Liberty and Justice for All!

It is against Louisiana law for a governor to campaign for himself during the legislative session.

It is not against the law for a governor to campaign for his party during the legislative session.

Any funds raised for the party during the legislative session can be given to (or spent on) the Governor once the legislative session is over.

Connecting the dots and you will see how the ethics law can be circumvented. But our Governor would never seek to get around the law for his own benefit, would he?

Well, if you have been reading my blog posts for the last few years you would obviously know the answer to that question. And during the recent Republican convention in New Orleans, Bobby Jindal did just that. He campaigned for the Louisiana Republican Party during the legislative session. But not only was he there,  his campaign finance director was also there.

Afterward, she was involved in an incident where she broke her leg.

Now, details about the altercation are not known at this moment so we do not know who is at fault or why the altercation happened. I also do not wish harm on people I disagree with politically. However, perhaps if Jindal and those helping him would seek to stick to the spirit of the law and not seek to take advantage of every single loophole imaginable, karma would not be seeking to bite them in the ass.

Just sayin…

Do the conservatives who support this ruling realize:

A) Non-profits can now make unlimited contributions as well. People can now contribute to non-profit organizations and get a tax deduction for their political activity.

B) For profit corporations can also make political expenditures tax free, since their commercial advertising will come out of their gross revenue.

C) People who control corporations will get the benefits of free speech without the responsibility of free speech, since any slanderous ad will cause a lawsuit against the corporation and not the person directing those ads.

D) Since the limitations on campaign contributions did not get applied to corporations, the corporations now have more free speech rights than citizens (who are restricted on how much they can contribute to support any particular federal candidate).

Finally, the ruling didn’t specify if the free speech rights apply to US based corporations or all corporations,. However, let’s just assume that the supposed free speech rights only apply to US based corporations. Citgo is a US based corporation (incorporated in Texas). Citgo is owned by Venezuela (i.e. Hugo Chavez). The Supreme Court has just given Hugo Chavez carte blanche to spend unlimited funds to try and influence our elections.

Good job conservatives! Way to fight for the rights of Hugo Chavez and give him more of a say in US politics than US citizens have.

Conservatives, during the aftermath of the “fruit of the boom” incident, had their own panties in a bunch over the idea that we were “giving rights to terrorists” and that “the Constitution only applies to citizens”.

Well, now they are singing a different tune with this new Supreme Court ruling. Now they are saying that corporations should be covered by the freedom of speech clause of the 1st amendment and that there is nothing wrong with the ruling.

But wait a second conservatives!!!!! I thought that the rights enumerated in and protected by the Constitution were only for U.S. Citizens! If corporations have free speech rights then they must believe that corporations should be considered citizens as well!  If that is the case, corporations must also be given the right to vote and to run for political office. I can’t wait until Senator Exxon-Mobile takes the floor to filibuster the legislation sponsored by Senator JP Morgan Chase. Maybe our conservative activist court will rule that the formation of a corporation is the legal equivalent of a “birth” so that any corporation formed in the US will be considered a “natural born citizen” and thus be eligible to run for President. President Halliburton, here we come.

Of course this is absurd. Corporations will not have the right to run for office or vote, because they are not citizens. But if a corporation is not a citizen, under the conservative logic that was used just weeks ago for the undie-bomber, they would not have any constitutional rights period (including free speech).

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling just handed our government over to huge corporations and will prevent the ability of any real meaningful candidacy to oppose the candidates selected by the corporations.

In 2007, Exxon Mobile made over $40 billion in profit. There are typically 33-34 Senatorial elections every 2 years. If they set aside just over $1.5 billion per year for Senatorial elections, they could literally fund $80 million of advertising per hand selected candidate in each election year.

Between 2005 and 2010, Senator Harry Reid spent just over $5 million. In the same time period Senator DeMint spent just over $2 million. Even Senator Landrieu in a swing state spent only $10 million in that time period. Senator Hutchinson spent $14 million during that time as well. The hand picked candidates of Exxon Mobile would be able to have $80 million of advertising ran for each them over that same time period (or over $17 million a year).

Before this decision, the RCCC only had $2 million on hand to support candidates this year. Now, big oil can put up $3 billion every 2 years and pay for $10 million in advertising for 300 GOP congressional candidates, more than enough to control the House of Representatives.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spent just over $1 million on her election. Republican Eric Cantor spent just over $1.5 million on his election.

