ethics

The novel “Violet Project” aims to test whether success in politics is achieved through ethical values ​​or pragmatic approaches. The project is the product of a philosophical debate between three old friends—idealist academic Dr. Thomas Wan, morally committed businessman John Mendoza, and results-oriented car salesman Christopher Hamilton—who meet after many years at an Orlando restaurant. The tension between Hamilton’s assertion that “in politics, all means are justified” and Mendoza’s belief that “ethical values ​​pay off in the long run” will be tested through an unusual social experiment devised by Wan.

Dr. Wan chooses two of his former students from the University of Central Florida, James Frank and Gary Metros, to implement the project. These two young people are polar opposites in character. Ambitious, unruly, and down-to-earth James Frank is offered a campaign in Crystal Lake, Illinois, where he challenges ethical boundaries. Meanwhile, honest, introverted, and idealistic Gary Metros is asked to run for office in Southaven, Mississippi, adhering to ethical principles. Both accept the offer in exchange for a lucrative salary and a potential $150,000 prize.

James Frank’s Crystal Lake Adventure: The Triumph of Pragmatism

James takes quite ambitious steps as he launches his campaign. First, he brings on former mayor Roy Jimenez, who struggles with alcoholism, as an advisor. Roy’s sordid political experience will prove an invaluable resource for James. With the addition of seasoned strategist Michael Benson, a campaign driven by dirty tactics under the guise of “honesty” despite Crystal Lake’s calm and uneventful demeanor is waged.

James’s team employs various manipulation tactics throughout the election process. After Roy discovers that incumbent mayor George William has a secret relationship with a Ukrainian immigrant and aids illegal immigrants, he blackmails him into withdrawing his candidacy and directing his supporters to James. Furthermore, other independent candidates, Brian Harris and Aaron Rivera, are manipulated with money and personal accounts to James’s advantage, forcing them to withdraw just before the election.

James faces a difficult time in a televised debate due to his inexperience. Despite being outmatched by his rivals (Warren Collins and George William), thanks to the team’s backroom operations, he wins the Crystal Lake mayoral election with 6,179 votes. This victory is presented as proof that pragmatic approaches to politics can work in the short term.

Gary Metros’s Southaven Adventure: Constructive Change with Ethical Values

Gary, however, pursues a completely different strategy. He works with a professional team consisting of sociologist Dr. Lawrence Travis and urban planner Dr. Nelson Vincent. They act in accordance with Travis’s philosophy of “reviving social happiness and unity by creating a common ideal and enemy.”

Gary’s campaign in Southaven quickly evolved into a comprehensive socio-economic development project. First, he took steps to reduce unemployment by establishing a startup center. Then, he strengthened the city’s sense of belonging by establishing the New Southaven sports club and encouraging residents to attend matches frequently. His campaign, which is driven by public engagement, transparency, and positive promises, established him as a trusted leader in the eyes of Southaven voters.

Gary’s uncompromising approach to ethical values ​​led him to achieve long-term and sustainable success, and he won the Southaven mayoral election with 12,127 votes. This victory demonstrates that adhering to ethical values ​​in politics can also lead to success eventually.

Final Meeting and Project Evaluation

After both candidates are successful, they meet with the project’s funders at a luxurious restaurant in Orlando. Dr. Thomas Wan explains the criteria established at the project’s inception: the winner will be the one receiving the most votes and will receive a $150,000 prize.

James Frank is declared the official winner because he received a higher percentage of votes than Gary Metros. This result supports Christopher Hamilton’s thesis that “the end justifies the means.” However, Wan also emphasizes that both young men performed exceptionally well.

The novel’s finale presents a profound moral question. While James’s victory is based on blackmail, manipulation, and dirty tactics, Gary’s victory is based on a model that is sustainable, strengthens society, and leaves a more solid legacy in the long term. “Project Violet” demonstrates that short-term gain in politics can be achieved through pragmatism, but true lasting success and social trust can be built through ethical values.

Both young politicians have begun their new careers, but which of them will truly be considered successful will be revealed later in their political careers. The novel concludes by inviting the reader to consider the true meaning of “winning.”

As a Los Angeles City Council aide, Jose Ugarte failed to disclose years worth of outside income he made from lobbying and consulting — and, as a result, was prepared to pay a fine.

But the city’s Ethics Commission has now rejected a $17,500 settlement agreement with the council candidate. Two commissioners said the fine was not quite large enough.

