House Committee to Vote on Gift Restrictions
Legislation to impose restrictions on gifts to public officers, public employees and candidates for public office will be voted on by the state House of Representatives State Government Committee this week, according to state Rep. Garth Everett, R-Lycoming, the primary sponsor of the proposal.
November 15, 2019 at 01:00 PM
2 minute read
Legislation to impose restrictions on gifts to public officers, public employees and candidates for public office will be voted on by the state House of Representatives State Government Committee this week, according to state Rep. Garth Everett, R-Lycoming, the primary sponsor of the proposal.
The legislation would prohibit public officers, public employees and candidates for public office from accepting a gift of cash in any amount, according to a statement from Everett's office. The same individuals would be prohibited from accepting any gift that has either a fair market value or an aggregate actual cost of more than $50 from any one person in a calendar year.
Everett described the amendments to Title 65 as balancing the interest of raising standards of conduct and not impeding the vote-getting efforts of low-budget candidates.
"As public officials, we are public 'servants' and should be dedicated to holding ourselves to a higher standard that respects the office," Everett said. "This bill strikes a proper balance between public accountability and banning gifts outright. It is only fair to recognize that there are often candidates running on a smaller budget with less support than others."
Under the bill, public officers, public employees and candidates for public office would be prohibited from accepting hospitality, transportation or lodging that has either a fair market value of an aggregate actual cost of more than $500 from any one person in a calendar year.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
3 minute readPa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1When Dealing With Child Abuse Cases, Attorneys Need to Know How Children Perceive Time
- 2Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 3HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 4Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
- 5In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250