and he had ample opportunity to do so when individual members of Congress asked him about it.

It’s purely coincidental that this enhanced scrutiny of tea-party organizations took place in the run-up to a presidential election. And it’s especially coincidental that swing-state Ohio was one of the states especially affected.

But this was just the office in Cincinnati, and IRS management can’t expect to know what backwater-town underlings do, correct? Just some crazy kids in Ohio having fun. Unfortunately, the IRS has centralized much of the tax-exempt work in Cincinnati, so this is where the special oversight is done. They are the IRS experts in the tax-exempt area. Oops again.

Just follow the stream of messaging:

• It’s just an administrative goof.
• A few low-level cowboys in a regional office did this on their own.
• IRS management was not aware of this.
• No one in Washington was aware of this, either.

At every step along the way, there were attempts to low-key the issue. Each time the attempt blew up, only to be followed by a new explanation that sought to downplay the abuses. And each one of these blew up, too.

President Obama just became aware of all this on Friday. Hopefully he got a heads-up a few minutes before Ms. Lerner made the announcement, and he is outraged. Perhaps he should be outraged that no one mentioned it to him until the day everyone in the world became aware of the abuses.

But don’t worry. Someone will be thrown under the bus. And they’ll probably live in the city with the 513 area code, not 202.

After getting through these lovely confidence-in-government stories, I turned to the AJC’s Metro section. There I found the banner story about how the Dekalb School System found money that could have been used to avert massive budget cuts. The school system now expects to have a surplus, with an additional $26.7 million in projected revenue.

It wasn’t one mistake that caused the budget snafu. Several important revenue areas had been overlooked or were just plain fouled up. The chief financial officer resigned on the day of the announcement of the found money, although the Dekalb School System said – with a straight face – that the two events weren’t related. That’s a good way to get your credibility back, Dekalb. Way to stay classy.

I believe that government can do good in this world, and there are things only it can do that lifts us all. I also believe that government can screw up, be inefficient, and do massive damage. This is especially likely when it is not watched closely and held accountable. It’s difficult when the party in power is the one to which we belong – we have a tendency to cut it some slack and accept carefully – prepared partisan talking points designed to dismiss criticisms. But we shouldn’t.

We need to be relentless in demanding that our government be responsible, accountable and efficient, no matter who walks in the halls of power. It starts in our own parties, if we belong to one. Instead of accepting the politician’s talking points, we need to push back and tell them we want real answers, not brainless pablum. And when we’re wrong, we’re wrong.

Written by: CCGA Board Member, Terry Taylor

Having been in banking and investment management all of my career, I was drawn to the May 8, 2013 Wall Street Journal story titled “Big Banks Push Back Against Tighter Rules.” The article notes that these banks have hired “longtime, influential Washington hands to deflect regulatory and political pressure to strengthen their finances and to sell assets.” Then it mentioned that Stephanie Cutter, a deputy campaign manager for Obama in the 2012 election, was hired as a consultant by Bank America to provide “strategic advice,” including how to avoid government efforts to break up big banks.

This is the same Stephanie Cutter who said in a PBS Newshour interview last September, “It wasn’t always politically popular, but it was the right thing to do, from saving the auto industry, or beating back fierce lobbying by the big banks and Wall Street to pass Wall Street reform.”

I guess she’s now not so worried about doing the right thing to beat back fierce lobbying by the big banks. A check is involved, you see.

But maybe I’m being too harsh. I’m sure Ms. Cutter’s consulting firm has established itself in the business community and has a rich history of success. Alas, her freelance consulting business was introduced to the world on May 2 – a whole 6 days before the story appeared.

There are worse things, for sure. If it were an isolated event, not a big deal. But there’s much more, as the article titled “Get Rich or Deny Trying – how to get rich off Obama” by Noam Scheiber, April 15, 2013 in New Republic, a self-labeled liberal magazine.

One of my favorites is campaign guru David Plouffe, who “has made hundreds of thousands of dollars advising corporate clients like Boeing and G.E., and he once gave a speech in Azerbaijan underwritten by a group closely aligned with the country’s dictator.” And then you have Obama fundraiser Robert Wolf, who has started a firm that, among other things, helps companies secure government financing. Among his Obama hires: Kevin Varney, the former head of the Export-Import Bank, which is one of the agencies from which clients will seek (ahem) “assistance.”