“We need to signal that this is a serious violation,” said Manjusha Kulkarni, the president of the commission, who voted against the settlement.

Ugarte is deputy chief of staff to Curren Price and is running to replace his longtime boss on the City Council. Price has endorsed him. But the council aide failed to report outside income from his consulting firm, Ugarte & Associates, for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, according to Ethics Commission documents.

He said the failure to report the outside income was a “clerical reporting error.”

Although two of the commissioners want a steeper fine against Ugarte, the suggested bump isn’t that large.

Two commissioners voted in favor of the $17,500 settlement, but Kulkarni and another commissioner, Terry Kaufmann, agreed the settlement amount should be around $20,000.

It’s an amount that they believe could send a clearer message.

“There is great concern about what is happening in Los Angeles. … Individuals routinely violate the laws we put in place to ensure trust,” Kulkarni said.

Kaufmann added that she was concerned by the fact that Ugarte still worked for a council member and was running for office.

The proposed settlement with Ugarte included seven counts against him, and each comes with a potential $5,000 penalty. But since Ugarte was cooperative, the commission’s director of enforcement reduced the overall penalty by 50%, bringing it down from $35,000 to the $17,500 figure.

Ugarte told The Times that his work with Ugarte & Associates never overlapped with his time in Price’s office.

He started working for Price in 2013 but left the office in 2019. He returned in 2021. Ugarte & Associates was formed in 2018 and still conducts business. He co-owns the company with his sister.

After 12 years on the Los Angeles City Council, Curren Price will be term-limited out of the legislative body this coming year.

The candidate he hopes will replace him comes from his staff, his deputy chief of staff, Jose Ugarte, who has been referred to in the past as Price’s “right-hand man.”

But with many months to go before ballots are cast, Ugarte is already in hot water with the city’s Ethics Commission.

According to documents released by the commission, Ugarte has agreed to pay a $17,500 fine for repeatedly failing to disclose outside income he made from his lobbying and consulting firm while also working as a council staffer.

A commission investigation found that Ugarte failed to report outside income from his consulting firm, Ugarte & Associates, for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, according to the documents.

The Ugarte proposed settlement is set to go before the Ethics Commission on Wednesday.

“This was an unintentional clerical reporting error on my part. As soon as I was made aware, I took full responsibility and corrected them,” Ugarte said in a statement emailed to The Times. “I take disclosure seriously. Moving forward, I have implemented steps to ensure nothing is missed.”

Ugarte said his work with Ugarte & Associates never overlapped with his time in Price’s office. He started working for Price in 2013, but left the office in 2019. He returned in 2021. Ugarte & Associates was formed in 2018 and still conducts business. He co-owns the company with his sister.

The settlement comes as Ugarte’s boss faces his own ethics quandary.

Price was indicted two years ago on 10 counts of grand theft by embezzlement after his wife’s consulting firm received payments of more than $150,000 between 2019 and 2021 from developers before Price voted to approve projects.

Prosecutors also said Price failed to list his wife’s income on his ethics disclosure forms.

Prosecutors have since filed additional charges against Price saying his wife, Del Richardson, was paid hundreds of thousands by the city housing authority while Price voted in favor of millions in grants to the agency. He also wrote a motion to give $30 million to the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority from 2020 to 2021, a time frame in which Richardson was paid more than $200,000 by the agency.

Price said he supports Ugarte despite the ethics violation.

“This matter dates back to 2021, when he was not employed by the city, and is clerical in nature,” Price said in a statement texted to The Times. “I wholeheartedly support Jose Ugarte, alongside an unprecedented coalition of elected officials, labor groups, and community leaders who stand behind his character, leadership and proven record of results.”

Ugarte is one of the leading candidates running to represent Council District 9, which covers South Los Angeles. He raised $211,206 in the first reporting cycle of the election, far outpacing his rivals.

One of Ugarte’s opponents, Estuardo Mazariegos, called the Ethics Commission findings “very disturbing.”

The Ethics Commission also alleged that Ugarte’s documents about outside income, known as Form 700s, failed to report clients who gave $10,000 or more to Ugarte & Associates.

Those clients were mostly independent expenditures for local candidates.

His firm was paid $128,050 to help with the reelection campaign of Congressman Jimmy Gomez (D-California). It was also paid $222,000 by Elect California to help with the reelection campaign of Mitch O’Farrell among other clients.

