Will IM22 force marital dissolutions?

These are starting to come fast and furious now…

I’ve heard that no fewer than 3 legislators now are questioning whether or not they will have to choose between their marriage an their legislative service because they are married to people who work for companies that have lobbyists or are otherwise compromised because of the confusion over Initiated measure 22.

15 thoughts on “Will IM22 force marital dissolutions?”

  1. IMHO, that is hilariously idiotic…..IM22 isn’t about associating with anybody, it is about giving or receiving things of value…as in money and influence………….Perhaps the answer could have been ascertained before tossing red meat to the gullible?

  2. Jaa Dee – you clearly have not read IM22 in whole. That is the problem. People think they know what is in it, but don’t.

    In section 31, it defines gift as “any compensation, reward, employment, gift,
    honorarium, beverage, meal, food, or other thing of value made or given directly or indirectly to any person.” It does not require that it be without consideration. Accordingly, a salary paid by an entity who employees a lobbyist, for example, as school district, would be a gift. It then bans an “employer of a lobbyist” from making a gift to a “immediate family member of any elected state officer”.

    IM22 was drafted poorly. It was sold as something it is not.

  3. There’s an exception for gifts to family members if there is an independent relationship, but it requires approval from the yet-to-be-formed Ethics Commission pursuant to yet-to-be-drafted rules. Of course, that doesn’t help anyone right now. IM 22 is a mess.

  4. This measure sucks and should be shut down by the legislature, way too many not fully understood consequences.

    1. The people who saw “Anti-Corruption Act” and said: “well, I’m not pro-corruption, so I better vote yes!”

  5. Idiots voted for it.
    The next IM should be that idiots who vote for things like this need to be put in the public square for an old-school mudballing.

  6. I hope the legislature this year makes it much harder for these idiotic out-of-state funded IM’s to occur. And maybe this year the unintended consequence, besides the obvious already seen, will be that people will vote NO on everything from now on.

    And if that was the sole “explanation” for the bill from the AG’s office, that clearly was not well written either.

    1. I don’t think we can fault the AG for this. The AG’s explanation is limited by law to a certain number of words, so he had to boil a long proposal down into a few sentences. Large parts of it will inevitably not be explained fully.

  7. Anonymous 2:17,

    If the AG could not summarize the bill, his explanation should have said because of the length and multiple issue an accurate explanation was impossible and direct the voters to read it. The explanation given is misleading as written.

    Regarding the comments that IM’s shouldn’t take effect immediately, I disagree. The majority passed it and we should live under it unless the Legislature deals with it. There is a bigger issue than the temporary inconvenience at stake. Plus, we, the people, need to be accountable for passing something we, the people, didn’t understand.

Comments are closed.