To be clear, the GOP has nothing to brag about either. But that party isn’t in the White House now. And this administration drenched itself in sanctimonious ooze about how things were going to be different. So far, they aren’t.

No one – whether Democrat, Republican or Whig – should get a free pass just because it places itself on a “We will be different” pedestal. There is no party of truth and beauty, and let’s never assume there ever will be.

For those of us who bought into the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” thing and are now disappointed, I’ll quote a line from another movie, a classic in a different genre:

“You screwed up. You trusted us.”- Animal House, 1978

It’s our job to watch our government closely, call them out and make them accountable – regardless of party.

This is a recent blog posted by Bill Kraus – Chair of Common Cause Wisconsin since 1995 and Common Cause National Governing Board Member from 2003 to 2007.

Bob Edgar (1943-2013)
Late President of Common Cause

Due to the unhappy, unexpected, too early demise of Common Cause’s national president Bob Edgar, there is a job opening in Washington DC that may be of interest.

Common Cause was founded many decades ago by a Democratic president’s cabinet member who happened to be a Republican. He, like everyone who has ever served in any government anywhere, was acutely aware of the fact that these governments are mostly of, by, and for the interest groups large and small, worthy and less so, powerful and not to whom those we elect are too often beholden.

When he formed Common Cause, he said that the only interest not actively represent in this special interest free for all was the general interest, the people, those who want a government that works for all more than an advantage for any or many of the special interests which may or may not be advantageous for the country. He figured Common Cause would correct this oversight.

Over the years Common Cause has become an institution with its own history and image in Washington and in several but much less than many states.

It differs from other interest organizations in several ways which anyone who is thinking about applying for its top job must consider.

First the good news. Under Bob Edgar’s leadership the organization itself has been rebuilt. It has enough money to run at a viable speed. It has a responsible, reputable board, an excellent staff, and an impossible assignment. Maybe that isn’t really good news, but it needs to be mentioned.

So it’s leader has to be good at the things Bob excelled at, and has to face a few immutable facts. The people whose hands are on the levers of power are mostly annoyed by Common Cause. Nobody likes a nagger. Common Cause nags.

At its best Common Cause nags about things that others ignore or don’t know exist. Things that make our fragile democracy work. The process itself. This makes Common Cause essential. And ineffective.

On the Common Cause shortlist are things like openness and transparency, the extraordinary influence of money in elections, the distortions that assault the elective process like gerrymandering and voting rights and rules.

If any candidate ran on these ideas and issues, he or she probably lost, which is why no candidate who won did.

There is no good government caucus in any legislature that I know of, certainly not in Washington or Madison.

What Bob Edgar knew he had to do next, having cleared the debris from the train wreck he inherited when he took the Common Cause job, was get the process issues on the short agenda of those in power.

What his successor will have to deal with is a very large membership which is composed mostly of old lefties. They dutifully pay their dues. They just as dutifully do not go much beyond doing that. They do not join the organization to be part of a movement. They join the organization so its staff will do the grunt work of pushing, persuading, threatening, and promising that they do not want to do or are no longer able to do.

The other thing Bob’s successor will have to do, and which Bob was in the very early stages of starting to do, is deal with the image that everyone else in and out of power has of the organization.

To put it bluntly Common Cause is regarded as a lapdog of the left. This accounts for the aversion the right has for the organization’s work no matter how worthy. The unhappy other side of the power coin is that when the left wins the majority and stands up to exercise it, the lapdog falls to the floor.

The work of Common Cause, which is widely admired, draws little wind from the recalcitrant Republicans and the duplicitous Democrats who alternatively have the power to do what Common Cause and the unorganized people say they want.

If you want the job or want to nominate someone who wants the job, make sure he or she knows how to keep the money flowing to keep the organization afloat and can take the giant step of de-partisanizing its image so it can become a first step toward putting the people, and their general interest, back into the game.

This, after all, is why Common Cause exists.

Give to the Bob Edgar Legacy Fund

Although HB 142 does rectify some issues with the ethics laws in Georgia. There are several loopholes that keep the bill from achieving it’s true purpose: ending unlimited giving from lobbyists to legislators.