Sure, that assumes that Exxon Mobile would spend $3 billion of its net profits a year on elections. But why wouldn’t they if they would then own Congress and our their Government.

Anyone who claims that only liberal courts can be “activists” is an idiot. And what the hell ever happened to the idea of Stare Decisis that Justice Alito supposedly respected?

One of his backers in Florida is accused of fraud of over $1 Billion. A spokesperson for the campaign fund of the governor said that he will donate the contributions to a fund for victims of the Ponzi scheme once “one is created”.

I wonder how much money his campaign will earn in interest while they wait for such a fund to be created.

I guess this is why Bobby Jindal worked to make sure that while everyone else in government has to be transparent, that he could make deals behind closed doors. I guess it is because he “pals around” with criminals.

I was on the radio this morning on KVOL 1330. I wanted to go ahead and direct any listeners who might check out the blog to several of the points that we discussed on the air. First and foremost would be the David Vitter scandal and his hypocrisy. Here is a link showing that Vitter called for Clintons resignation for his affair.

There is also this quote of Vitter’s from the time that clearly show his hypocrisy:

 Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don’t care — because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong — moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust

So how is Vitter not morally unfit to be a Senator (by his own logic)? And of course, here is the link to the lj4a store where you can purchase some WWVD bumper stickers and t-shirts.

We also discussed some of Bobby Jindal’s hypocrisy as well. From Jindal’s kid attending the LSU lab school, to Timmy Teepell’s brother in law becoming executive director of the Louisiana Republican Party, to ticketgate (and the link to the WAFB story),  Jindal’s inflating of the budget he claims was already inflated and finally Jindal’s paying back his campaign contributors with government grants.

It was a really fun experience and I definitely look forward to doing it again.

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!

A Louisiana House committee rejected one of Bobby Jindal’s ethics suggestions. He wants people who contribute $250 or more to campaigns to reveal their employers. This is supposed to help find employers who are funneling funds through their employees to campaigns.

The question I have is this. Is this a chronic problem in Louisiana politics? Are there companies funneling large amounts of money to their employees for the purpose of supporting political candidates? Or is this a straw-man ethical issue that is being presented to try and show that the governor is fighting for strong ethics when in reality, the problem is not as bad as other problems (you know, like rich people using multiple corporations to funnel campaign funds to support political candidates).

And even if it is a problem, how will it be enforced? What will the threshold be on the percentage of employees per company contributing to a campaign that will trigger an investigation? How will you prove that the funds given are not just a bonus? What would stop companies from using people who wouldn’t normally contribute and giving them $200 to contributed (thus circumventing the spirit of the law)? I mean, a company with 100 employees could give each of them $200 (net) to donate to a specific candidate, that candidate would get $20,000, and this law would not be triggered.

Meanwhile, the owner of the company can own 10 corporations, contribute the maximum amount through each corporation, and funnel $50,000 to the same candidate. Seems to me that this would likely be the bigger of the two issues. Of course Bobby Jindal wont deal with that ethical problem our state faces. Why? Because it will effect him in his next campaign for Governor. And Bobby Jindal’s ethics session is for other people to follow, and not him or his administration.

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.

Over on Jindalisbad.com, I showed where Bobby Jindal claimed that most of Louisiana’s ethics problems nationwide are because of a “perception” problem then because of “reality” (even though he campaigned against the “corrupt crowd” and had all these grand plans to solve Louisiana’s ethics problems). Now, Jindal’s deputy chief of staff is also discussing fixing the perception of unethical behavior instead of actually solving the problem of unethical behavior.

He said that:

one of Jindal’s goals is to do away with the perception around the country that Louisiana is corrupt

It seems to me that the best way to solve the perception that we are corrupt is to stop being corrupt. But no, in order to do that, Bobby Jindal would have to push for things like campaign finance reform that eliminates corporate contributions to political candidates. However, if he did that, it would make it harder for him to raise funds for his next election. And we all know that Bobby Jindal is not going to push for any legislation that makes life harder for him. And it seems as if he doesn’t want to solve any actual corruption problems in the state. He just wants to make it so that states don’t perceive us  as being corrupt without taking the actual steps to solve corruption. So much for “we can change, we must change, we will change”. I guess the appropriate response to that is… the more things change the more they say the same. Pick your cliche’, but the bottom line is that Jindal is not serious on ethics reform and it disgusts me to hear the people who backed him so strongly in the election are now seeing the light… too little too late.