Sadow thinks that bribes are “free speech”
In his most recent Jindal apologia, Jeff Sadow states:
The latter group is represented by the likes of Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, who has offered legislation (SB 20) that would prevent elected officials from running from another elective office and another (SB 23) that would prohibit the governor from appointing anybody to anything who contributed to his campaign. The former serves absolutely no ethical purpose and the latter is a deliberate attempt to discourage exercise of free speech rights.
Look at Jindal’s executive council, who donated a lot of money to Jindal’s campaign who got his appointment to a job that will likely pay more than what was donated. Mr. Sadow doesn’t quite understand that while a person does have the right to make campaign contributions, they do not have the right to be appointed to an office by the Governor. And the only people who would be discouraged from making campaign contributions are those who want government employment and feel that the only way to obtain it is to give a campaign donation.
I am also fairly sure, because I am fairly cynical about government reform, that all this will do is prevent individuals who want government appointments from donating from their personal funds. They would probably still be able to make campaign contributions via any corporations they own. Since Bobby Jindal has not pushed to prevent corporate contributions to campaigns, there will still remain that unethical loophole.
Looking towards a global perspective, there are those who want to make sure Jindal politically gains little luster from the session because they want to reduce his power for the future.
Of course, Sadow here poisons the well and presents the logical fallacy that those who dare make the comment against Jindal and his so called attempts at reform are people who want the ethics session to fail. I am sure that such people exist. However, there are many others who are calling Jindal out on his so called “ethics reform” because his attempts at ethics reform do not include certain important items. The lack of those items means that Jindal (and others) can continue to act unethically.
And what is worse, and what everyone needs to be reminded of, is that Jindal and his administration seem to be more worried about fixing the “perception” of ethical problems then actually fixing ethical problems. And, as Elliot Stonecipher correctly pointed out, people will look at any ethics bill passed and will falsely assume that Jindal has passed meaningful ethics reform. However, just because an ethics bill passes does not make it meaningful.
He picked a subject area with widespread popular support as the first opportunity to legislate for many, especially in the House with rookies comprising over half of it, many of whom evoked ethics in their campaigns – and who have not seen the temptations that lax ethics standards could entice them into opposition.
If Sadow really believes this, he is more naive and uninformed than we all thought.
If Jindal can get at least half of the agenda the way he wants and the other half in a semblance of the way he wants, his power will magnify for the next contemplated special session on economics and the regular session, which will feature the slaughtering of a lot of sacred cows for which he’ll need all the power he can get.
WELL, either that or Jindal will have to make so many deals to pass a smokescreen “ethics bill” that allows us to eliminate the perception of ethical problems to the rest of the country (while allowing Jindal to continue his unethical activities) that when it comes time to deal with a special session on economics and the regular session, his hands will be so tied to the deals he made that he will have no power to do anything. I would not expect a Jindal apologist to look at the other side of the coin though.
Otherwise, he may have trouble living up to high expectations that have formed around his governorship.
I believe he already is having those troubles.
Update: Jeff responded to me on his thread. Here is my response to his post.
“A contribution is a form of political speech, so you are arguing that to be appointed to office you must give up your right to speak out about politics in this format which is not substitutable with any other. “
No, I am saying that if your desire is to get a public appointment that you will not be able to buy your way into the governors office. Your argument that a monetary campaign contribution is “not substitutable” with any other form of political speech is illogical. People seeking government employment under a specific candidate would be able to erect signs in their yard, put bumper stickers on their cars, wear other campaign gear, volunteer to make phone calls, hand out fliers, and do many other things that are quite valuable to a campaign.
“If we identify the communication of ideas — i.e., helping to finance a candidate that articulates those ideas — as a bedrock principle of a free, democratic society, your idea violates that.”
While it is true that financing of candidates should be a part of a free and democratic society, this was not “my idea” (though I do support it) and the idea does not violate that principle. It is currently illegal for people who own casinos to make campaign contributions. Such restrictions have not been ruled to violate those individuals free speech rights. Or would you argue that casino owners should be allowed to make campaign contributions as well?