1. Lobbyists can split tickets with other lobbyists as long as each only spends $75. (P. 2, Sec. 2, Sub. B.1, Line 42)
2. Lobbyists can give the same legislator multiple $75 gifts in one day. (P. 2, Sec. 2, Sub. B.1, Line 42)
3. Lawyers don’t have to register as lobbyists or disclose their spending as long as they are “representing a client.” (P. 10, Sec. 5, Sub. I 4, Line 321)
4. There is no cap on spending at functions that are open to an entire committee, caucus, or the whole General Assembly. (P. 3, Sec. 2, Sub. D, Line 73)
5. It is not clear how many cap-exempt group functions a committee can have per year. (P. 3, Sec. 2, Sub. D, Line 73)
6. There are no restrictions on travel spending as long as it’s in the US and related to “official duties.” (P. 3, Sec. 2, Sub. F, Line 90)
7. Businesses can give legislators upgrades on things like hotels and flights without disclosing or adhering to the $75 cap. (P. 3, Sec. 2, Sub. C, Line 69)
8. Legislators only have to reimburse lobbyists for sports, concert, and recreational tickets if the face value is over $75. (P.2, Sec. 2, Sub. C, Line 47)
9. The law does not go into effect until January 1, 2014 unlike most bills which will be effective July 1, 2013 or upon the Governors signature. (P. 14, Sec. 9, Line 466)

House Majority Leader angrily replies to watchdog’s request for meaningful reform 

According to the State Integrity Investigation, a nationwide comparison of state’s ethics laws and corruption potential, Georgia ranks 50th – worst in the nation.

Believe it or not, there is a good possibility that the Atlanta City Council may vote on the proposed new stadium on Monday. If true, to call such a fast-track vote irresponsible would be a vast understatement. The two inch-thick plan they were just given Wednesday evening is still in draft form. The exact site for the stadium has not even been selected. Worst of all, the myth that only $200 million of public money is being used for the project, has seemingly saturated the minds of the public due to media reports that have not dug deep enough.

The number, good ladies and gentlemen of the pess and public (as well as Mr. Mayor, Falcons ownership and management, Good Governor and Georgia World Congress Center Management) is not $200 million, let’s try $880 million, and growing!

That’s right, according to this law, 39.3% of the hotel/motel tax collected through the year 2050 must go to the Georgia World Congress Center Authority specifically for the Georgia Dome or its successor facility. According to this document, 39.3% of the projected hotel/motel tax collected through 2050 will be $882,564,382.

How can it be claimed that only $200 million of public money will be used for the Falcons’ new home? Outright deception! And unfortunately, many seem to have fallen for it. Thankfully Tim Tucker of the AJC reported it late this week, unfortunately, it competed with the headlines for the new Pope, so I think most people missed it. The story is attached here – sadly, it is not available online.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Falcons owner Arthur Blank, Governor Deal and assorted officials with the Georgia Dome triumphantly proclaimed a ‘compromise’ last week about spending public money on the private business that is the Falcons’ proposed new football stadium.

“The public contribution for stadium construction is capped at $200 million, which would come from the hotel-motel tax collected by the city of Atlanta almost exclusively (more than 85 percent) from visitors and tourists, not residents of the City of Atlanta,” said the mayor’s office in a media release preceding the press conference.

Notice the carefully crafted phrase “for stadium construction is capped at”. So they are telling the truth that “construction cost” will be capped at $200 million, but they are deceiving you by not pointing out what’s in the rest of their summary (see below). Because the current law (which can be changed) requires all of that 39.3% to go to the project, beyond the $200 million for construction, there are five other accounts the hotel/motel money will flow in to – until all $882m is collected for the new stadium.

So, sure. The city will use ‘only’ $200 million of scarce public money for construction of a facility to benefit the Falcons. Up front. But another $680 million will ultimately go to the stadium for largely the same purposes – improving Arthur Blank’s equity value in the Falcons franchise.

Looking at it strictly from the perspective of public money spent on the stadium, nothing has changed … except that they’ve managed to get the media to start using the number $200 million instead of $300+ million in their news stories. Here is just a sampling…

“All except the $200 million in public money would be paid by the Falcons, the NFL and personal seat license sales,” reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on March 8.

“Mayor Kasim Reed said the city would provide $200 million of construction costs through bonds backed by the city’s hotel-motel tax. The Falcons franchise, owned by Home Depot co-founder Blank, would provide $800 million and be responsible for construction cost overruns,” the AP reported for ESPN on March 8.

“Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and the National Football League’s Falcons agreed on terms for financing a $1 billion, retractable-roof stadium downtown with a public contribution capped at $200 million,” wrote Bloomberg’s Aaron Kuriloff on March 7.

