Penalty Killer

Conor Foley has been a humanitarian aid worker in over a dozen conflict zones, including Kosovo, Afghanistan and northern Uganda. His latest book traces the development of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and how it’s been used to justify the use of force by powerful states. It’s called The Thin Blue Line: How Humanitarianism Went to War.

As the Senate prepares to vote on the $800 billion stimulus and recovery package, President Obama urged Congress to pass the bill Monday, first at a town hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana and later at the first news conference of his presidency. He warned that not acting immediately to rescue the economy could lead to a “catastrophe” and emphasized that only the government could bail out the economy at this moment.

California's business owners now have easy access to solutions made available by the Franchise Tax Board in response to errors made when trying to fulfill their California tax obligations. Here's a partial list of how business owners in the counties of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Orange and Ventura - and throughout the rest of California - can make unintended mistakes that delay processing those tax returns:

Incorrect math calculations, or incomplete or missing documents

Return account periods overlap

Omitting or using incorrect entity identification numbers

Incomplete entity name

One lump sum payment sent for multiple entities, or multiple payments sent in the same package/envelope

Incorrect payment amount claimed

Multiple tax returns filed for the same account period

Amended returns not clearly identified as amended

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) filing incorrect forms

Using an incorrect form for the tax year account period indicated on the return

Every now and again, someone introduces a bill in the Kansas Legislature that has even old-timers scratching their heads, wondering just what it does and why it might be a good idea—at least to the person who introduced it.

It happened last week, with a relatively simple little bill that just took a new direction on an old topic.

The bill, by Rep. Scott Schwab, R-Olathe, but introduced through a committee so that except to insiders, there was no DNA on it, was too simple.

It just requires vendors to the state who bid on contracts of at least $5,000 to register as lobbyists. Just like the lobbyists who promote industries, lifestyles, food products…just like the folks you see in the Statehouse hallways with their little and relatively indecipherable name badges.

Now, why would Schwab want someone who, say, contracts to mow rights of way or paint a state building or get the contract to provide copiers in the Statehouse to register as a lobbyist?

Schwab says to a point, we’re all over-thinking this one.

By registering as lobbyists the bidders on state contracts have to report to the Secretary of State any money, any food or drink or entertainment that they spend with a state officer.

Maybe there’s a trick here: the lobbyist registration costs $50 if the lobbyist (contractor or bidder on a state contract, in Schwab’s world) intends to spend less than $100 on some state employee, but $375 if the lobbyist intends to spend more than $1,000 a year in pursuit of contracts. Maybe the amount the contractors or vendors would tell us something about just how serious the vendor is about getting a state contract.  

Schwab says, and he’s right, that now, the lobbyist laws are the only way to make vendors with the state—or nearly anyone with a financial interest in anything the state does—report any expenditure on behalf of their effort to get a contract.

But, while the additional lobbyist fees would be a good deal for the state’s revenues, and a new cost to folks who want to sell things to the state or provide services to the state—you gotta wonder whether there’s a real need for this little enterprise.

Schwab says he doesn’t know. But the registration would give Kansans a peek into the complicated business of doing business with the state.

There doesn’t appear to be a big problem, or frankly any problem with contractors bribing state officials to get contracts, or to pad those contracts. Maybe there is, and we just don’t know it, or maybe there isn’t because the state has some relatively good “whistle blower” law that encourages state employees to tell people in authority about what they believe to be unethical business going on with the state.

Notice any new roads that are narrower than the contract called for? Or any offices with one coat of paint instead of two, or a mid-management state employee with some link to purchasing services showing up in a new Buick lately?

Not sure whether this little experiment will get passed into law, or whether we’ll find anything new about state contracting. But, at least the vendors would get those little badges that they can wear around and that maybe their kids can take to show and tell day at school…

I might have missed this incredible exclusive by Michael Bérubé as he interviewed the new Republican head of the RNC if he hadn't left me a comment. I sure don't want you to miss it because it effectively shows how the Republicans plan to beat Obama and the Democrats. It's definitely too bad that it seems to be working so well.

