Another edition of OTR with a head of Michigan Common Cause, Quentin Turner on the financial disclosure package.

That's our lead story.

What's going on in the Michigan House?

And on the OTR panel, Kyle Marlin, Jordyn Hermani and Bill Ballenger sit with us as we get the inside out.

Off the record.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com.

And now this edition of Off the Record with Tim Skubick.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to studios.

It's beginning to feel like lame duck, you know what I mean?

We've got a thousand things to do in about an hour and a half to get them done.

One of the things they didn't get done was financial disclosure in the Michigan House.

And here's why.

The controversial financial disclosure package for state officials sailed through the state Senate on a 36 to 2 vote, but it landed with a thud in the Michigan house, where an internal struggle in the House Democratic Caucus threatens final passage.

These five Democrats who are new to the legislative process, are holding out for spousal financial disclosure in the package, forcing a showdown with the House Democratic Speaker Joe Tate, who does not favor that.

And an inside source describes the situation, quote, It's a mess, end quote.

And on top of that, several Democrats were going to attend the conference and leave the House session by 2:00 on Thursday, thus preventing any showdown vote.

But the speaker told them to stay in town.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the House Republicans such as Representative Tom Coons, want spousal reporting.

And the House Republican floor leader Brian Posthumus has hinted that if the Democrats don't beef up this package with more disclosure, there could be a lawsuit.

One source reports it's the young Turks versus the powerful speaker with the winner yet to be determined.

I so Jordan, I think I have a new theme song for Joe Tate.

We got trouble right here in River City, right?

Oh, man.

Yeah.

I mean, you think about how close it is in the house.

They can only they can't afford to lose any votes as it is now.

They have five holdouts who say we want spousal disclosure.

And, you know, honestly, if they don't hold out, who knows if that's going to be put in the package.

I know that you've heard Senate Democrats say that, you know, this is a step forward.

Let's not put the cart before the horse.

Any amount of disclosure is better than no disclosure.

But I mean, a step forward if you're not taking any steps at all, a stumble is a step forward.

A fall is a step forward.

So, yeah, trouble is going to be the theme song for next week as well.

What do you make of this, Billy?

Well, it's amazing.

Such discipline the Democrats have shown this year in ramming through their agenda through nine months of this year, all these bills that they wanted to pass, four years to repeal, almost everything that happened under Governor Rick Snyder.

And now all of a sudden they've hit a wall and not just on this, but on several other issues.

The fissures, the splits in their caucus show up and they're floundering and trying to get their act together.

And they need Republican support to get some of this stuff done.

Or can they go it alone, as they have been doing all year until now?

Well, the problem here is that this nurse that Joe Tate, who is in favor of what has come out, this was an agreed upon package in the Senate with the Senate Democrats.

The Senate Republicans were involved in crafting this.

And the governor was involved.

And so for the speaker to try and renegotiate that is going to be an issue.

It's just not him now.

And so while the holdouts have some things that they'd like to see in the financial disclosure package, they've got bigger people up the food chain that they'd have to answer to.

And, you know, there was something a bit more pressing on the agenda yesterday with this energy package that the leadership needed to attend to first.

They can do the financial disclosure next week, and it's not a big deal, but they had to do the solar siting bill and that was that was the most important thing.

So all of the political energy had to be used to get that passed.

Well, here's a look at when Stephen Dorff representative was sitting in his chair.

She said, We've got the votes.

And if we withhold votes, we could put pressure on the speaker while law.

This is the first time that this has happened.

Why are you going like that?

Well, because if a financial disclosure bill goes up on the board, I'd love to see who's going to go up red and say no, but.

Who's going to put anything up on the board if he doesn't have the votes to pass it?

Well, you can do it just to prove a point and you can put it up there and you can close the board.

And then if people are voting no, you have that for prosperity.

And you can put it on a flier later.

And nobody wants to be against transparency in no matter how weak or watered down that it looks.

I mean, if he wants to play hardball, he can, but he doesn't have to right now.

He can let these these Democrats who don't support it have their day in the sun say what they got to say, come out as champions for more disclosure.

But at the end of the day, when something comes up on the board, they'll have to vote yes.

In other words, the speaker would call his caucus's bluff and basically say, you're not going to go along with what I want.

You know what?

These folks won't go along.

That's what I'm saying.

It's not just me.

I've done, too.

And granted, yes, the five Dems in the House, they have the voting power.

