These conflicts of interest are rampant.

Here is a recent example from San Diego by a company called Accela:

  Another hopeful using [lobbying company] Presidio’s services 
  is Accela, which wants to get a “contract for IT support 
  services within the Development Services Department.” 
  Whether by coincidence or  not, John Sasson of Orinda, 
  California, who is listed as  working in “business 
  development” for Accela, kicked in $1050 for
  [San Diego Mayor] Faulconer’s  reelection campaign on March 
  17, according to a March 18 disclosure report.

Maybe Mr. Sasson is deeply interested in San Diego politics, despite living 500 miles away.

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/mar/30/radar-beer-mo...

So anyone can get government contracts by contributing $1000 towards a mayoral reelection campaign? Seems really cheap.

Buying political influence is generally a great deal. It should be taxed at 90% or so IMO.

> In March, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) voted to oppose the bill and sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to reject it, raising concerns that it would expand the commission’s mission to a “highly specialized area” of state contracts best overseen by the Department of General Services, the Department of Technology and other state agencies.

Is the bill being vetoed to be re-worked, or is this an excuse to kill it?

It is usually hard to know what the real reason is in this type of situation. Politicians will say they are veto-ing to allow for a rework when they are really just killing it.

At SeeClickFix we have a policy that board members and officers may not contribute to political campaigns for this reason. Wrote this post about why a while back: http://benjaminberkowitz.blogspot.com/2013/09/donations-by-g...

The title on HN is blatantly editorialized. The actual article title: "Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Procurement Consultants to Register as Lobbyists".

I disagree. Editorialized implies opinion. I don't think the fact that the bill is "transparency legislation" is an opinion. I think everyone agrees that's exactly what it's for. Whether it achieves it, is another question, and might worthy of a veto because it does not. But that's what it's trying to achieve.

Even if that was true, it is opinion that picks which "facts" to put in the title. If the title was "Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Cost State $1.3 Million," that would also be factual, but it is quite blatantly editorialized.

> Whether it achieves it, is another question

If a bill doesn't achieve transparency, then it isn't a piece of transparency legislation. It's a piece that someone claims to be transparency legislation, and that others disagree about, making it a matter of opinion.

Just because "some people" don't think a fact to be true, doesn't mean it's a matter of opinion.

This is a case of argument to moderation [1] - presenting dissenting opinions to factual evidence doesn't mean the "truth is somewhere in-between".

Example: Obama presents birth certificate, but "some people" (notably the current GOP frontrunner/nominee) dispute this. The reality is not somewhere in the middle... one side has facts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Sure, but none of that refutes my point. All you've done is point out a logical fallacy in a side comment I made, my argument didn't rely on the side comment.

If the bill does not in fact achieve, or cannot be proved to achieve, more transparency, then saying it promotes transparency is opinion.

And my point about the mere selective choice of words in a headline being subjective still stands.

It is no doubt an interpretation of the legislation's purpose, thus an opinion.

Yes, the notion that the bill is "transparency legislation" is in fact an opinion, as can be gleaned from the fact that the article title is different from that of the linked article -- the original poster has editorialized.

Yes. Submitters: please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait. That's in the site guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Submitted title was 'California Governor Vetoes Transprency Legislation'.)