Let’s dig further and talk about more public money…

Reed and the Falcons have spoken with specificity about the additional money to be spent on community redevelopment associated with a new stadium, like $30 million in public and private funds in the English Avenue, Vine City and Castleberry Hill area – half of which is coming from an existing tax district’s proceeds – that’s another $15 million of public money.

Now let’s talk infrastructure – the proponents have been quite vague about how much money will ultimately be necessary on infrastructure improvements. In fact, the Mayor has said we won’t know until the deal is done – what?!? Would you hand over the keys to your car to a mechanic that says “I can’t tell you how much the bill will be until after I fix it, and in fact, I can’t even give you an estimate until you sign the dotted line”? And we are not talking about my 2008 Saturn – this is infrastructure related to a billion dollar building.

Sure, the Falcons have agreed to cover the first $50 million of infrastructure needs, but given the unknown amount of this cost, how do we know if this is just a drop in the bucket, or an amount deserving of praise? The Mayor has even said the infrastructure cost could be as high as $200 million.

Also lost in this conversation – the state government is essentially giving up about $24 million in land for the stadium, and may be giving up $50 million in sales tax rebates as well.

So, no. The number is not $200 million. We’re getting pretty darn close to a one billion dollar public investment. Let’s recap the public money for a new stadium:

$882,564,382 in hotel/motel tax proceeds,
$50 million from the state in sales tax rebates,
$24 million for the land on state-owned property, and,
$15 million from Invest Atlanta for community development.

That’s $971 million, and that total does not even include any infrastructure costs over the $50 million that the Falcons have committed for roads, sidewalks or moving the MLK Jr Drive bridge (as it was revealed this week that is a must-do for the preferred site). Yes, moving a bridge – that can’t be cheap!

The public deserves a better explanation of what we would pay for under this “deal”. Only a referendum will force the truth out – call your members of the Atlanta City Council and tell them to let the people decide! And, ask them to vote no if there is a vote held on the Mayor’s proposal on Monday.

And please friends – don’t allow yourselves to be duped by the $200 million claim – it’s just plain deceptive!

Photo by: Hyosub Shin of the AJC

At some point, a conversation we were never allowed to hear, took place between Arthur  Blank and Atlanta’s Mayor, Kasim Reed. A few other conversations we never heard took place between Reed and some city council members.

Other quiet conversations – between Reed and state legislators, Reed’s staff and the Governor’s office, city council people and construction contractors, state legislators and stadium marketers – lead to this: an announcement. A pronouncement. A done deal. A “compromise,” in the sense that appearing to use slightly somewhat fewer millions in public money is a compromise when the public would prefer an amount of zero.

They have decided. But we have not.

The public deserves a referendum on stadium spending.

The voice of the citizen has gone unheard in these quiet conversations. The appropriate volume for discussion about spending more than $350 million in public funds on a sports stadium, while vital public services go underfunded, should be intensely loud – rock concert loud – instead of the librarian’s shhhh. Everyone’s voice should count equally in this decision, not just the backroom deal makers, because the public’s money and interest is deeply at stake.

Make no mistake; there will be more than $350 million in public spending on a new stadium if the deal as presented is adopted. A simple analysis by long-time Atlanta business writer Maria Saporta lays out how it was structured in the last agreement with the state, and it still remains in the current deal, as you can see here. All the money collected for the dedicated percentage of the hotel/motel tax will go to funding the stadium, this amount is NOT capped. Here’s Saporta’s report.

“Now here is where it gets interesting. Under the GWCCA-Falcons agreement, if the hotel-motel tax generated more than the estimated $300 million, the excess taxes would go into a ‘waterfall’ fund that would go to pay for other debt on the project, or go into a refurbishment and maintenance reserve account, or go into a fund for capital improvements.

“So whether the state provides $200 million or $300 million in bonding capacity, the amount of hotel-motel taxes collected remains the same. In other words, it does not mean that over the life of the project the Atlanta Falcons would be putting in another $100 million into the stadium project. All surplus hotel-motel taxes would still be invested in the stadium development.”

This is on top of the $50 in sales tax breaks the state will give to the construction companies, and the yet to be determined infrastructure costs for roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc. surrounding the project – which could come at the expense of Atlanta taxpayers, but more on that later.

