Posted: 10 Sep 2009 10:52 PM PDT

Reporting from Sacramento - For many who join the select club of 120 known as the California Legislature, everything changes. Once inside, they find an army of lobbyists and corporate executives at their disposal, more than eager to shower them with food, drink, travel and -- in some cases -- sex.

The case of Michael Duvall, the 54-year-old Yorba Linda assemblyman who resigned Wednesday after the disclosure that he bragged over an open microphone of apparent sexual trysts, is a window into a world in which those who vie to sit through dreary legislative meetings can be rewarded in more bacchanalian ways.

Beyond lavish meals with fine wines, special interests offer overseas junkets, pro basketball games and weekends at spas and golf resorts that pair their lobbyists with lawmakers.

"When you're in Sacramento, the entire city is dedicated to making you feel important and special," said Don Perata, a former state Senate leader.

An investigation of Duvall's actions is under way. He was vice chairman of a utilities committee, and the probe centers on his alleged relationship with a lobbyist for Sempra Energy -- possibly one of the women referred to in the videotape that captured him graphically describing his sexual encounters.

Sempra said its employee has denied an affair but the company is investigating. Duvall issued a statement Thursday saying that his resignation did not amount to an admission of an illicit relationship.

Also on Thursday, Assemblyman Jeff Miller of Corona, the fellow Republican who listened to Duvall's tales at a lull in a legislative hearing in July, was stripped of his post on the Assembly ethics panel, which is conducting the investigation.

Meanwhile, advocates for government accountability demanded greater disclosure of contacts between lawmakers and lobbyists, and called on a lobbyists' association to expel anyone who has had sex with an official he or she is attempting to influence.

Jackson Gualco, head of the Institute of Governmental Advocates, a Sacramento trade group representing lobbyists, said the organization already has a strict code of conduct to prevent inappropriate relationships, and noted that the state has strict rules requiring disclosure of lobbyist activities as well as regular ethics training.

"There are some good checks and balances," Gualco said.

But fraternization between lawmakers and lobbyists has been part of Sacramento life for decades, as it is in other state capitals and in Washington, D.C.

In 1974, Californians created the Political Reform Act by approving Proposition 9, which restricts lobbyists to spending no more than $10 a month entertaining an individual lawmaker. And in the 1980s, legislators were earning thousands of dollars giving speeches to companies with interests at the Capitol.

After an FBI sting implicated some of them in trading votes for income, Californians passed a ballot measure banning the practice of accepting honoraria.

Still, examples abound of the steps that lobbyists, with their corporate employers footing the bills, take to gain chummy access to lawmakers and exert influence.

At the annual "Speaker's Cup" at Pebble Beach this year, dozens of lobbyists had a chance to rub elbows with Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles).

One lobbyist, Darius Anderson, has been known for arranging trips to Cuba.

The state prison guards' union has sponsored lawmakers' voyages to Maui, paying for some of their expenses there.

At least one company, BP America, has set up an automated hotline that lawmakers and staff can call for freebies to concerts, shows and sports events. Legislators may even "ask a member of their own staff to call on their behalf," BP's phone message says. The firm has spent more than $39,000 on giveaways since 2008.

One of the biggest spenders in Sacramento is AT&T, which has e-mail addresses that lawmakers and their staffs use to request tickets. The company reported $53,000 worth of giveaways in the first half of 2009, including a Britney Spears concert and seats at a Lakers playoff game.

Doug Heller, executive director of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said the Duvall incident shows that lobbyists are increasingly pushing the envelope: the rise of "extreme lobbying," he calls it.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

'Ellen' show hits sour note - New York Post

Posted: 10 Sep 2009 10:52 PM PDT

Ellen DeGeneres could end up paying a high price for the dancing she does on her talk show.

The major record labels have sued the producers and distributors of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," alleging copyright infringement, The Post has learned.

Though the lawsuit doesn't involve DeGeneres personally, the timing of its filing is particularly embarrassing in light of her hiring yesterday to replace Paula Abdul as the fourth judge on "American Idol."

According to the lawsuit, Universal Music Group, EMI, Sony Music and Warner Music Group collectively allege that the show has used "well over one thousand sound recordings owned or controlled" by them without acquiring the proper licenses.

When a song is used in a film or television show, the producers must obtain separate licenses and pay royalties for both the underlying musical composition and the sound recording.

The royalty payment for the musical composition goes to the publishing company, while the royalty payment for the sound recording goes to the record label.

Though the producers obtained the proper clearances from the publishers, the lawsuit, which was filed in Tennessee state court, claims that they made a conscious decision not to seek licenses from the record labels.

Further, according to the lawsuit, when asked why they failed to obtain sound recording licenses, the producers allegedly responded that they "did not roll that way."

Music is an integral part of DeGeneres' show, which features an on-set DJ and an immensely popular opening segment called the "dance over," during which DeGeneres dances across the stage to an area where she interviews guests. Indeed, DeGeneres' awkward booty shaking has become a signature part of her act.