But we look outside.

Dana Nessel, attorney General, is not in favor of not having spousal disclosure.

Jocelyn Benson Secretary of State Not in favor of not if they want the spousal disclosure in this package.

I mean, if you're looking at the trifecta that Whitmer, Nessel Benson has constantly, you know, sort of made themselves out to be in the media.

I mean, you seeing fissures outside of the voting power in the House, And this is something that's that's bigger, I think, than what Democrats in the legislature were ultimately prepared for.

Yeah, but Whitmer has said she would sign it if they send spousal disclosure, even though she doesn't want it, she doesn't support it or back it or wanted it did.

She would sign it if they said, did I.

Not hear Ms.. Benson in the in the statement to the Senate committee say this was a loophole and unacceptable to her?

Didn't she say that?

Absolutely, yes.

And it is a loophole.

But there are.

Loopholes all the way through this thing.

It's full of holes like a Swiss cheese.

Give Kyle a chance to redeem himself there.

Well, I'm just going to say that we had you had a guest on last week, Ed McBroom, who said that people will find loopholes in this.

People have been finding loopholes in financial disclosure since time B got it doesn't necessarily matter.

You can get as tough as you want, but in the end, if you want to hide assets, if that's your goal, you don't want people to know what you're doing.

You can hide it.

You'll find a way to do it.

We've been doing it for years.

We could apply that same theory to virtually every piece of legislation that comes down the pike, and nothing would be done.

In terms of disclosure.

No, no.

Take a take another issue.

Take any issue and say, well, you know what?

They'll find a way around the law.

Why should we have people stop at a red light?

This is a good thing about a law.

It can be amended.

It could be amended later this year.

It could be amended next year.

It could be amended in future legislatures.

It's not like this is going to be set in concrete, whatever they do now.

Yes, they're going to be holes.

They're going to be protested against.

They're going to be lawsuits.

This is going to go on and on, Tim, for months, years.

This is going to go on.

This issue is not going to go away.

This is not like financial disclosure is finally solved in Michigan.

Okay.

But we have seen financial disclosure bills come up in the legislature before and never make it to the governor's desk.

So, I mean, and I understand totally you're entirely correct.

It can be amended.

But I mean, in a perfect world, sure, we've never seen an appetite from any legislature prior to do anything of that sort.

So the concept that we could have.

Enforced by the voters last year in a referendum.

About half the bill, Judge, and with this package was the bad news about the amendment was it really didn't lay out what the legislature was supposed to do.

Okay.

So this is uncharted territory.

So they do have some wiggle room.

But ultimately the people will say, you know what, that's not what I voted for.

Well, what the people really want is they want to know who's going on the trips.

That's what they really want to know, that that's not in the bill.

Well, if it's a lobbyist, one if it's a lobbyist, paid trip lobbyist.

Is a different part of this legislation or it's a new package of bills, it's not going to be in.

Here.

Right.

So, I mean, what people want to know is who is, let's say, the Anti-Defamation League taken to Israel this year.

You know, they take people every year.

They don't have to disclose who they're taking.

And it becomes this like catch of catch can.

And so who went to Israel or who is the the the people who are being taken to Hawaii for the the national popular vote?

You know, who are these people, though?

It doesn't have to be disclosed.

This bill says if you're being lobbied, you have to report it.

But if you look at those lobby reports, all they are numbers.

There is nothing in there that gives hard names.

That's what the people want to see.

They want to see who is having actual influence on the process.

And these bills don't address that.

And whether your spouse works for AT&T or is a homemaker who really cares.

They want to know where the influence is pours.

I still.

RJ Yeah, this week in the house too long, the many number of other things that have passed late night the House has passed the Reproductive Health Act, which helps to undo what are called trap laws.

They are laws that are targeted against abortion providers.

They regulate things like room size.

They regulate things like admitting privileges.

And the individuals who backed the passage of I'm sorry that the passage, but the voters who voted on a property, they wanted to legalize abortion.

The legislature came in.

They said these laws will help to further increase access to abortion.

Big missing from that package, though, which was introduced as part of it taken out last second because of one holdout Democrat.

The 24 hour waiting period still is going to stay in effect.

And Medicaid abortions will.

Still the ban is still there.

The ban is still there for it.

Ever even was gotten this far.

Parental consent was taken out.

So is it right to life still is not satisfied?

