Finance
In Virginia’s Democratic legislature, campaign finance reform bills languish without votes – Virginia Mercury
As it gets more and more expensive to win a seat in the Virginia General Assembly, the state legislature continues to find new ways to stifle efforts to put limits on the state’s wide-open campaign finance laws.
This year, several bills meant to slow the flow of money into Virginia politics have been blocked without lawmakers taking a recorded vote showing that’s what they’re doing.
For the last decade, proposals have been introduced to create stricter campaign finance limits in Virginia and boost public confidence that the legislature can’t be bought by special interests writing checks of unlimited size.
Some Democrats have been vocal about making campaign finance reform a priority, and many have accepted big checks from Clean Virginia, a well-funded advocacy group focused on energy and campaign finance reform that says its mission is to “fight corruption in Virginia politics.”
But the party’s retaking of full control of the General Assembly this year doesn’t appear to be producing any breakthroughs on campaign finance issues as Tuesday’s crossover deadline approaches. As the two chambers rush to finish work on their own bills, no major campaign finance legislation has made it through both sides of the Capitol. If those positions hold in the second half of the session, none of the bills will win final passage.
Instead, Democratic-sponsored campaign finance proposals are languishing in Democratic-controlled committees, where several bills have been allowed to expire without a hearing.
When Del. Josh Cole, D-Prince William, presented a bill that would prohibit candidates from accepting campaign money from public utilities like Dominion Energy, the proposal died without a vote when no one on the 22-member House Privileges and Elections Committee made a motion for or against it. A bill sponsored by Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax, that would have set caps on donations from both corporations and individuals was never docketed by the same committee.
In an interview, Cole said he’ll keep fighting for campaign finance reform, despite his latest bill failing in an unusual fashion.
“Time will tell what will happen,” Cole said. “The appetite is definitely there for it.”
On the Senate side, another utility-focused campaign finance reform bill sponsored by Sen. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, made it out of the chamber’s elections committee, but stalled when it was sent to the Finance and Appropriations Committee. It never got a hearing there, despite being projected to have no impact on the state budget.
When asked why Roem’s bill wasn’t docketed, Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, criticized the bill itself instead of offering any procedural explanation.
“The people who are complaining about Dominion being a monopoly want to replace them,” Lucas said. “They want to be the monopoly. So what’s the difference?”
Clean Virginia’s critics have often accused the organization and its main funder, wealthy Charlottesville investor Michael Bills, of engaging in a new form of influence-peddling by offering substantial checks to lawmakers who vow to stop accepting money from Dominion.
In an interview, Roem didn’t sound disheartened over her bill’s fate.
“This is the first time we’ve ever gotten out of committee. This still marks progress,” Roem said. “Clearly we have more steps to go.”
Nancy Morgan, a campaign finance reform advocate with BigMoneyOutVA, said Democratic leaders appear to be “strong-arming the members to kill the bills in untransparent ways.”
“Not allowing bills to be voted on, or even heard by legislators, is anathema to our democratic process,” Morgan’s group said in a statement last week.
A seemingly less controversial proposal to prohibit spending campaign cash on personal uses unrelated to politics — something already banned at the federal level and in almost every other state — looked to be on track to pass this year after clearing the state Senate 35-4 and passing the House elections committee unanimously. But the House version was bottled up in the budget-writing committee after three state agencies estimated it would cost them more than $745,000 to add more staff to implement the law.
However, the legislature’s own fiscal analysts sharply disagreed with that figure, saying the law would create virtually no new costs and wouldn’t substantially add to anyone’s existing workload.
“It just seemed highly inflated,” said Del. Cia Price, D-Newport News, who chairs the House elections committee and formally requested a second opinion on the steep cost estimate.
In a written analysis attached to the personal use bill, staffers at the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission said they concluded the proposal wouldn’t substantially burden state agencies after looking at similar laws in Georgia and Tennessee. Both states already have systems for investigating complaints and issuing advisory opinions similar to what the Virginia proposal envisioned, JLARC found, and the strain on staff is minimal because there are usually just a few cases to handle per year.
“JLARC estimates the fiscal impact of the bill would be negligible,” the General Assembly’s analysts said in their rebuttal to the estimates from the Virginia Department of Elections and Virginia Department of Corrections.