Blank, Reed and Deal are displaying an old-school negotiating ploy. They’re counting on the public to accept the anchoring effect of a high initial number – $300 million in public funding. It’s a strategy. When then presented with a number one-third lower, people are more likely to view it as a fair compromise without examining the details very closely … or aggressively questioning whether any public money should be spent at all. The team then perversely gets to present itself as the heroic defenders of the public purse.

Now back to infrastructure – there are still key questions to be answered about the $50 million Blank has offered for infrastructure improvements. the first question being – is it enough? Reed has even said he can’t answer that until the deal is done! Some have said infrastructure costs could be as high a $250 million.

This – THIS – is why a referendum on agreements like this is so vital. Only then will backroom dealmakers like this have to make their case fairly to the people. So we say – let the people decide!

House Speaker David Ralston talks about his ethics reform bills Thursday at the Capitol in Atlanta. Photo by: Jason Getz, jgetz@ajc.com

I get accused of not praising the steps the House Leadership has taken toward ethics reform. While I have praised them for offering to restore the rulemaking authority for what use to be known as the State Ethics Commission, requiring disclosure of pre-session campaign contributions, and relieving local elected officials who do not raise any campaign funds of over-burdensome disclosure reporting, such praise falls on deaf ears.

I’m not surprised – such praise likely gets drowned out by the shock-induced noise from those who expected real reform when the Speaker promised a “full ban“. If you actually read all of HB 142 and 143 (not the spin summary produced by leadership), you have to ask, how can they expect praise?  In HB 142, they offer a bill that would still allow most of the Speaker’s $17,000 trip to Europe to remain a possibility. In case you forgot, in November 2010, the Speaker, his wife and kids, his Chief of Staff and his Chief of Staff’s wife went of a $17,000 lobbyist funded junket to Europe to see the impacts of high-speed rail on communities in Germany and the Netherlands (and no legislation, or even a report on the findings of this trip has ever emerged). That trip outraged many (including members of the Speaker’s own caucus, though they will never admit it publically), and served as the inspiration for calls to end Georgia’s status as one of only three states in the nation that allows for completely unlimited spending by lobbyists on gifts to legislators.

The Speaker speaks highly of his bill. And to his credit, it does come down harsh on spending on individual legislators by instituting a lobbyist gift ban on the day-to-day peddling of lobbyist influence. Yet it falls short because of the exceptions it would allow for big ticket items. Deep pocketed lobbyists need only to invite a subcommittee out for dinner or Falcons game, and the ban is lifted. Need a speaker for a convention on Sea Island? Invite a legislator to be the keynote and they can bring their family and their staff for an all expense paid trip. Does that sound like what 1.2 million voters wanted when they voted for limiting such gifts this summer? I think not.

As a case study, let’s examine the Speaker’s junket.  His bill supposedly shuts down trips to Europe by not allowing lobbyists to pay for airfare for public officers, spouses or staff members.  But hey, with almost $403,000 cash on hand in your campaign account, as Speaker Ralston currently has, what’s a little airfare?

So airfare for three people is out, but in are such unlimited expenses as ground transportation, accommodations, food and beverage for all parties on the trip (with the exception of the public officer’s spouse, only the spouse’s food and beverage can be paid for, remember, this is tough reform). A quick search on Delta.com shows a round trip from Atlanta to Frankfurt during Thanksgiving week is $1.265.10 (remember, you wouldn’t want the Speaker to be away from his family during Thanksgiving).

Under the Speaker’s bill, his lobbyist couldn’t pay for the Speaker’s airfare, or that of his wife or his Chief of Staff. But, the lobbyist could still fund the cost of airfare for both kids, and the Chief of Staff’s wife. So from Chris Brady’s lobbyist disclosure report totaling $17,279.97 for the Speaker’s trip, let’s subtract $1,265.10 x 3, or $3,795.30 from the total (because we now are applying the Speaker’s “gift ban” legislation to this trip). Given the bill still allows Mr. Brady to pay for the Speaker’s children’s airfare, as well as his Chief of Staff’s wife’s airfare, as well as everyone’s train tickets, accommodations and food and beverages during the junket, this tough legislation has turned that $17,279.97 lobbyist gift into a $13,484.67 gift. All hail ethics reform!

I started out my job with Common Cause Georgia two years ago as an optimist. I’m still optimistic, but have learned that we fight for ethics reform by feet and inches instead of yards and miles. So, I suppose that a “gift ban” that prevents lobbyists from paying for transcontinental flights might be considered a start. But we deserve better. And surely the 1.2 million Georgia voters who supported limiting lobbyist gifts this summer expected more than what HB 142 offers.

