Brewer Q&A with Weinberg and Camarda on relatives and enforcement
Brewer asks both witnesses about their positions on including relatives in enforcement. Weinberg says existing law already covers relatives through the public servant's duty, and Camarda focuses on alignment with existing law rather than specific positions on relatives.
Thank you, and I welcome any questions you may have.
Thank you both.
I think you're sort of saying, both of you, something similar to what the agency stated, basically, that Amy Klobuchar's bill in Washington sounds like it's what we're aiming for.
That was one thing that I came out.
And then secondly, you like the concept, obviously we all do, that public officials stay to the law and not try to break it.
But I think...
Ben, you were stating that you don't think relatives should be involved, and I wasn't clear what Reinvent Albany was saying about that.
On 951, I think our overarching recommendation is that the bill needs to align with existing law.
It's creating...
Which does not include relatives.
Yeah, I mean, I'm commenting generally, but if the council wants to add prediction markets to the existing law, we think it should amend the sections that relate to existing law rather than creating a separate enforcement regime.
You know, as far as the relatives question goes, I don't think we weigh in specifically as to whether who should be included as relatives.
But I think.
I think we're more focused on just alignment.
Okay.
Yeah, I'll just say relatives are included in existing provisions to the extent that they profit from something that the public servant does.
And then the enforcement and the investigation is directed towards the public servant.
The assumption is that they had or may have something to do with the gain that their relative had.
So the enforcement in that case would remain the same.
Okay.