Liberty and Justice for All!

Clancy Dubos is apparently having some buyers remorse on Bobby Jindal.

 My response to him (in that link) is as follows:

Clancy: You endorsed Bobby Jindal. And not only did you endorse him, but you did so by annointing him with such lavish praise. You have come a long way from

“We think the best way to respond is by electing a governor who will fundamentally change our political culture from top to bottom and present Louisiana in a whole new light to the rest of the world. In our view, Congressman Bobby Jindal will be that kind of governor.” (your words)

and

“More than anything else, Bobby Jindal’s integrity is above reproach.” (your words)

to

“What’s becoming obvious is that Governor Jindal, who promised us a “gold standard,” actually wants to give us a “double standard” — one for himself and his cronies, and another for everybody else.” (your words)

This is not “becoming obvious”. This has BEEN obvious to many of us out here who have known for YEARS that Jindal is a hypocrite and not someone to be trusted to bring meaningful ethics reform.

Perhaps you should apologize to your readers for not doing the appropriate research on the candidate you endorsed. Because all of Jindal’s flaws existed well before to the election to those who wanted to see it.

My prediction of what might happen at the end of the ethics session.

Picture this: It is a nice sunny day right after the special session on ethics is completed. Bobby Jindal holds a press conference with all the legislators as he did to open the special session. As cameras click and his wife stands by his side, he states the following words:

Today is a great day for Louisiana. Our legislature has come together in a bipartisan effort to enact sweeping ethics reform that will forever change the history of this great state. No longer will our state be the laughing stock of the nation when it comes to public corruption. No longer will people question whether they should help Louisiana because of our past failures.

We have shined a light on corruption and with that light brings the dawn of a new day. A day where businesses get an equal playing field. A day where public service means serving the people who elected you and not serving yourselves. A day where Louisiana sets the example on how good government should be run.

We could change, we needed to change, we did change!

Jindal will be met with thunderous applause as he stands there waving to all his supporters. The T-P will write some fluff piece extolling the virtues of their endorsed candidate. His supporters will smile and tell everyone how happy they are that they voted for Bobby Jindal.

Then, since the legislation doesn’t take place until 2012, the old business of Louisiana goes on as usual. Timmy Teepell gets more free tickets, corporations line the campaign coffers of Bobby Jindal in order to push legislation through that will help them, and Bobby “job hopper” Jindal accepts the offer to be V.P. from John McCain. The loopholes will still exist, unethical behavior will still continue, and while the blind Jindal faithful refuse to believe it, other states laugh at our pathetic attempt to simply cast a smokescreen to try and give the perception that we are more ethical. At the end of the day, it will be shown that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

(And actually, depending on how quickly the other states learn that our ethics “reform” was just a smokescreen will depend on whether McCain picks Jindal. If Jindal is embarrassed too quickly, he will be damaged goods outside the state.)

I am sure the Jindal apologists will just say “you want Bobby Jindal to fail because you are part of the corrupt crowd”. My answer to them is this. I want true meaningful ethics reform. I believe that government needs to change the way it does business. I just don’t see Bobby Jindal as being sincere on ethical reform. He claims that he wants his administration to set the example on ethics reform, but then gives free tickets away to a concert. He claims he wants to increase transparency, but balks on increasing transparency in the governors office. If at the end of the day we actually get some true ethical change that does not leave the loopholes for corrupt behavior to continue, I will be the first to say I was wrong and to praise Jindal for his efforts. And it is sad, but I know that at the end of the day, if Jindal passes legislation that fails to solve our ethical problems, he will still be cheered by his supporters and any failures will just be blamed on the “corrupt crowd” who fought Jindal when in reality it was Jindal who did not want meaningful reform from day one.

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 Jindal’s speech he gave to open the special session on ethics, he stated:

Today, we embark on the single most important endeavor for the future of Louisiana - bringing comprehensive ethics reform and transparency to our state.

Oh really? Well, today HB27 was sponsored by Wayne Waddell and it “Limits the public records exemption for the office of the governor to the executive office of the governor”. See, currently all of the agencies under the governor are exempted by the public records law. This law would open up the agencies under the governor to public review. The law would also allow a person to examine (or get a copy of) records relating to any financial transaction that comes through the office of the governor.