Oh, well, no, because so many of the restrictions they were able to put in over a series of years are getting all wiped away in basically a few bills.

You know, the thing with I think the Medicaid funded abortions is really the big thing here.

And Planned Parenthood and their allies in trying to get these these restrictions repealed were very, very hard on Karen which and basically held it against her personally for being against it.

You know, if you you know, I was thinking about, you know, why why was it that the abortion advocates were able to get all these passed, like all these initiatives that it took right to life years to put in?

They were able to get them all wiped away with just a couple bills.

And it's because they are in the they're in the business of helping women get abortions and they they have to pay for that or that has to be paid for somehow.

Right.

Whether it's Medicaid or something else.

Whereas Right to Life is a volunteer organization that relies on volunteers to give them money every, you know, month or year or whatever.

So there always had to be a new issue.

So they were able to string along these issues over a series of of years and were able to continue their operations because of it.

And what right to life is not a right or the Planned Parenthood people have done has given right to life a clean slate to start over again on all these things.

And they start next week with a march on the Capitol and we'll see how many people turn out for.

The 1988 Tim referendum in the state on Medicaid.

Funding for abortion got whacked.

Yeah, okay.

That's why it's law today.

Karen Whitsett is a hero for the Democrats, whether they want to acknowledge it or not.

She has saved the bacon of a bunch of Democrats in marginal districts because part of this reproductive health package is going to be very objectionable to voters in a lot of those swing districts.

The public does not like a lot of the stuff that the abortion rights people are pushing right this quickly.

Let's segway also singing Trouble in River City is the chairwoman of the Republican Party.

Kyle.

Yeah, we've got the grassroots who supported her initially are seeing that the emperor has no clothes.

She has not been able to raise any money whatsoever.

The grassroots are are all fractured because the party's getting involved in inner Card County squabbles and not actually expanding their base.

She's cutting off people from the inner circle as opposed to expanding it.

She's got congressional chairs, vice chairs who are very disenfranchized.

They're not seeing any progress.

And there is an effort to remove her through the state committee, going through two different channels.

One is led by one of the people who initially supported her bid for secretary of State, and the other are kind of a growing band of people who haven't liked her to begin with.

Is it serious or does this have political implications?

I mean, I think it's serious.

And I think that I mean, you're hearing people who once supported her are backing this now.

They are totally disenfranchized with the fact that she is lacking financial transparency with what's going on with the Republican Party.

I know a number of Republicans are are mad as all get out that they're learning things through the Detroit News rather than their own party chair and then on top of that, she's not bringing in the money.

We are.

How many weeks out, months out from from the primary now and they have how much how much in the bank?

$40,000 as opposed to the millions they've had in the past.

It's just it's not a good luck.

Christine and Karamo is a disaster waiting to happen.

When she was elected, you could see it coming.

This is unprecedented.

Neither party has ever had anything like this happen.

Can you imagine?

20 years ago if Mark Brewer, the Democratic chairman, had this happening to him?

Could that possibly happen in the Democratic Party and never happened in the Republican Party before?

So this is serious.

She's been a total failure.

And I think it's amazing that people who were actually part of her cadre of supporters from the very beginning have just turned against her and said, enough already.

We've got like four months, we've got to.

Get her out.

But she's not getting the job.

The writing on the wall.

Liking isn't going to get liking Christina Cuomo is not going to translate into getting Republicans butts in seats in whatever sort of office that they're running for.

You can want someone to the cows come home, but if they're not going to put up the money, if they're not going to put up the fundraising, if they're not going to, what is the point?

It's just going to continue to be a downward spiral for the party.

Let's call in our guest today, the head of Michigan Common Cause, Quentin Turner.

Mr. Turner, down to Detroit.

Welcome to the to the program, Mr.. As you watch the machinations going on in the Michigan House, ultimately if this package does not meet what you think is what the people want it, is there a lawsuit waiting to happen, sir?

I mean, I think that's absolutely possible.

You know, the voters want to see transparency.

They want to see financial disclosure.

In Michigan for the first time, we're one of two states that don't have financial disclosure laws.

So, you know, we need to make this happen.

And so what needs to be in there and if it isn't in there, it would trigger the lawsuit.

We need to see financial disclosure and mutual disclosure from immediate family members.

That's spouses.

That's also dependents.

We need to see financial disclosure from, obviously, the legislative and executive branches, but other statewide offices to other offices that are voted upon, such as the State Board of Education, are the elected university boards.

