“if they’re not touching the dough, the ethics game is all for show”
That is a quote from Mike Stagg and his “pay to play gop way” piece on Bobby Jindal and the bundling of campaign donations. If you click on the “campaign finance reform” link below this post you will see my previous comments on the issue. Mike brings some very valid points to this important issue. He also shows that Bobby Jindal received a third of his campaign funds through bundling (which is enabled by allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns).
Mike’s post refers to an article in the Advocate. There are some interesting comments that need to be looked at (some Mike looked at already, others he did not comment on directly).
The first business to benefit from state economic development aid under Gov. Bobby Jindal is run by a man whose family and businesses donated at least $135,250 to the governor’s campaign and local Republican Party causes during the past year.
That in and of itself shoudl raise an eyebrow of any concerned citizen.
Jindal used part of the state’s $1.1 billion surplus to put $10 million in a Terrebonne Parish port expansion. Jindal also gave an additional $4 million grant to the project.
So $14 million dollars in our tax dollars goes to someone who contributed over $100K to Bobby Jindal’s campaign. That is a fact.
Jindal said he did nothing improper in pushing a deal that creates 1,000 new jobs in two years time.
“Anyone who looks at the facts will clearly see that it’s a great success story for Louisiana,”
Right, just as Jindal said he would “follow the law” after “ticketgate” even though he previously said that there should be no free tickets and his administration should set the example. This is yet another example of Bobby Jindal trying to spin away a negative into a positive. And people like “4unionparish” (who are blind Jindal loyalists) will probably see no problem with the manner in the FACT that over $130,000 in bundled campaign contributions resulted in 14 million of our tax dollars going to a well connected company.
I thought Bobby Jindal wanted to get rid of the PERCEPTION of ethical problems. How on earth does this help to solve the perception of ethical problems in Louisiana? All this does is promote the perception that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is for sale. It promotes that all you need to do is make a modest investment in his campaign and he will reward you in kind with our tax dollars.
The state Legislature approved both proposals earlier this month.
So no, they are not off the hook either. This is not about one man abusing the system. This is about unethical people from many parties who violate the spirit of the law who use bundling for fundraising and who use the excuse that it is “legal” instead of working to close the loophole.
“I know some people are trying to sell this as a Jindal project,” said state Sen. Reggie Dupré, in whose district the Chouest project is being built.
The Houma Democrat said he has been helping Chouest company officials arrange state funding for the project since 2005.
Is it a shock that Dupre has accepted campaign contributions from one of Chouest’s companies? Granted, it is not as much as Jindal accepted (not even close).
Of course, some contributors are more altruistic as to why they circumvent campaign finance law:
Jimmie Martin is a boatman from Cut Off who attended high school with Chouest. Martin said he gave Jindal $35,000 on May 4, using six different companies he controls because that was “the best way to give Bobby Jindal the most money.”
Isn’t that sweet of him.
“This is the quid pro quo,” Stonecipher said of the link between Chouest and Jindal. “I believe that this is a smoking gun, and to hear Jindal say, ‘I’m going to follow the law’ without addressing campaign finance bundling, well, that’s a way to game the system for your own advantage.”
Again, Stonecipher nails it.
I find it ironic that Bobby Jindal, the person touted as the one to fix our ethics problems, is one of the ones who best exemplifies the actual problems we have in this state. The proof is in the pudding folks. Want a big chunk of our tax dollars? Just open multiple corporations, bundle some campaign contributions, and you will receive your money back 100 fold!
March 31st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
The problem is not Bobby Jindal, it is so called campaign finance that caps the giving of indivudals to their prefered candidate. Regulation is a self sustaining problem, regulations create more problems to regulate more often then not.
Your blogs kind of seem like roadkill on the the Jindal highway of history.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
All of this would really worry me but for the comfort I get recalling that Professor Sadow said that hordes of researchers have disproved the assertion that money buys influence in politics, or some such.