Included among the songs the record labels claim were improperly used on the show are Fergie's "Glamorous," Britney Spears' "Gimme More" and Outkast's "Hey Ya."

"We have been working with the major record labels for many months to resolve a music usage issue," said a spokesman for Warner Bros. Entertainment, which distributes the show. "It is unfortunate that the record labels have resorted to filing a suit over a straightforward business dispute which the show has always been prepared, and remains willing, to resolve on amicable and reasonable terms."

However, a source familiar with the situation noted that the show's producers walked away from negotiations several times and had an unsuccessful mediation because they refused to budge from their initial settlement proposal.

While the record labels filed the suit collectively, this source said settlement talks are taking place with them individually and that the show has already reached a deal to start paying sound recording royalties to some of the labels -- one of which is thought to be Warner Music.

* That prompted a second source to speculate that the lawsuit is likely an attempt by the remaining record labels to extract more favorable terms from the show.

peter.lauria@nypost.com

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Money can't buy classic - Summit Daily News

Posted: 10 Sep 2009 10:59 PM PDT

Much to my disappointment, it recently came to my attention that my fourth all-time most expensive purchase (behind my house, car and a little crocodile purse that was so pricey, I made it promise me all 50 hatchlings from its next litter before I'd seal the deal) has gone out of style.

When I bought the pair of Ferragamo boots at Saks Fifth Avenue seven years ago, I was certain they'd be in vogue forever. At least that's how I justified allowing my credit card to be maxed out by the salesperson, who stubbornly insisted it was necessary if I wanted to actually leave the store with them.

I still have the boots, but as far as I can tell, they'll never see daylight again. I didn't realize they were no longer fashionable until the last time I wore them and saw my cousin had on a pair of knee-high boots, too. Hers looked hip. Mine looked like the boot equivalent of a pre-op hip badly in need of replacement.

The thing is, it seems as if very few things are truly classic. Aside from the little black dress, Levi's and Britney Spears' hair extensions, it's a rare commodity that can survive more than a few years in the spotlight.

On the other hand, I'm hardly the foremost expert on anything trendy. I figured when skinny jeans came back in, the people who wore them did so only with the intention of being ironic, since nobody has ever looked good in them.

Side ponytails and off-the-shoulder sweatshirts were the next to re-emerge on the fashion scene, at which time I scoffed, "What's next, the acid washed denim vest?" (Turns out that particular bad 1980's memory is making a comeback this fall.)

A diet rich in carbs was in forever until it was out for good. Now with the rising (re-)popularity of Julia Child and the Food Network, carbs (and butter) are back with a vengeance. It seems as if the only eating trend never to go out of style is starvation.

Last month my husband and I watched the Harrison Ford and Julia Ormond remake of the 1954 Humphrey Bogart and Audrey Hepburn classic, "Sabrina."

"This one is almost as good as the original," I raved to him. "She's the epitome of timeless elegance in it. She just exudes European sophistication."

About 30 minutes into the film he hit the pause button. "Let me get this straight. She leaves New York, goes to France and becomes a lesbian, right?"

Truth be told, I hadn't watched it since it was it was released in 1995. Sure enough, 14 years later, with the shoulder pads firmly ensconced in the boxy blazer, balloon-like trousers and a nearly full-blown mullet, indeed, Julia Ormond's Sabrina could have been mistaken for Paula Poundstone or Joan Jett.

When "Friends" made its debut in 1994, Jennifer Aniston's "Rachel" haircut was all the rage (it even has its own Wikipedia entry, but then again, so does the basset hound from "The Dukes of Hazzard"). Bouncy, square layered hairstyles sprung up on women everywhere. Looking back, it was an awful cut that flattered no one (including Jennifer Aniston), but at the time, it seemed like the search for the perfect cut had ended. (That is, until Kate Gosselin came along.)

Another classic that seemed as if it would never fade away is the sex tape. There was a time when a Z-list celebrity could get it on with some other Z-lister and capture it on a home video camera, which one or both of them would promptly lose "by accident" at the airport or have "stolen" from their house or hotel. The sex tape guaranteed their Q-rating would shoot up to the next level, affording them such lofty career moves as introducing an eponymous cheap clothing or perfume line, a supporting role in a B movie, a Playboy pictorial or a spot on "Dancing With the Stars."

But nowadays nobody pays attention to sex tapes because they're become de rigueur. No Hollywood movie or television premiere is complete without word leaking that a sex tape with one of the actors has been discovered just prior to its debut. Not having one (or not going to court to get an injunction against the release of one) is career suicide.

I'm hopeful if I hold onto my Ferragamo boots long enough I'll be able to wear them again someday when the fashion tides change. And I vow to never to cut carbs out of my diet so I can always be with, and/or ahead of at least one trend.

E-mail Meredith at meredithccarroll@hotmail.com.