The JLARC statement didn’t address an additional $429,426 estimate from the office of Attorney General Jason Miyares, which claimed it would need two additional attorneys and a paralegal to help implement the law.
Despite JLARC disputing the projected costs of the personal use bill, Del. Marcus Simon, D-Fairfax, said its chances of passage are now “slim to none” after failing to pass the House. The House can still take up the Senate version of the bill, but Simon said it’s unlikely to be a priority for the body late in the session as lawmakers try to finalize more big-ticket items.
Despite Simon’s less-than-optimistic prediction about the fate of efforts to ban the personal use of campaign money, Clean Virginia said it still hopes a “commonsense ban” can pass this year after clearing the Senate with an “overwhelming bipartisan majority.”
“Passage of this bill would represent a strong first step towards comprehensive campaign finance and ethics reform in Virginia,” said Clean Virginia Legislative Director Dan Holmes.
General Assembly members and statewide officeholders are prohibited from raising campaign funds during legislative sessions, but the latest effort to extend that ban to special sessions also appears to be on track to die without lawmakers attaching their names to a vote.
A bipartisan bill banning fundraising during “active” special sessions made it to the Senate floor. But in an unrecorded voice vote last week, the Senate chose to send the bill back to its elections committee, a maneuver that killed the bill because the panel was already done with its work on Senate bills.
On the floor, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, said the bill “had a lot of issues.”
“It’s going to create more problems than it’s going to solve,” Surovell said.
Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke, the bill’s sponsor, objected to the move, saying his legislation appeared to be heading for the same death by unrecorded vote that often befalls bills to ban the personal use of campaign funds.
“Every year it found a different way to die on an unrecorded vote,” Suetterlein said.
Mercury reporters Nathaniel Cline and Charlie Paullin contributed to this story.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Finance
Climate finance: what you need to know ahead of COP29
Developing countries will need trillions of dollars in the years ahead to deal with climate change — but exactly how much is needed, and who is going to pay for it?
These difficult questions will be wrestled at this year’s United Nations climate conference, known as COP29, being hosted in Azerbaijan in November.
– What is climate finance? –
It is the buzzword in this year’s negotiations, but there isn’t one agreed definition of “climate finance”.
In general terms, it’s money spent in a manner “consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”, as per phrasing used in the Paris agreement.
That includes government or private money channelled into low-carbon investments in clean energy like wind and solar, technology like electric vehicles, or adaptation measures like dikes to hold back rising seas.
But could a subsidy for a new water-efficient hotel, for example, be included in climate finance?
The COPs — the annual UN-sponsored climate summits — have never defined it.
– How much is needed? –
The Climate Policy Initiative, a nonprofit research group, estimates that $10 trillion per year in climate finance will be needed between 2030 and 2050.
This compares to around $1.3 trillion spent in 2021-2022.
But in the parlance of UN negotiations, climate finance has come to refer to something more specific — the difficulties that developing nations face getting the money they need to adapt to global warming.
The line between climate finance and conventional development aid is sometimes blurred.
But experts commissioned by the UN estimate that developing countries, excluding China, will need an estimated $2.4 trillion per year by 2030.
– Who will pay? –
Under a UN accord adopted in 1992, a handful of countries deemed wealthy, industrialised, and the most responsible for global warming were obligated to provide compensation to the rest of the world.
In 2009, these countries — the United States, the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, Turkey, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and Australia — committed to paying $100 billion per year by 2020.
They only achieved this for the first time in 2022. The delay eroded trust and fuelled accusations that rich countries were shirking their responsibility.
At COP29, nearly 200 nations are expected to agree on a new finance goal beyond 2025 — but deep divisions remain over how much should be paid, and who should pay it.
India has called for $1 trillion annually, a ten-fold increase in the existing pledge, but countries on the hook to pay it want other major economies to chip in.
They argue times have changed since 1992. Economies have grown, new powers have emerged, and today the big industrialised nations of the early 1990s represent just 30 percent of historic greenhouse gas emissions.
In particular, there is a push for China — the world’s largest polluter today — and the Gulf countries to pay, a proposal they do not accept.
– Where will they find the money? –
Today, most climate finance aid goes through development banks or funds co-managed with the countries concerned, such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility.
Campaigners are very critical of the $100 billion pledge because two-thirds of the money was distributed as loans, often at preferential rates, but seen as compounding debt woes for poorer nations.