I read Sadow’s entry on this subject and am convinced that his heart is still fluttering from the clandestine blogger’s meeting.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Chuk: Part of the problem is Bobby Jindal (and all the other politicians who abuse loopholes in the law and refuse to fix them).
See, the problem with your argument is that the $5,000 campaign limit does not effect most people. Most people, if they choose to give, will give much less than that. So the reason for a $5,000 limit? Its to give the people the illusion that the wealthy don’t have as much say as they actually do.
Think what you want of my blog. I will continue to expose Jindal for the fraud that he is.
T.Wong: Do I sense some sarcasm?
April 1st, 2008 at 1:53 am
What is amazing is that Sadow actually gave Jindal a B- in his latest blog entry. When Jindal’s biggest cheerleader can only give a B-, he might be in trouble. Could there be a roadblock in Jindal’s “highway of history?”
Jindal has definitely taken duplicity to a new level. The Jindal followers may well become disillusioned with him sooner rather than later. His followers had very high expectations of him. He ran on a platform of smaller government, transparency, and a “gold standard” for ethics. Not only do we not see this, we are seeing quite the opposite.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am
The problem with that idea is that many of the Jindal supporters refuse to see his flaws. I have dealt with the “die hard” supporters of his who will reply to any criticism of him with “but he’s so smart”. It has been burned into their heads that he can do no wrong and they believe it.
And like Sadow, many will say that those who have a problem with Jindal are only doing so because they don’t like him politically. Sadow and other blind Jindal supporters cannot see the possibility that somebody would actually criticize Jindal because Jindal did something that was deserving of criticism. See the responses I get from “4unionparish”.
Jindal (or most probably those behind Jindal) has (have) managed to assemble the ultimate “cult of personality” and at this moment I do not see what it will take to make the die hard supporters change their minds. They act as if they are proven wrong about Jindal that their worlds will come crumbing down around them so they refuse to listen to any criticism that might actually prove them wrong. They treat him like a significant other… and if someone dares insult their significant other they get really mad because they are attacking the person they love.
And that is what is so dangerous about Jindal. His ability to have such a cult following enables him to get away with so much more. So he can just say “im just following the law” while circumventing the law and his supporters just go “oh, ok, all is good”.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Here is what I find perplexing about Sadow. He talks like he is some sort of Chicago School disciple– marketplace is good, free market best allocates resources, blah blah blah.
Having studied enough econ in undergrad to be dangerous, I know that the whole free market/perfect competition model is based on false assumptions that have never occurred in the real world. Likely never will. I disagree with Sadow’s approach, but it has a large following nonetheless. Even among academics.
Weird thing is, Sadow (and many other conservatives) got just plain giddy about Jindal. And I found this very perplexing. Yes, he has the “smart” thing going on in spades, but his history shows a political operator and an understudy of Mike Foster, the Anti-Conservative who grew government spending in a huge way while beating the “I’m a conservative” drum. And Jindal’s the consummate bureaucrat.
Sadow and others are going to be sorely disappointed. He’s going to manipulate the marketplace by using tax incentives, tif’s and other things to favor certain businesses over others. And mind you, there is a great body of literature suggesting that economic development government incentives do more harm than good.
He has already shown himself a master of duplicity– the very things he espouses for others he refuses to do himself.
He will continue to grow the government in a way that is politically expedient for himself.
I am more than ever convinced that Bobby Jindal is not what he seems. His disciples are going to be sorely disappointed.
My prediction– we’ll see who’s right.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Dude!!!!!!! Instead of kneeling by your bedside and praying that Jindal *censored* up, find yourself a hot chick, skip the prayer and get laid!
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Did the hot chick thing earlier this evening, but thanks for your concern.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
And I’m married, so I have no need to find anyone to participate in such activities.
Besides, Jindal has already done enough to prove his naysayers right.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I’m married to the hot chick.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
So D-BB has no idea what he is talking about.