And those things are crucial.

We have to see disclosure on assets, real estate, sources of income and businesses with a value above $50,000.

Have you hired an attorney to file the suit?

If you need to?

Not yet.

Not yet.

But you got one in mind, don't you?

Perhaps.

Maybe.

Yeah.

We'll call Mark Brewer.

All right, let's call Georgia.

We're going to go back to, I know, spousal requirements for for disclosure.

One of the main things that when Gretchen Whitmer, Governor Whitmer was talking to reporters, she said that the reason for potentially that she wasn't in favor of it was that it could potentially be held against women running for office in a way that it would not be held against men.

I've been struggling to understand fully what that sentiment means.

I'm curious if you'd like to take a crack at what you think she means there.

You know, I have been thinking about that statement basically all week, and I really am not sure what she meant either.

You know, I really tried to do some thinking with my colleagues on it, and we really couldn't find something that would hint to that.

So I can't say for sure what the governor was thinking when she made that statement.

Let me ask this question.

Clarence Thomas, I think we're familiar with that name, the U.S. Supreme Court and his financial conflicts.

What about the judiciary in this whole sunshine thing?

Can't they be included in what's being talked about or is that somehow off bounds?

I mean, seriously, the Supreme Court justices and judges in this state, shouldn't they be included in this package?

Oh, absolutely.

They definitely should be included.

You know, we should hold our political leadership and all branches of government to the highest ethical standards.

I think that what's trying to be accomplished with these bills in the lead in the legislature is that they're trying to honor the separation of powers that exist between the branches by giving the judiciary a chance to create their own rules based off of what's passed good law.

So whether or not they'll go about doing that, that is obviously to me to be determined.

But I think that is the spirit of what's trying to be accomplished.

As you take a.

Look at what the leadership in the Senate was able to pass and the Democrats were able to pass in the Senate and is on the table in the House, how would you rank that to the other 48 states with disclosure laws?

Is it is it strict?

Is it on the on the weekend?

Is it in the middle?

Where would you put it?

Oh, it's absolutely on the weekend.

You know, the thing is, this is being done in almost every other state, the House of Representatives in DC, the Senate in D.C.

They all have financial disclosure requirements.

What our legislature is trying to do is not, frankly, rocket science.

It's been done before, it's been mild before elsewhere.

They just have to make the choice to do it.

Why should politicians have to give up their privacy?

Well, transparency is the backbone of American democracy.

It's what allows voters to make informed choices about who they are giving the privilege to represent them as American voters, as Michigan voters don't understand what the financial incentives are of the folks that are running for office, but also in those seats and in those in those offices, then how can they make an informed choice about who they want to represent them, who's actually looking out for their interests versus their own personal financial gain?

But isn't this kind of an outdated tool?

I mean, if I want to find out what Representative so-and-so is doing, I can go on the Web now and look at their LinkedIn or their Facebook, or I could do a LexisNexis search and maybe find some criminal background information.

Isn't this kind of an outdated tool to try and get somebody to cough up information on themselves?

I think this is a tool that has shown it's shown to work.

And like I said, most other states in the country as well as in D.C., it's a tool that we know how to use and it's one that Michigan doesn't have.

You know, we're at the very bottom of the barrel.

This is, you know, the beginning of what we should be doing to increase financial disclosure in the state.

I don't think this is something we should turn away from.

We've talked a lot about what's not in the bills, but what is in the bills are some fines associated with lying on disclosures.

Now, when it was first introduced, it was simply a $1,000 fine.

Now, I believe through amendments, it was bumped up to something like $10,000 perhaps, and then it increased.

Congress, though, the first time you lie, it's $50,000, and I believe up to five years in jail time.

Do you believe that Michigan's financial disclosure penalties for lying or purposefully deceiving go far enough?

And if not, what would you like to see instead?

You know, like I mentioned, you know, these bills are really the beginning of the financial disclosure conversation.

I think we need to make the beginning of that conversation as strong as possible by including mutual spousal disclosure, by expanding the list of offices in the bills.

In terms of the penalties, perhaps there is room to grow those penalties in the future.

I think starting off at 10,000, you know, I think that can be a decent beginning.

But honestly, we need to just make sure we get these bills passed and that an agreement, a negotiation can be made to to have the spouse of disclosure inside of.

So.

