Liberty and Justice for All!

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.

Listening to 99.5 FM this afternoon, Garey Forester stated that Governor Jindal hired Roger “Florist Gump” Villere to a position within his administration. While I lack the specifics, this leads me to a couple questions.

A) What happened to the hiring freeze?

B) Will the head of the Louisiana Republican party remain as the head of the party while working for Louisiana government? I’m sure leading the head of a state party is a very time consuming job. How much work will Florist Gump be able to get done for our state?

C) What happened to the “what you know” vs. “who you know” idea that Jindal claimed to support when he spoke of the future of Louisiana ethics. I do not recall the State of Louisiana needing an official flower arranger. Seems to me that the hiring of Villere is clearly a “who you know” arrangement.

More on this when additional details come out…

 Update: I heard back from Garey Forester. Seems if I had the wrong GOP hack as the one being hired. It was James Quinn, Executive Director of the Republican Party, who got hired and not Florist Gump. James Quinn is now the Director of Boards and Commissions. You can see an example of Quinn’s “hackery” here.

How long has he been Governor? And he has already agreed to pay a $2,500 fine instead of disputing the ethics charges against him? Nice start Bobby.

Update #1: Jindal cannot pay the fine to get rid of this quickly. The ethics board says a full investigation has to take place and Jindal must allow the full process to take its course. So… sorry Bobby, but this wont be going away for a while.

Update #2: C.B. Forgotston compares Jindal’s campaign rhetoric to his actions. Thanks to Oyster for this to our attention.

Surprisingly enough, the Gambit Weakly has called for Bobby Jindal to go after campaign finance reform in the ethics session. One of their suggestions in their recent editorial was:

Include Campaign Finance. Most if not all statements that Jindal has made on the subject of ethics reform have been conspicuously silent on the subject of campaign finance. Cynics would argue that that’s no coincidence ” the new governor raised more than $15 million in his successful campaign last year, so why would he want to tinker with laws that allowed him to do that? We give Jindal the benefit of the doubt ” for now.

Now, I quoted it exactly as it is stated on the website so the punctuation may be a bit confusing. It should read:

Cynics would argue that that’s no coincidence ” the new governor raised more than $15 million in his successful campaign last year, so why would he want to tinker with laws that allowed him to do that?” We give Jindal the benefit of the doubt for now.

Now, that makes more sense. Unfortunately they give him the benefit of the doubt. Many people I know who are demanding campaign finance reform as being something that is required for meaningful ethics reform to take place do not give Jindal the benefit of the doubt. Why? Well, according to the Gambit we are “cynics”. But even the Gambit understands the problem with money and politics when it states:

we want to underscore our point that campaign finance is where many of the dirty deeds are done in Louisiana politics. To some, campaign contributions constitute a legal pathway around bribery laws. If we really want to clean up Louisiana’s image, we have to recognize the old political adage, ‘Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” and then, in Watergate jargon, we must ‘follow the money.” If Jindal is serious about ethics reform, he will put campaign finance reform high on his ‘to-do” list. Do it now, Governor, not later.

And that is what we have been saying this entire time. We view Bobby Jindal’s accepting funds from people who circumvent campaign finance laws and then promoting those people to offices in his administration as one of the problems in ethics laws and while we demand the changes to help fix our state, we have no faith that someone (like Jindal) who would circumvent state bribery laws (as the Gambit put it) will make meaningful campaign finance reform as part of his ethics package. This makes the ethics package an “ethics lite” package and at the end of the day we will still be stuck with the same corrupt system.

Cross posted at jindalisbad.com

The advisory council appointed by Bobby Jindal to suggest ethics reform has completed its suggestions. There are some good ideas in the plan and I will not begrudge anybody for trying to clean up Louisiana. However, this statement explains why

10. Undertake a review to reform campaign finance laws. Because this issue was not a primary focus of the Council, members recommend conducting additional research to determine specific measures for campaign finance reform.