“This proposed settlement raises more questions than it answers: Are these the only payments Ugarte hid? Why was he concealing them from the public? And above all, how did these massive payments in outside interests affect Jose Ugarte’s work as a city employee?” Mazariegos said in a statement to The Times.

Reporting from Sacramento — The state ethics agency cited the serious illness and death of key witnesses in its decision to drop charges that political contributions were laundered to the 2010 campaign of Assemblyman Roger Hernandez (D-West Covina).

Ending a protracted legal battle that began three years ago, the state Fair Political Practices Commission has also notified Hernandez’s attorney that it will not pursue allegations that the candidate failed to report spending on a mass mailing on the West Covina City Council elections.

“After a full investigation, the Enforcement Division did not find sufficient, reliable evidence to conclude that your client violated the [Political Reform] Act in this instance and is closing the file on this matter,” wrote Zachary W. Norton, an attorney for the FPPC, to Hernandez’s lawyer.

SIGN UP for the free Essential Politics newsletter >>

The state agency launched the probe after receiving a citizen complaint questioning loans of $100,000 that Hernandez made to his campaign in 2009 and 2010.

The commission issued a finding of probable cause in January. At that time, an attorney for the state agency alleged Hernandez’s committee filed “an inaccurate semi-annual campaign statement with the Secretary of State, falsely reporting information regarding the true sources of contributions received.”

Hernandez challenged the allegations, and in preparing for an administrative hearing, commission attorneys found “inconsistencies in previous witness testimony” and that key witnesses were not available, Norton said.

“Specifically, one key witness has serious medical issues that would prevent him from testifying and another has passed away,” Norton wrote in the case-closing letter. “The standard for proving a violation of the Act administratively is based on the preponderance of the evidence and, at this point, the evidence is not sufficient to meet that standard.”

The allegation involving failure to report a mass mailer was dropped after Hernandez’s campaign provided information that the campaign staffer who approved it was not authorized to do so, Norton said.

Jimmy Gutierrez, an attorney for the Assemblyman, said the letter provides false excuses for why the case was dropped.

“They had issued probable cause findings with no facts whatsoever and they know it,” Gutierrez said. “There was absolutely no merit to it whatsoever.”

For years, Los Angeles City Councilmember John Lee declined to publicly discuss a fateful Las Vegas trip he took in 2017 with his then-boss Mitch Englander and a trio of businessmen.

That trip led to an FBI investigation of Englander, then a City Council member, who accepted an envelope of cash in a casino bathroom from one of the businessmen and later pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators.

Last week, in court to address allegations from the L.A. Ethics Commission, Lee finally broke his silence, divulging details of the high-rolling trip and insisting that he paid for his share.

There was his comped Aria hotel room — a standard room, not a suite, he said. There was the Hakkasan Nightclub, where he sipped whiskey and danced as hostesses paraded out $8,000 bottles of booze. And there was the casino, where he played blackjack — after losing $1,000 at the baccarat table — because he preferred the lower-stakes game.

Over and over, Lee, who was then Englander’s chief of staff, denied accepting gifts in violation of city ethics laws. Under grilling by a city enforcement officer, Lee described stuffing $300 into the pocket of one of the businessmen, Andy Wang, to cover his share at the nightclub. At dinner earlier that night, he said, he paid for his own drinks.

“I believe I made a good-faith effort to repay what I consumed that night,” Lee testified.

In 2023, the Ethics Commission accused Lee, who occupies Englander’s former seat representing the northwest San Fernando Valley, of accepting “multiple gifts” in violation of ethics laws, including free hotel rooms, poker chips and food, from a businessman and a developer during the Vegas trip.

The businessman and the developer were not named in the complaint, but details indicate that one was Wang and the other was Christopher Pak, both of whom testified as witnesses.

The commission has also accused Lee of helping Englander backdate checks to repay the businessman who comped the hotel rooms.

Federal prosecutors never criminally charged Lee, and he has said he was unaware of any wrongdoing by Englander.

At the time, city officials, including high-ranking council aides, could accept gifts with a value between $50 and $470 from a single source but had to disclose them, according to city and state laws. They were not allowed to accept gifts over $470 from a single source.

The Ethics Commission alleges that Lee violated both provisions.