MS: Oh, definitely! It’s what the people want. Look. This is a real crisis for America. The liberal elites of the Democrat party want to bring in a bunch of “experts” who “know stuff” and are going to try to “fix things.” If they succeed, we’re basically done. Kaput. We’ve built this party on a firm foundation: mocking Obama for telling people to keep their tires inflated, giving creationists and flat-earthers control over U.S. science policy, and reminding hardworking men and women that Al Gore is fat. Hey, we’ve even got Joe the Plumber working as a war correspondent, political analyst, and economic advisor. We can’t have voters turning to knowledgeable people in times like these—we’ve got to win back the hearts and minds of Americans, and make them willing to believe, once again, that Sarah Palin knows more about energy than anyone in the United States; that Rush Limbaugh should have control over 46 percent of the federal budget; and that we had to fight the terrorists over there so as not to fight them over here. And that’s what we’ll be trying to do.

There may be a test coming up in the Kansas House for just how serious lawmakers are about protecting the vulnerable from sexual exploitation.

Kansas lawmakers have recognized for years that there are people who, because of their positions of authority, can exert undue, unfair and abusive influence over others just because of their jobs.

And, it’s not hard to figure out why it makes sense for the government to heavily circumscribe that influence when it comes to sexual relations.

Think of law enforcement officers, prison guards, parole officers, schoolteachers. Those are people with power over others because of their positions. And…those are government jobs, which adds yet another facet to the specter of power that those people can misuse in ways that we don’t like to think about.

That misuse of authority, when proven, becomes the crime of unlawful sexual relations, and it’s an admittedly low-level felony, but it is a career-ruiner.  Just as most of us, we hope, would like it to be.

But this session, the Kansas House has before it, or at least in a committee, a bill that would for the first time extend the provisions of that law to people who have influence  but absolutely no link to government.

The new group? Members of the clergy.

Hmmm…

Suddenly, the law that is so simple and straight-forward when it applies to government workers with authority over others becomes dramatically different when we think of the clergy “carrying out the clergy member’s pastoral duties,” according to the bill’s language.

Think of people seeking solace, wisdom, strength in times of personal or family tragedy who would refer to their faith, and of the people who at least on the local level represent that faith, and the concept of undue influence comes very clear.

The definition of clergy is “a currently ordained member of the clergy or religious authority of any religious denomination or society.” That’s a broad net; it moves well beyond the heavily reported and discussed scandals in the Catholic Church and even into nontraditional faith or belief groups—probably any group that can get a property tax exemption for its meeting place.

For a legislature that traditionally—and probably correctly—avoids what might be portrayed as interference in matters of religion, the bill represents a major change in government authority.

It’s also one of those bills that is likely to draw, or could draw, vocal supporters, while others will naturally fear opposing it because of the appearance of  making light or little of coercive sexual activity.

The “we’ll handle it ourselves” approach separation of church and state obviously has failed in other states.
The bill won’t be among the headline-grabbers, like balancing the state’s budget or a new comprehensive transportation plan in terms of shaking up the economy or creating jobs or reducing unemployment.

But…it’s one of those smaller bills, which now that the issue has been raised, is going to have to be dealt with somehow.

I am honored by being selected as a Southern California Super Lawyer for 2009 in areas of law including Estate Planning & Probate, Tax Controversy and Closely Held Business. There is a very nice badge on the right side of this blog posting.

Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Super Lawyers is published as a special supplement in leading newspapers and city and regional magazines across the country. Super Lawyers magazine, featuring articles about attorneys named to the Super Lawyers list, is distributed to all attorneys in the state or region, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and the ABA-approved law school libraries.

The objective of the Super Lawyers selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource to assist attorneys and consumers in the search for legal counsel.

No other legal publisher goes through the unique multi-step process that Super Lawyers employs to find evidence of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Super Lawyers Selection Process

Step One: Creation of the Candidate Pool - Statewide survey of lawyers

Step Two: Evaluation of Lawyers in Candidate Pool

Step Three: Peer Evaluation by Practice Area

Step Four: Final Selection

The Taxpayer Advocate independently represents your interests and concerns within the Internal Revenue Service. The Taxpayer Advocate Service is an independent organization within the IRS whose employees assist taxpayers who believe that an IRS system or procedure is not working as it should, who are seeking help in resolving tax problems that have not been resolved through normal channels, or who are experiencing economic harm. The goals of the Taxpayer Advocate Service are to protect individual and business taxpayer rights and to reduce taxpayer burden.

It might just be worthwhile to consider that those Kansas House and Senate members we’re depending on to fix the state budget have already gone through one of the wildest spending sprees in memory.