            The fact that campaign finance law was not a primary focus of the Council says a lot about how meaningful this reform will be. Of course, I am not surprised that Bobby Jindal did not make campaign finance reform a priority. Bobby Jindal benefits by our current system of campaign finance laws. As I have shown both on here and on jindalisbad.com, and others have showed on other sites, Bobby Jindal has gotten campaign contributions from people who abuse the loopholes by using multiple corporations to funnel tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign.

            In fact, I wonder how many of these suggestions made by the advisory council will impact Bobby Jindal’s reelection campaign. My guess would be that nothing in what is suggested will impact Bobby Jindal whatsoever. I am sure any legislation will be drafted in such a way to make sure that Bobby Jindal can follow the same unethical practices he embraced in previous campaigns.

            Finally, if you want to know how tough Bobby Jindal is going to be on ethics reform, all you have to do is look at his executive order on the required financial disclosures of his cabinet members. They are not required to file them immediately, or in 30 days or even 90 days. They have to file them by January 2009. Such tough standards Jindal has set up for his own staff… a year? You have to be kidding me! Oh, I’m sure his worshipers will still lift him up as a paragon of virtue. And I am sure than when an ethics bill gets passed he will be seen as a hero and the T-P will sing the praises of Jindal and his hard work.

Cross posted on JindalIsBad.com

Well, today is the first day of a long four years. Bobby Jindal will be inaugurated in what will most likely be a celebration of pipe dreams and hopes based on false praise of Jindal’s past “successes”.

In yesterday’s T-P, they continued their inability to find facts when it comes to their beloved Bobby Jindal. They cannot seem to help themselves. The first sentence starts off the spin:

Bobby Jindal, the immigrants’ son whose exemplary public service made him the wunderkind of Louisiana politics

Exemplary? I was unaware that not doing your job and collecting a paycheck is exemplary. See Bobby Jindal has missed many votes in Congress, going over a month between votes at times. Yet, he collected a paycheck. I was also unaware that cutting healthcare to the needy is also “exemplary”. The reason Bobby Jindal is the wunderkind of Louisiana politics is because hack newspaper editors, instead of grasping their duty to inform, decide to sell the garbage that Jindal and his campaign has distributed to them. If the T-P had a nose, it would be brown.

He will be Louisiana’s first non-white chief executive since post-Civil War Reconstruction and the first Indian-American to govern a U.S. state. 

Again, more failures of fact checking. Kris Kolluri served as Governor for a very short time. Jindal is the first elected Governor.

A former head of the Department of Health and Hospitals, Gov.-elect Jindal also can appreciate the importance of rebuilding a medical school in New Orleans to anchor a biomedical research park.

Why should Jindal appreciate anything about healthcare? He did not appreciate the fact that by closing clinics and removing access to medical services to those who need them that the state’s health ranking would drop. But hey, I have long since given up on the T-P and their ability to give something called the truth.

The state’s future will be shortchanged, however, if we fail to reverse our corrupt reputation. Gov.-elect Jindal plans to deliver on a campaign promise by strengthening the state’s weak ethics laws during a special session expected next month.

Of course he hasn’t shared the legislation he will push. He also has never mentioned that he will bring campaign finance reform and eliminate corporate contributions. Without closing that loophole, you won’t have true ethics reform. Of course, considering Bobby Jindal benefits from the loophole, I will not hold my breath.

Im sure there will be many cheers by the die hard supporters as Bobby “the wunderkind” Jindal and his wife “Suburban Supermom” Supriya stand there smiling for the cameras. But for some reason I keep expecting to hear Dark Helmet  exclaiming “fooled you“.

Cross posted at jindalisbad.com

Update 1: The January 17th T-P continues the lies about Bobby Jindal. Either that or they are doing some really good drugs.

Then-Rep. Jindal was instrumental in securing a share of federal offshore oil and gas revenues.

Wrong. Bobby Jindal fought for his bill to pass until he won the 2006 election. In doing so he fought against the Domenici-Landrieu bill (the actual bill that got signed by the President). Mary Landrieu, not Bobby Jindal, was instrumental in securing a share of federal offshore oil and gas revenues. Bobby Jindal only changed his mind once his 2006 race was over and there could be no risk of an opponent using his flawed bill against him.