“Further, it relies on the facile assumption, long disproven by hordes of researchers, that money buys influence in politics.”
Who are these researchers? Perhaps you can provide a link to the hordes of researchers that claim “Money does not buy influence in politics”. Is it any wonder that Jimmy Faircloth is Bobby Jindal’s executive council? He contributed the maximum to his campaign (and his law firm also contributed to his campaign as well).
“Just think it through, tens of thousands of people gave to Jindal, for example. A few hundred at most — many not even his contributors — will be appointed by him. So all these other people failed to “buy” an office, in this simplistic formulation? If so many fail, then where is the quid pro quo you so blindly assume?”
Where in my argument did I make the claim that people only contribute to try and buy an office? I did not, so your argument is already flawed.
However, there are many people (at many levels of government) who make contributions for the purpose of either getting a prime appointment, getting a government contract, or getting legislation passed that would be favorable to their businesses. Anyone who would reject that this happens is naive at best.
“Finally, restricting free speech rights that discourages some people’s input into the process only empowers other organizations or people. This would magnify the electability of candidates who rely on their own resoources and disadvantage those that cannot.”
Louisiana law allows corporate campaign contributions. Federal law does not. Many people have been elected to Federal offices who did not rely on their own resources. So again, your argument is flawed.
“And it would do nothing to discourage those who create or take advantage of 527 organizations to go around such a law. Indeed, the organizations’ input would become more substantial at the expense of others, whose motives are far more difficult to uncover than tracking the transparency in reporting of individual contributions.”
Well, then perhaps we need to work of fixing the problems surrounding 527 organizations and not use that as an excuse to allow people to purchase their way into government employment.
“Courts have consistently ruled that political donations are exercises of free speech that can be limited only in amount.”
My casino example proves you wrong.
“Further, they also have sided with the doctrine that there must be a compelling state interest in the curtailing of free speech liberties.”
The elimination of the ability of a person to purchase their way into a government appointment is quite compelling. I am sorry that you do not agree. People should not have the right to bribe elected officials to get what they want. Giving large contributions to a candidate for the purpose of getting a government appointment is clearly a bribe.
“There’s obviously no such interest present in this restriction either in a person’s exercising this right, or, for that matter, a winner’s right to appoint who he pleases subject to constitutional or legal qualifications (thus your false dichotomy).”
Just because you say that there is no such interest does not make it so. Again, i find it quite compelling that we would eliminate the ability of someone to bribe their way into government employment. But hey, if you think that bribes are free speech then go right ahead and keep believing it.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:20 am
UPDATE 2: More to our conversation:
That does not disprove my statement. Even if 10% of the appointments are purchased, that still means that people are able to purchase them.
What is the “maximum”, really, when corporations can contribute as well? The answer…. the only “maximum” campaign donation is the number of corporations you own.
You are using the false logic that just because something doesn’t happen all the time that it doesn’t happen at all.
No. But when people can circumvent campaign finance laws and funnel multiple “maximum donations” to a candidate, you will likely be able to purchase the influence.
Actually, you need to re-read my post. I never made the assertion that the only reason to contribute is to buy an office. I made the assertion that SOME people do it, not all. Many people donate because they think that candidate is the best person for the job. And I clearly stated that those people would not have their right to free speech infringed in anyway.
Keeping it legal to give bribes for appointments continues the perception that Louisiana government is for sale. Isn’t that what Jindal is supposedly trying to solve?
My whole quote was “Louisiana law allows corporate campaign contributions. Federal law does not.” The point I was making was to show that limitations in campaign contributions exist and not to the detriment of candidates who have won.
John Georges, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot… how many wealthy people would have to run for office to show you that personal wealth is not all you crack it up to be in an election.
I used the ban on contributions on casino owners to show that there are cases where the complete ban on campaign contributions from a certain class of people (casino owners) is not a violation of their free speech rights (according to the courts).
