BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
The Fair Political Practices Commission was sympathetic yesterday (June 15) toward Palo Alto Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims, who is trying to exempt herself from a state law that restricts public officials from getting paid for speeches.
Commissioners voted 4-0 to have FPPC Assistant General Counsel Brian Lau carve out an exemption for Lythcott-Haims and others whose predominant income is from giving speeches.
“What we’re asking you to do is be as creative as you possibly can to see if you can craft some amendments to this regulation,” Commissioner Richard Miadich said.
Lau was adamant that he and his team had interpreted the law as liberally and sympathetically as possible, and any creative approaches would conflict with state law. “The ban has been intended from he beginning to be very broad,” he told the commission.
In 1990, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 112, which amended the California Constitution to ban state lawmakers from getting paid for speaking.
The law was extended to local officials the same year.
Law approved by voters
Opponents said at the time that the law would prevent public officials from making an honest living from speeches — the same argument that Lythcott-Haims is making today, Miadich said.
“The voters still overwhelmingly adopted the law,” Miadich said. “That’s important, because there’s a flavor in some of the public comments that first of all, mistakes the law, and secondly, makes it seem like the FPPC interpreted this out of the blue.”
Lythcott-Haims has written three books, and she does book talks and seminar around the country about race, parenting and growing up.
She wasn’t at the hearing in Sacramento, but her lawyer Gary Winuk argued on her behalf for an exemption.
None of the money that Lythcott-Haims receives is from Palo Alto, Winuk said.
Winuk brought up past exemptions that the FPPC granted for a radio host and a teacher.
Lau said that the FPPC went beyond the law in the late 1990s with the examples Winuk cited, and he is trying to make it right now.
“We were horribly inconsistent with all the letters from that era,” he said.
Commissioners said they were interested in modernizing the rules because more people are getting paid for speaking these days.
‘Lousy’
Commissioner Abby Wood, a law professor at USC, said she is working on a book and wants to give book talks when she’s done, but she doesn’t know if she can.
“I think the whole thing is lousy,” she said yesterday.
But it may be up to the legislature, not the FPPC, to change the broad language of the law, Wood said.
“I don’t know if we can do anything about it in this building,” she said.
Miadich acknowledged that Lau has a tough assignment to find a path forward for Lythcott-Haims.
“If you sit down and you ultimately determine that there’s absolutely no way to do this, that we need a statute to change, then that’s what you should report back to the commission,” Miadich told Lau.
Lythcott-Haims declined an interview yesterday, but she sent a statement saying that she is “very pleased” with the outcome.
Commissioners clearly understood her work and feel that it’s legitimate, she said.
“I’m pleased and also hopeful that when it’s all said and done not only will I have a green light but others like me will be able to serve their city without sacrificing their income,” she said.
What they’re saying is — ignore the law as it is written and make an exception for her because she’s special.
I thought the Trump prosecutors and the White House are saying nobody is above the law?
“None of the money that Lythcott-Haims receives is from Palo Alto, Winuk said.”
So what? She had the highest amount of contributions from outside Palo Alto and she speaks to the high-tech industry like FaceBook in far far away Menlo Park.
Surely their campaign contributions are purely coincidental.
Remember she campaigned on the promise she needed to travel NATIONALLY to spread her message because our local officials don’t need pesky oversight — always a fine position for a first-time candidate who’s not even curious about the town she’s running to “serve”!
But hey, you’re going to droid-vote as per her backers’ positions, no need to waste time learning about local issues
So imagine a national company like Greystar or Lenar has a huge development they want to push through the city approval process. Instead of bribing Lythcott Haims directly, they give her a $100,000 gig to give some DEI speeches to their employees in Florida or New York. The FPPC wants to make that legal? That runs contrary to the wishes of the voters and is an open door to corruption in every city across the state.
Now, now, we mustn’t criticize Julie Lythcott-Haims or we’re just being racist.
Happy for her, I think that the law may need to be updated to reflect the times.
@paly02, what’s changed since voters passed this law in 1990? Is corruption now OK? How is this law out-of-date?
She’s a Harvard-trained lawyer but claims she can’t find another line of work than collecting speaking fees? And she thinks everyone is so stupid that they’ll believe that?
You have to wonder what kind of parenting advice this Harvard-trained lawyer gives.
Does she say, “Tell your child it’s just fine to violate the law. Yes, we know it’s illegal now. But don’t worry if you get caught. We’ll just get the law changed later because you’re so special and the law doesn’t apply to you.”
This is muchado about nothing. She merely asked for an opinion to make sure she was following the law. She’s taken a very honorable approach to this.
She knew she was BREAKING the law when she decided to run. But that didn’t stop her from running or raising money for her campaign or possibly sticking the taxpayers with the cost of another election just for her.
She only sought the opinion AFTER being advised that she was in the wrong.
But don’t worry, the FPPC lawyer was repeatedly ordered to find a “creative” — if not — honorable way so the developers can get the votes they bought.
So much for the anti-corruption laws. As Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friennd” when voting to kill the national limits on institutional campaign contributions in the Citizens United case.
@Observer, are you saying Lythcott-Haims is corrupt? Please: show your work 🙂
I never said she was corrupt. I said, “@paly02, what’s changed since voters passed this law in 1990? Is corruption now OK? How is this law out-of-date?”
So what’s changed @paly02? Please show your work. Don’t dodge the question. You’re the one saying times have changed and this anti-corruption law needs to be amended.
What @paly02 wants to say, but doesn’t have the guts, is that we have a president who is being credibly accused of taking bribes amounting to millions of dollars. So now the bar is lower when it comes to corruption, and state laws should reflect this new reality.
@paly02, the law was designed to prevent corruption of all kinds like pay-to-play where officials or their families are given contracts and honorariums for speaking engagements, books for which they have no expertise like the $1,0-0.000M contract just paid out to the wife of a politician who plagiarized the book, free tuition and expensive vacations (Clarence Thomas).
To cite just 2 examples drown from the headlines.
@Henry Dixon, your timing is off. She didn’t ask for a ruling until months later when she was told that she was in violation == something she knew when she decided to run.
This shouldn’t matter when it comes to the law, but she isn’t worth the aggravation. Sometimes it’s easier just to give someone what they want to get rid of them.