Even revised upwards, it is likely any future commitment will fall well short of what is needed.
But it is viewed as highly symbolic nonetheless, and crucial to unlocking other sources of money, namely private capital.
Financial diplomacy also plays out at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the G20, where hosts Brazil want to craft a global tax on billionaires.
The idea of new global taxes, for example on aviation or maritime transport, is also supported by France, Kenya and Barbados, with the backing of UN chief Antonio Guterres.
Redirecting fossil fuel subsidies towards clean energy or wiping the debt of poor countries in exchange for climate investments are also among the options.
Another proposal, from COP29 host Azerbaijan, has floated asking fossil fuel producers to contribute to a new fund that would channel money to developing countries.
As for the “loss and damage” fund created at COP28 to support vulnerable nations cope with extreme weather events, it is still far from up and running, with just $661 million pledged so far.
bl-eab/np/yad/sw
Finance
Ease Capital Launches New Fixed-Rate Permanent Financing Program
NEW YORK, September 16, 2024–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Off the success of Ease Capital’s (“Ease”) bridge lending program, Ease just launched a new fixed-rate loan program in partnership with a bulge bracket bank. Ease’s new multifamily and mixed-use permanent financing program offers highly competitive 5, 7 or 10-year loans, from $5-$50 Million, for stabilized and near-stabilized properties.
With the agencies tightening underwriting guidelines and banks continuing to pull back from the small balance and lower mid-market space in which they account for 60% of loans, obtaining permanent financing has become increasingly difficult for multifamily properties that have debt maturing. Ease has always focused on serving the traditionally overlooked small balance and lower mid-market segment which accounts for over 98% of multifamily properties and is now well positioned to deliver full-lifecycle solutions to our clients from construction completion through permanent financing and everything in between.
“For multifamily borrowers seeking flexible, interest-only, permanent financing with maximum proceeds, this loan program is perfect,” said Barclay Lynch, Head of Loan Originations at Ease Capital. “We will close over $300 million of bridge loans this year and this new program is a perfect complement to our existing transitional loan business and allows us to serve our clients permanent financing needs.”
Ease’s new loan program can provide non-recourse, interest-only loans, from $5-$50 Million on stabilized and near-stabilized multifamily and mixed-use properties at pricing of Treasuries + 200-300 bps, depending on leverage and term. Under the terms of the partnership, Ease runs all sourcing, sizing and underwriting internally with all loans being securitized.
About Ease Capital:
Founded in 2022, Ease Capital is a nationwide, direct lender focused on providing capital solutions for multifamily and mixed-use commercial real estate assets. Ease prides itself on offering flexible financing solutions for everything from new acquisitions to construction completion to fully stabilized deals (and almost everything in between). Ease Capital’s team is full of experienced and creative deal makers that move fast, are easy to do business with, and are 100% committed to closing on the terms agreed to. Ease offers a range of floating rate loan products including bridge, bridge-to-permanent, and permanent financing solutions for stabilized or near stabilized assets. Backed by leading institutional investors, Ease’s mission is to make real estate ownership more accessible. For more information, please visit www.easecapital.io or reach out to barclay@easecapital.io to find time for an intro call.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240916832122/en/
Contacts
Guillermo Sanchez, memo@easecapital.io
Finance
Carlyle Buys Stake In Real Estate Finance Firm North Bridge
Carlyle is buying a minority stake in North Bridge ESG LLC, a finance firm that focuses on a type of private credit lending to landlords for clean energy projects.
The transaction also includes Carlyle committing up to $1 billion to help North Bridge make loans, according to a statement seen by Bloomberg.
-
Politics1 week ago
Conservative economists pour cold water on Harris' new small-business tax proposal
-
World1 week ago
Voting under way in Algeria’s presidential election
-
News1 week ago
Cross-Tabs: September 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate
-
News1 week ago
Dick Cheney's Reason for Endorsing Harris Over Trump
-
Politics1 week ago
Harris visits spice shop known for hating and slamming Republicans, calls for end of 'divisiveness'
-
World7 days ago
Researchers warn methane emissions ‘rising faster than ever’
-
Politics7 days ago
House honoring 13 US service members killed in 2021 Abbey Gate bombing during Afghanistan withdrawal
-
Politics7 days ago
Kamala Harris' new climate director said she is hesitant to have children because of climate change threats