Attorneys for Lee, who denies the allegations, have repeatedly tried to block the commission’s case, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired.

Witness testimony concluded last week, and Administrative Law Judge Ji-Lan Zang is expected to make a recommendation about what, if any, ethics violations Lee committed.

Then, a panel of ethics commissioners will vote on whether violations occurred and what the financial penalties, if any, should be.

In 2023, Englander agreed to pay $79,830 to settle a similar Ethics Commission case.

At last week’s hearing, city enforcement officer and attorney Marian Thompson sought to cast doubt on Lee’s version of events. She zeroed in on his insistence that he joined the group at an expensive Chinese restaurant, Blossom, but didn’t eat because he arrived late.

She read aloud the bill for the nearly $2,500 dinner — Kobe beef, Maine lobster, Peking duck, sea bass and more. Surely Lee, who had previously described himself as a “meat and potatoes” guy, liked Kobe beef? Thompson asked.

Lee said he tried only the bird’s nest soup. He described taking a spoonful of someone else’s bowl and saying, “Absolutely not” — it was “gelatinous,” he told Thompson.

Lee acknowledged drinking at the restaurant, giving someone — he couldn’t remember whom — $100 to cover the tab.

According to Englander’s 2020 federal indictment, a “City Staffer B” received some of the same perks as Englander during the Vegas trip. That staffer was widely presumed to be Lee, prompting calls for the newly elected council member to resign. Since then, questions about the Vegas trip have dogged Lee, though he easily won reelection in 2024.

Englander was sentenced to 14 months in federal prison. In his plea agreement, he admitted lying repeatedly to federal investigators and receiving a combined $15,000 in cash — $10,000 in a casino bathroom in Las Vegas, plus $5,000 at the Morongo Casino Resort & Spa from an unnamed businessman.

That man, Wang, ran companies that sold cabinets and home technology systems, was seeking relationships with real estate developers and others to increase his business opportunities in the city.

During his testimony last week, Lee said he followed city ethics laws during the Vegas trip. At the Aria hotel-casino, Englander showed Lee poker chips that Wang had given him, Lee testified.

“I told him immediately that he needed to give those chips back to Andy,” Lee said.

Lee also said he gave Englander a blank check with the understanding that Englander would reimburse Wang, who had comped Lee’s room.

But in a declaration in the ethics case, Englander wrote that neither he nor Lee reimbursed Wang “for any of the gifts we received at the Aria,” including the room, meals and drinks.

“While in Las Vegas, NV, Lee did not give me a check to reimburse Wang,” Englander added.

Thompson asked Lee about Englander’s statements.

“He’s lied before,” Lee replied.

In addition to Wang, two others — Michael Bai, a lobbyist who formerly worked at City Hall, and Koreatown developer Pak — came on the Vegas trip. Bai also testified as a witness last week.

Lee and Englander gave Wang separate checks for $442 on Sept. 14 that year. The ethics commission has accused Lee and Englander of backdating the checks to Aug. 4 — before they were interviewed by the FBI.

Lee disputed that during the hearing, saying he gave Englander his check on Aug. 4, after he said Englander had lost the earlier one.

At the Hakkasan club, Wang spent $24,000 on bottle service, with Pak spending an additional $10,000.

According to an estimate by the commission, the share Lee drank was worth $5,666.67.

But Lee’s attorney, Brian Hildreth, challenged that assertion. Dozens of revelers streamed through the group’s VIP booth that night, Lee and Pak both testified.

Lee said he had only two to four drinks and suggested that many people drank from the bottles.

Addressing questions about the casino, Lee acknowledged accepting $1,000 in poker chips from Wang, saying he thought he was playing on Wang’s behalf. Lee said he would have given any winnings to Wang.

But Lee testified that he didn’t know how to play baccarat and warned Wang that he wasn’t doing well, ultimately losing all the chips.

During questioning by Hildreth, Lee described withdrawing a total of $1,500 from ATMs in Vegas, with a bank statement listing the three withdrawals over two days.

Lee testified that he wanted “to make sure that I had my own money and paid for everything that I was a part of.”

Thompson pursued a counternarrative, describing the spectacle of nightclub hostesses bringing out bottles.

“You got VIP treatment?” Thompson asked.

“Treatment I’d never received before,” Lee answered.

The Trump brand has been used to hawk cryptocurrencies, Bibles, steaks and guitars. Now the US president’s media company is laying the groundwork to sell investment funds.

Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which is majority owned by Donald Trump, plans to sell offerings tied to his agenda.

The parent of the Truth Social platform, where the president is also a prominent poster, has announced plans for and trademarked the names of a group of financial products under the Truth.Fi banner—investments that will potentially benefit from the president’s policies with bets on energy, crypto and domestic manufacturing. The proposed products include exchange-traded funds, or portfolios that trade like stocks that can be purchased through most brokers.

Details on the products’ structures and strategies are still scarce. ETFs are subject to approval by regulators, and no public filings are available yet. Yet the brand-building has already begun. So have the arguments. Critics see a sitting US president having a financial stake in the success of funds that are associated with his brand and his politics, built on strategies that he can influence from the White House.

“These transactions fly in the face of government ethics standards,” says Michael Posner, professor of ethics and finance at NYU Stern School of Business. “When you’re president, the assumption is that 100% of your energy is devoted to serving the country—not monetizing your public platform.”

The administration says the president is walled off. “President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children,” Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.” Trump Media did not respond to a request for comment.

US presidents aren’t required under federal law to divest assets, but past leaders have done so or used blind trusts to avoid perceived conflicts. Trump, however, has maintained financial exposure through family-controlled structures. Right before taking office again, he transferred about $4 billion worth of Trump Media shares to a trust controlled by his son Donald Trump Jr. But the arrangement is not a blind trust with independent oversight.

The concern among ethics experts isn’t only the ownership. It’s the overlap between policy and potential monetary benefit. The Truth.Fi funds could rise and fall in line with decisions the president makes in office. Protectionist policies aimed at various sectors and countries could help the proposed Truth.Fi Made in America ETF, which is set to bet on reshoring. Deregulatory moves in favor of crypto may boost a Bitcoin-themed ETF. And so on.

The crypto angle is a familiar one. Trump and his family have already profited from the digital-asset boom, hyping up a cryptocurrency bearing his name. Such so-called memecoins have no underlying value as investments, but creators of Trump’s coin recently held a promotion offering top holders a private dinner with the president. A company affiliated with the Trump Organization owns a large chunk of the Trump memecoins. Another Trump family-linked company, World Liberty Financial, has also issued its own cryptocurrencies, including a dollar-linked digital token called a stablecoin. World Liberty recently announced the coin would be used to complete a $2 billion transaction between a state-backed Abu Dhabi company and the overseas crypto exchange Binance. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have said the stablecoin offers “opportunities for unprecedented corruption” because the Trump family can benefit financially from the use of its product.

In its ETF announcement, Trump Media said the proposed products, which include portfolios known as separately managed accounts in addition to ETFs, offer a conservative alternative to “woke” investing. It’s a niche currently occupied by funds including the Point Bridge America First ETF and the God Bless America ETF, among others. Both have gathered only modest assets, as have left-leaning ETFs, thanks in part to a saturated ETF market that’s making life harder for newbie issuers.

There are already about 60 ETFs based on Bitcoin, a tally that’s grown by at least 22 this year. In addition, there are more than 60 funds tied to energy, including coal, and at least three from issuers including Tema and BlackRock Inc.’s iShares based on reshoring and manufacturing, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Trump Media “will be depending on its brand recognition to set its ETFs apart among a crowd of competing products,” says Roxanna Islam, head of sector and industry research at ETF shop TMX VettaFi. “A strong political following may help gather initial support, but in the long run, flows will ultimately depend on ETF basics like fees and performance.”

The company has announced plans to seed the funds with as much as $250 million. It’s working with trading platform Crypto.com and investment firm Yorkville Advisors to help run the funds. Still, its biggest unrivaled asset is Trump himself. Even if he’s not an explicit spokesperson, almost everything he does makes him a potential ad for the company. “What a competing fund doesn’t have is a person who’s in the news literally every day who can then talk about these things,” says Philip Nichols, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Hal Lambert, who runs the MAGA ETF and has raised money for Trump’s presidential runs, dismisses concerns about conflicts. For one, the president’s views on issues such as domestic manufacturing have been publicly known for decades. There are more direct ways to have a seat at the table than buying an ETF, he says; people can give money to campaigns or political action committees, for instance. “I just don’t know that that stuff would work on him,” Lambert says. “Trump does what he wants to do.”

Hajric writes for Bloomberg