But, Mr. Turner, when you saw the bail proposal appear last fall, were you a little nervous already thinking, you know, this thing is so broad that it's going to set up the kind of impending train wreck we're seeing in front of us right now?

And it should have been more specific and it shouldn't have left it up to the legislature because they're going to concoct loopholes and they're going to do everything they can to squirm out from under the responsibility they have.

And even if you say, okay, going forward, it can there could be clean up and things can be strengthened.

And you're right about that.

But I mean, seriously, couldn't that proposal have been written a lot better?

You know, I think that it could have been written a little bit more clearly.

But this is something that we've never done before.

I'm here in Michigan, and I think the concern around that is what is at the forefront of a lot of the challenges for getting this passed.

I think there's always going to be challenge around getting financial disclosure implemented in Michigan, and we've seen it in the past with previous bills, how some of them never even make it to the governor's desk.

There's always going to be some some fighting, some tension there.

And so, I mean, no matter what the language of the proposal would have been, I think that was inevitable.

Mr. Turner, do you think it is disingenuous that House Republicans all of a sudden have gotten religion and they're on board with some of these things over 40 years?

They had a chance to do this and they did zippo.

Do you think they're just trying to make political points?

I think that this is a bipartisan issue.

You know what?

Why did you smile when I asked you that question?

Well, there's so common cause.

We're a nonpartisan organization.

And it's true that, you know, Republicans had power in the legislature for years in Michigan.

But even under a Republican legislature, we saw multiple bills try to institute financial disclosure requirements from Republicans.

So this has been shown to be a bipartisan issue here in the state.

And we see right now this is something that is bipartisan, supported bipartisanly.

We've seen Republicans and Democrats both want to have, you know, a more robust financial disclosure bill.

So this is bipartisan.

This is good government.

This is just common sense.

So I don't understand why it needs to be such a challenge to pass it.

But to that point, I mean, it's also been quashed in bipartisan ways.

This is the first time that we've actually had these bills get this far.

You mentioned, you know, this is a first step.

We might be able to come back and revisit on certain things.

I mean, do you seriously think that if it were not for this quote unquote, I mean, not even quote unquote, there is an end date where if they don't get this done, they will be sued?

That is why this is being done right now.

If we don't get everything that people believe should be in this package, do you seriously think the legislature will come back and revisit financial disclosures of their own free will?

You know, I'm I'm not confident, but there is a possibility, honestly, you know, it makes it behooves them to get it right the first time.

Now's the moment.

Now's the time if they want to rely on coming back next year, you know, we're going to be in the midst of a massive election.

The Democrats are going to be potentially losing some seats in the House because of this year's election.

Now is really the time to make this happen.

And they shouldn't step back or, you know, they shouldn't just do the bare minimum.

They they're really short.

Are you supportive then, of the five who are holding out to have this like spousal loophole closed?

Sorry, could you repeat that again?

Are you then supportive of the five who are holding out, considering that we may not get another chance to come back and do this again?

Freshman rump caucus, part of the Democratic caucus there.

What they're proposing is actually most like what you would like to see passed, right?

That is correct.

I support what they're proposing.

I support those amendments to the Senate bills.

You know, we support that.

Our members support that here in the state.

We believe that, you know, Michigan needs financial disclosure.

And those those House freshmen are hurting.

What we think Michigan's financial disclosure should look should ultimately look like.

So, you know, I want to see them be successful.

So if Mr. Tate was sitting here this morning, what would you say to the speaker?

I would tell the speaker that this isn't new.

Michigan is not unique.

And what it's trying to accomplish, this is being done in other places and has been done for years and other places.

Michigan can come on board just as much.

Michigan voters deserve to know and have transparency around who they're voting for.

Around their financial interests and those of their immediate family members.

This is something that is being supported by Republicans and by Democrats.

The government, the governor said she will sign whatever comes to her desk.

So, you know, add add these provisions and come to an agreement and pass a package.

Mr. Turner, thank you for joining us on our program.

We'll see what happens next week.

Are you a betting man?

Are they going to do this?

You know, I'm not going to I'm not going to reveal my my.

All right.

We're I'm sitting on over under on this.

I just do it.

We call it a punt.

But you're right.

You're entitled to one.

Okay.

Thank you, sir, for joining us all, sir.

Thanks to our panel.

See you next week to see what they did to you and for you.

See you right here then.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com.

For more Off the Record, visit wkar.org.

Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of Off the Record.