Comments on: RivPE: Biane trip in 2008 is subject of referral to Fair Political Practices Commission http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/20/rivpe-biane-trip-in-2008-is-subject-of-referral-to-fair-political-practices-commission/ Politics, Government and Business in Southern California's Inland Empire Thu, 17 May 2012 21:50:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: AntiCorruptionUnithttp://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/20/rivpe-biane-trip-in-2008-is-subject-of-referral-to-fair-political-practices-commission/comment-page-1/#comment-202 AntiCorruptionUnit Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:51:11 +0000 http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/?p=1732#comment-202 Oh they play with the letter of the law all the time, in fact the County loves too tweak the law when it's to their advantage and ignore it when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The County loves to play scrabble. Oh they play with the letter of the law all the time, in fact the County loves too tweak the law when it’s to their advantage and ignore it when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

The County loves to play scrabble.

]]> By: Steve Browhttp://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2010/01/20/rivpe-biane-trip-in-2008-is-subject-of-referral-to-fair-political-practices-commission/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Steve Brow Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:03:49 +0000 http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/?p=1732#comment-197 This all revolves around disclosure laws. The pupose of disclosure laws is to allow the public to know who cares enough about the politicos to give x amount to each candidate and to allow the voter the discretion of choosing not only the candidate, but the bedfellows. While the proponents of these laws attempt to write the letter of the law to fulfil the grander purpose, some politicos attempt to figure out how little information they can give towards the purpose of the law while still following the letter of the law. If Biane respects the voters and respects the purpose of the law, it is not enough to say that he went to Virginia to meet with donors. He needs to explain who these donors were and why he needed to go all the way to Virginia to meet them if his political interests were limited to San Bernardino County. This may not be required by the letter of the law as currently written, but then, why play scrabble with this issue? Vain imagination might lead one to speculate that the donors he was meeting were Crebs and Richards themselves. If so, then he would have had to meet with them to arrange the trip to Virginia and going to Virginia would not be necessary to meet with them. In fact, the trip would seem like the very type of perk from donors that would be required to be reported to the voters. But that is just vain imagination. More likely there were donors who courtesy demanded that Biane meet and which could only be accomplished by going to Virginia on a trip arranged with Crebs and Richards and with the costs fronted by them to be re-imbursed later. All that Paul Biane needs to do to show that he is in agreement with the spirit of the law and not trying to hide behind the letter of the law is to simply explain to his voters who these donors were that he was going to meet and why going to Virginia was politically manditory. Can anyone tell me where my logic is wrong? Paul? Can I call you Paul? This all revolves around disclosure laws. The pupose of disclosure laws is to allow the public to know who cares enough about the politicos to give x amount to each candidate and to allow the voter the discretion of choosing not only the candidate, but the bedfellows.

While the proponents of these laws attempt to write the letter of the law to fulfil the grander purpose, some politicos attempt to figure out how little information they can give towards the purpose of the law while still following the letter of the law.

If Biane respects the voters and respects the purpose of the law, it is not enough to say that he went to Virginia to meet with donors. He needs to explain who these donors were and why he needed to go all the way to Virginia to meet them if his political interests were limited to San Bernardino County.

This may not be required by the letter of the law as currently written, but then, why play scrabble with this issue?

Vain imagination might lead one to speculate that the donors he was meeting were Crebs and Richards themselves. If so, then he would have had to meet with them to arrange the trip to Virginia and going to Virginia would not be necessary to meet with them. In fact, the trip would seem like the very type of perk from donors that would be required to be reported to the voters.

But that is just vain imagination. More likely there were donors who courtesy demanded that Biane meet and which could only be accomplished by going to Virginia on a trip arranged with Crebs and Richards and with the costs fronted by them to be re-imbursed later.

All that Paul Biane needs to do to show that he is in agreement with the spirit of the law and not trying to hide behind the letter of the law is to simply explain to his voters who these donors were that he was going to meet and why going to Virginia was politically manditory.

Can anyone tell me where my logic is wrong?

Paul?

Can I call you Paul?

]]>