Gifts from restricted sources, that is, from those doing business with the local government (and their lobbyists), are exceptionally damaging, in that they make the public believe their officials can be bought or that their officials are running a pay-to-play government. It's too bad that at least some members of the Los Angeles ethics commission don't recognize this.

I don't normally deal with purely campaign finance issues, but this gambit is too good (or too bad) to pass by. The perpetrator of the gambit is our old friend Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ.

You see, he's not running for sheriff again until 2012, but he doesn't like one of the guys who's running for county attorney in 2010, and he's got lots of money left over from the last election.

The Kansas City, MO ethics commission situation is a mess. Last month, I wrote about the problem that arose regarding EC members who made campaign contributions to candidates over whom they had jurisdiction, leading to two resignations. Soon after, the council prohibited EC members from making contributions, and two more members resigned, leaving only three members. But that's only the icing on the cake.

Here's a clever way to abuse the advisory opinion process. A few months after conduct begins, seek advice from the ethics commission. After the EC tells you it's okay, increase the amount of conduct so much that the advice is no longer relevant, and then point to the advice in defense of the conduct. Finally, refuse to provide information about the extent of the conduct, so that no one can provide hard evidence that there is truly a change in the extent of the conduct.