There are also other examples where people are banned from giving campaign contributions because of their employment. Take civil service for example. Civil servants are not allowed to take part in ANY political activity. They, like government appointments, do not have the “right” to that job. They choose to take the job, knowing that if they do so their political activities will be restricted. And as long as you go into the job knowing the rules, and you still go for the job, it is not an example of government stripping anyone of their free speech rights because they are choosing to do so of their own free will.
So what is the compelling interest to prevent people from getting political appointments who donated money to the campaign of the office holder? Well, one reason is that apparently the Governor believes employers funneling money through their employees is a big deal. So what is to stop the office holder from hiring people to a government position with the understanding that they will get paid $X more in salary than normal and they are expected to contribute that money back to his reelection campaign? Should the governor have the ability to funnel tax dollars to his reelection campaign? Yes or no.
Well, if you use that analogy, you are acknoledging the bathwater needs to be tossed out.
Wait a second. Who is saying that the free speech rights of the vast majority of others are being taken away with this legislation? If we tell people who want government appointments that they cannot contribute to the campaign of the person making the appointments, that has absolutely no effect on the vast majority of people who are not trying to get government appointments.
Sure there is. See the example I gave with the governor funneling tax dollars to his campaign (and the governors belief that employers funneling money to campaigns via their employees happens enough that a law needs to be written about that).
Then we should deal with those other issues as well. We shouldn’t just allow people to bribe their way into government because other people can circumvent the law that would prevent such bribes. We should make it so people cannot circumvent the law.
The bottom line is this. People do not have the right to be employed by their government. Because of this, government has the authority make some restrictions on the political activities to both protect those employees from retribution for their political activities and to prevent people from using government employees to funnel tax dollars to their own campaigns.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I followed your thread on Sadow’s blog with some interest. This professor is using his status as an academic to shill for the Republican party. His conclusions are generally unsupported and unfounded.
And his Thursday entry calls Obama the “magic negro,” which I found especially offensive coming from an academic.
I have quit commenting on his blog, opting instead to start my own, www.twongsgazette.blogspot.com . I weighed in on his last entry.
I enjoy your blog and have bookmarked it.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:27 am
While I agree with your synopsis of Sadow (especially the more in depth one in your blog), I disagree with the tactic of not posting to his blog. Some might view the posting to his blog as giving it unwarranted credibility. However, the idea I find more troubling is having his ideas go unchallenged. To each their own of course.
What I also find troubling about the Sadow article is that not just that he doesn’t understand the context in which David Ehrenstein uses the term (or worse, he does understand it and uses the term in a way that Ehrenstein did not mean). I also have a problem with his continued pushing of the so called “white guilt” that Ehrenstein also brings up (but again, Sadow takes out of context).
See, Ehrenstein uses the “white guilt” theory to define what the “Magic Negro” has been in our culture. Sadow uses the term to try and explain away why white people will specifically vote for Obama. To me, whenever people use the term “white guilt” it is a disparagement that “conservatives” use to those of us white “liberals” who feel that racism is actually wrong and that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to stand up for other people from other cultures when society gives them the short end of the stick. Unfortunately, the closed minded cannot remove their heads from certain orifices long enough to understand that. Their simplistic, and racist if I might add, view is that the only reason a white person would stand up and support a black person for anything is because of some guilt. That is what I personally find most offensive. If Obama is the Democratic nominee for president I will be voting for him for who he is and not what he is. It will not be done out of guilt, but because I will truly believe that he is the better person for the job.
Though I must add that in my disgust towards Sadow and his words in that article I also find some laughter and irony… that Sadow would quote a gay black man who is part jewish to “prove his point” is quite humorous. I wonder if he (the conservative who supports the gay hating embryo lover Jindal, who would use the “magic negro” term as so called “proof”) even knows.
I am glad you enjoy my blog though, so far I have enjoyed yours as well. Thanks for contributing, I hope you do more soon.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:14 am
I couldn’t help myself and dropped a comment on his blog tonight before I came back to this one. I agree– somebody needs to call him out. He probably has students that will read his blog, recognize him as an authority figure, and take his blog ex cathedra. You have a good point.