This is why Common Cause Georgia has tracked the lobbyist paid travel expenditures of members of the legislature during 2012. This weekend, we sent a letter to every member of the House detailing our findings. The result – in 2012, lobbyists only paid for 44 House members to travel to conferences or trips for other “official duties”. The average cost for these 44 members was $1,337.14.  If you averaged that for all House members, it totals about $300 per member.  So why would the Speaker allow for lobbyist paid travel to remain completely unlimited when there is no reason to do so? Could a trip to Europe on the Queen Mary II be planned? Probably not, but why leave open the possibility? We’re asking the House leadership to amend their bill and set reasonable limits on the unlimited lobbyist spending the bill currently allows. See a copy of the letter we have send them here.

“More of a sun visor than a cap,” is how Georgia House Speaker David Ralston described the Senate’s Rule limiting gifts from lobbyists to $100. He is so critical because of the exceptions the rule allows. He pledged to write something stronger; to enact “real change.”

Well, yesterday we witnessed round two from the House Subcommittee on Ethics, which voted on substitute language for Ralston’s ethics bill after public outcry about some of its weaknesses forced them to knock it off the fast-track.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some things to applaud in the bill. For example, the ethics commission’s rule-making ability would be restored, disclosure would be improved around campaign money raised just before the start of a legislative session, and lobbyist registration fees would be lowered from $300 to $25.

But overall, the bill – HB 142 (the original is here - http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/128952.pdf - the updated language is yet to be posted) – still continues the 1^st Amendment tax on citizens who want to speak to members of the legislature beyond their directly elected members (they do allow you to do so 5 times a year, but on the 6th day, you must register!). Sure, they lowered their proposed tax, but it is still a tax on free speech.  And, I don’t think that will be the most chilling effect on citizen participation. How’s this?  If you are paid nothing, spend nothing on gifts to legislators, but want to go to the Capitol more than 5 days a year and are forced to register, you could receive multiple fines as high as $10,000 per violation.  Who wouldn’t that scare?

“Reimbursement or payment of actual and reasonable expenses provided to a public officer for such public officer’s individual transportation, travel, lodging, registration, food, and beverages for attending meetings that directly relate to the official duties of that public officer or the office of that public officer.”

This week Mayor Kasim Reed reportedly indicated to members of the Atlanta City Council that Arthur Blank implied that the Atlanta Falcons might consider a move to Los Angeles. If Arthur Blank or the Falcons are using a whispered threat of a move to Los Angeles as leverage in its negotiations seeking public money for its private gain … well, they have company.

The Carolina Panthers want Charlotte to help  with their $250 million renovation project of Bank of America Stadium. The Panthers are looking for $187 million in public subsidies for their privately-owned stadium, in return for a 10-year promise to stay in town. And the same rumors of a possible move to Los Angeles swirl around the state house in Raleigh. The Panthers own their stadium outright; no lease means no obligation to stay.

The Panthers negotiation highlights one of the central truths of the NFL and publicly-funded stadiums: the league would be mad to let a team move to Los Angeles any time soon. Minneapolis and Buffalo are under similar pressure, with a similar gesture toward the west coast hanging in the air. A relocation threat has pried open public coffers around the country for almost two decades.

The Bills, the Panthers, the Vikings and the Falcons couldn’t all move to Los Angeles, all at the same time. City and state leaders might do well before sitting at the negotiating table by asking a question: if the threat of a move to L.A. really were credible, why has it been 18 years since anyone has had a football team there?

In light of this, Common Cause Georgia sent a letter today to Arthur M. Blank, owner of the Atlanta Falcons. We congratulated him, and the team, for a superb season.

We also reiterated our opposition on the use of public funds for the construction of a new stadium while negotiations remain as shielded from public input and transparency as they stand today. We also asked Mr. Blank to make an unequivocal statement of commitment to remain in the city as an act of negotiating in good faith.

“We think it fair to say that all of this investment of time and resources related to the issues surrounding a possible new stadium is predicated on the understanding that the Falcons are committed to Atlanta and Georgia, and to remaining here for decades to come,” the letter states. “If, in fact, however, there is no such commitment, fairness dictates that that lack of commitment be openly declared, so that all parties, public and private, interested in the stadium issues may be dealing in just that – facts.”

What say you Mr. Blank?