Liberty and Justice for All!

Yesterday, Elliot Stonecipher was on the Jim Brown show and both of them agreed that we are not going to see real ethics reform unless we see campaign finance reform right along side it. You can listen to the interview here.

The interview discussed those issues that I have raised, that a politician can collect more than just the “campaign maximum” from an individual as long as that person owns several corporations.

One key point Mr. Stonecipher made was to a caller who was concerned that people want to believe in the Governor and questioned that Mr. Stonecipher was already questioning the plan of Governor-elect Jindal. Mr. Stonecipher said that he has tried to contact Mr. Jindal about his concerns to no avail. He then said this:

We will know when we see what passes the legislature what were really going to get in ethics reform. But my concern is the following. We…  are now in a place where Governor-elect Jindal has raised the expectations so high that at 55 years old I know we are never going to get to revisit this in my lifetime. Whatever it is he offers up, the people of Louisiana will say is ethics reform because they want to believe that. That will not make that true. So, I don’t have any agenda here accept trying to get the real deal done instead of a political deal done. And that I feel is the difference.

That is a great point. Just because people want to believe they elected Jindal to bring ethics reform, it does not mean that what Bobby Jindal will actually bring real ethics reform. We need to hold his feet to the fire and make sure we get that real ethics reform. The only way to get real ethics reform is to include real campaign finance reform. Real campaign finance reform includes, but is not limited to, eliminating corporate donations.

Edited to add this additional comment by Mr. Stonecipher:

Let’s remember and let me be specific about this. Bobby Jindal’s political goals and objectives are not best served by [his] really totally revamping the ethics apparatus in Louisiana.  … Now, the people who think I’m slamming Bobby Jindal believe that Bobby Jindal will just automatically do the things that are best for Louisiana. I’m sorry, nobody ever does that. That’s all I’m going to say. Im not throwing rocks at Bobby Jindal. Im saying they are political animals and they do what’s best for them and whats best for the state (we hope). But its a blend of the two. If bobby Jindal can send the old LA ETHICS #1 bill to the legislature … if he sends a bunch of easy changes to make and the legislature can pass it and pat themselves on the back …  its going to look like a political win and he gets to claim victory. I would conend thats the very thing Blanco would have done, the very thing Foster would have done … that is not in our best interest. It is in their political interest.

Very well stated! And as Jim Brown followed up, we don’t want to let someone hit a single and claim they hit a home run.

Steve Sabludowski, owner of BayouBuzz.com states:

It is unfair for a network of related-companies to contribute the legal limits to a single candidate (whether those candidates are republicans or democrats or even independents) .   That practice sends the wrong message when we are trying to say that

Louisiana is not for sale.  While disallowing government officials to work for government agencies or acting as consultants for lobbyists is a major focus of the Jindal ethics reform, there can really be no real reform if candidates can skirt election laws by pooling contributions from related businesses.  If

Louisiana really wants to get into the business of becoming the beacon of bright ethics light, it must start with the very way we handle and win our own elections.

The companies don’t have to be related in any way other than the fact that they are owned by someone. Is absolutely a circumvention of the explained intent of campaign finance laws to allow someone to donate the maximum amount allowed times the number of corporations he owns plus one.

I have a feeling that this is going to really take off soon. Let’s just hope that the politicians (who benefit from these loopholes) pay attention and realize that this is going to be what the majority of the citizens want. No true ethics reform can happen without campaign finance reform.

Over on Bayou Buzz, Jim Brown states:

Right now, Louisiana has loopholes in its campaign finance laws you could drive a truck through.  If the new Governor limits his ethics reform proposals to disclosure and limitations on just elected officials, he will give the perception of making some changes, but he will not be shutting the door on what are now widespread abuses.

Bobby Jindal needs to do more than just get a hit his first time at bat with the new legislature.  He needs to hit a homerun.  Closing campaign finance loopholes will give him a good shot at getting off to a good start that is perceived as both perception and substantive change.

I discussed this issue with him when I called into his show. The topic of discussion was about Bobby Jindal failing to follow his promise of not interfering with the selection of legislative leaders when he backed Chaisson for Senate President. I asked if anyone was surprised that Jindal would back down on this promise since he campaign on ethics and then promoted someone to his ethics team that used that violation of the campaign finance laws. I hope more and more people jump on this bandwagon. I have been trying to make a large noise about this for a while now and finally I think we are getting some traction!

I tend to not like to insult people when discussing what they say. But in Jeff Sadow’s recent apologia for Bobby Jindal, he freely calls someone else a “dummy” and a “moron” so far be it from me to point out when the pot calls the kettle black.

See, Jeff Sadow did not like when someone stated that the Republican Party was “historically a white-only party” and that “Jindal may have cornered the Mother Teresa vote, but Mahatma Gandhi certainly would have opposed him on principle.”

What makes Sadow an idiot is this:

Second, this dummy obviously needs a history lesson. The Republican Party started as an organized abolitionist movement that branched out into electoral politics just prior to the Civil War. In fact, its rise to prominence triggered the Civil War, among other causes, as southern Democrats believed the new party would be able to roll back slavery of blacks. After the Civil War, many blacks were elected as Republicans both at the state and national level – until Democrats began to find ways to prevent them from even participating in politics in the south. Currently dozens of blacks serve as GOP elected officials. If anything, it’s been Democrats who for so long (and maintained this by law) were “historically whites-only.”

So let me get this straight, Jeff Sadow jumps from the Republican Party when it was the “Party of Lincoln” and jumps all the way up to today to point out the “dozens” of black people who serve as elected Republicans?

He must forget that Democrats pushed for civil rights, with the exceptions of the Southern Democrats that became “Dixiecrats” (like Strom Thurmond).

He must forget that those Dixiecrats later found a home within the Republican party, who used their “southern strategy” to get votes from those racist white voters.

He also is trying to make those “dozens” seem like a lot. However, he clearly forgets the hundreds and hundreds of elected Democrats who are Black.

So I find it hard to believe that he would try to give a history lesson to some “dummy” when he leaves out about 100 years of history and ignores the super-majority of elected leaders who are Black. But this is where Jeff Sadow shows is sheer ignorance.

The left retains power in this country only because it can hornswoggle non-whites into thinking it can help them, by a strategy of disinformation and disempowerment of them.

Basically, Sadow is saying that non-whites are too stupid to realize that the mean evil Democrats are taking advantage of them. In reallity, minorities are smart because they see which party pushes for equality and which party fights equality. They see that the Democrats fight discrimination and the Republians seek to get government out of protecting minorities. Basically, they know who their friends are and the Republican party is not the friend of minorities when they would pander to racists.

Many Republicans will respond by saying “but look at Condi, she is black”. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the same thing as those who point out “but some of my friends are black”. Democrats don’t need to elevate individuals to show that they are supportive of minorities.