That wild spree? It was their campaigns to get to hang out at the Statehouse. Now that the dust has settled and the signs have been pulled up and stored in the garage for the next campaign cycle, we’re learning just how much dust was raised during legislative campaign races—and the cost of that dust.

Figures released by the Kansas Secretary of State show that the candidates fighting for the right to represent you in Topeka spent nearly $8 million for the honor—and that’s just for the candidates who made it through the primaries to the big dance, the general election.

The 125 campaigns for seats in the Kansas House totaled $3.8 million, averaging $30,400 but ranging widely from nothing—for an unopposed candidate who won reelection—to $109,000—for a candidate who lost.

In the Senate, the campaigns ranged from $10,500 each for two winning candidates to a whopping $204,000 for another winner who realized that in campaigns, only a fool loses with money left in the bank on Election Day. In total, Senate candidates who made it to prom night spent a total of $4 million in their battle to represent their districts. The average per-race cost is about $100,000, about right, we figure, for districts that are about three times bigger than House districts.

Tens of thousands of dollars also were spent last year by candidates who were weeded out at the primary election in August, who presumably now have the signs, the campaign cards, maybe T-shirts to show their friends and children and grandchildren—to reminisce about their dabble in electoral politics.

That’s a lot of money to spend on campaigns, and the sheer size of the efforts is going to raise thoughts about too much money in politics. It’s a natural.

Except…for the uneven results. It wasn’t only money that won the majority of votes for successful candidates—ask the Democrat who spent that $109,000 on his Johnson County campaign and was defeated by an incumbent Republican who spent “just” $51,000 on his campaign.

If you enjoyed the direct mail from candidates, the phone calls, the brochures, the radio, TV and newspaper advertising in the 2008 election cycle, chances are good that you won’t have to go cold-turkey in the 2010 election cycle.

Why? Well, for all the money spent on the just-completed campaigns, there’s already money on hand for the upcoming battles. In the House, where, remember, the election is just 22 months away, incumbents and their defeated general election foes have $1.9 million in the bank. In the Senate, where it’s just 46 months to the next general election day, incumbents and their just-vanquished challengers have $1.5 million on hand.

If you figure that the best money the state receives is money that people voluntarily hand it, well, you gotta figure that it’s time for some repairs to the state’s gambling law.

Remember two years ago when it was passed, everyone thought that we’d have four brand spanking new, glitzy casinos abuilding by now?

There were likely, then, we thought, to be at least three combination horse/dog tracks with hundreds of adjoining slot machines?

The concept was that those enterprises would spin out hundreds of millions of dollars for the state—all from people who gladly ponied up their money for a chance to win big.

Well, it’s all gone south, and legislators are now considering either reworking the state gambling law or maybe just repealing it—mostly.

Mostly, because the only real gaming effort in the state now is the construction of a casino in historic Dodge City, an out-of-the-way little casino that is going to be popular and  undoubtedly profitable, but on a smaller scale than mega casinos considered for Wyandotte, Crawford/Cherokee and Sumner counties.

Here’s the real trick: in a slow economy, if the state wants to get revenue fast, it has to come from slots at tracks, so-called “racinos.”

The tracks are there, but they’re shut down because racing alone won’t support the enterprises. Slots? That would be the key, but the state’s share of the take from those slots at tracks is 40 percent, and the canny owners of the tracks have penciled it out and they can’t make any money with that large a state take-out of the profits.

So, you just renegotiate that 40 percent? Figure that maybe 25 percent of something is better than 40 percent of nothing?

Well, it’s rarely that simple in the Statehouse.

Remember that the casino/racino bill passed by just two votes, and remember that many of those same legislators are back in the Capitol now, and nobody’s sure if the narrow issue of reducing the state’s take from racinos would pass or fail… But, everyone is sure that any bill dealing with the racinos has the possibility of seeing the whole gaming enterprise being repealed.

That’s a big risk for those who like racinos, and it’s a big opportunity for those who don’t want the state to have any fingerprints on any sort of gambling.

Will the current budget crunch lead some gaming opponents to hold their noses and vote yes for lower, but at least some, revenues? Or, would it be a forum for some to pontificate that in these economic times, people shouldn’t be gambling away their money for food or their children’s shoes?

This might be one of those smaller issues that lawmakers could consider while the bigger and ultimately vital scraps continue over the state’s budget and deficit.

« Older Entries