Do I need to say who does not support this legislation? Well, according to 99.5 fm newsat 6pm, Governor Jindal is opposed it. Campaign finance law avoider and executive council Jimmy Faircloth stated that:

… the governor’s office opposed the bill because it would create problems for the governor to freely receive ideas, policy recommendations and communications from legislators and others. He also said it would create problems with investors who want to privately negotiate with the state.

That has to absolutely be the lamest excuse I have ever heard. How on earth would it create problems for the governor to receive ideas and policy recommendations from legislators and others? IT EXEMPTS THE GOVERNORS OFFICE! (As a side note, it should not exempt the Governors office either. The legislation SHOULD include the entire administration to the public records law and Bobby Jindal, if he really was the ethics champion his supporters claim he is, would wholeheartedly endorse it.)

And guess what… investors should not be able to privately negotiate with the state! Having an open, honest and TRANSPARENT government requires that every transaction be done above board. So if investors want to privately negotiate with the state, I say TOO BAD! Havn’t we had enough problems with secret back room deals with our state? Won’t this statement by Jindal’s executive council continue to spread the message that our Governor wants to continue the back room deals that have tarnished the reputation of Louisiana? So much for eliminating the perception of ethical problems! Apparently the time of backroom deals in Louisiana politics is far from over, and Jindal wants his ability to conduct them protected.

It also seems that the only thing that is transparent about Jindal is that he is who I said he was. So when do I get to say “I told you so”?

Update 1: After further review of Jindal’s comments before the special session, he stated: 

Private enterprises deserve a level playing field when doing business with the government.

How on earth can we give businesses a level playing field when Bobby Jindal’s administration stresses that private investors need to be able to have private meetings that can avoid the public records law. Jindal says: 

We must also shine the light of day on those special interests who lobby our government.

How will we shine the light of day on special interests if they are allowed to do business with the government in the dark? Jindal says: 

We must change the way business is done in

Baton Rouge by passing legislation that will put an end to the lavish meals and free tickets.

Yet Jindal chief of staff Timmy Teepell just got free tickets to Hannah Montanah. Will Timmy be fired for this? Will he be let go for using his position of power to get free tickets to a very popular concert? No, because he states: 

Gov. Bobby Jindal:  Jim, again, bottom line. We’re gonna follow the law like everybody else

So instead of setting high standards for people in his administration, instead of having people in his administration act in the way that he state government SHOULD work, the people in his office are free to violate those stated principles as long as the actions are still legal. That should do wonders in helping us fix our ethical perception problems. Jindal says: 

The bright light of transparency and public access should extend to every corner of the state budget…so that we can regain the trust of the public.

Every corner of the state budget… except for what Jindal is in charge of. And the Jindal apologists STILL refuse to see the hypocrisy.

Yes, it’s a big title but such a quote deserves to be placed front and center.

According to the AP:

Ethics board chairman Hank Perret called the proposed changes “ill-conceived” and said they would destroy the independence and transparency of the ethics board, which investigates ethics complaints.

“In effect, the ethics board will disappear from the light of public scrutiny. Why would anybody want that?”

Let me repeat that for all the Jindal lovers who believed that Louisiana would be best served by the “ethics champion” Bobby Jindal.

In effect, the ethics board will disappear from the light of public scrutiny

Also stated by the head of the ethics board is:

‘”With the exception of enforcement, the bills proposed are a huge leap forward for Louisiana,” he said.”

Now, what good are ethics changes if the enforcement of those laws is flawed?

The problems with the bill are:

• The ethics board will no longer make decisions on whether someone violated the law.
• The governor will get to pick who makes those decisions, politicizing the decisions.
• It requires the board to offer settlements. (Why should the board be forced to take an action that might not be the best decision?)
• It would hide the names of people asking for advisory opinions from view.

Jindal’s deputy chief of staff said:

“We’re comfortable with the proposal,”

OF COURSE THEY ARE!!!!! I think the situation is becoming clearer as the ethics session continues. First and foremost, as discussed on 99.5 earlier, the plan wont even take effect until after his first term. Now, we have a plan that weakens the ethics board and removes transparency from the process. By removing transparency, and making it so less people know about the ethical problems, it will be harder for people to perceive the ethical problems (since they will be harder to see!).

Perhaps the Jindal administration feels that if people are less capable of seeing the ethical problems, they will assume that the ethical problems are no longer there. The ostrich method seems fairly typical for Republicans, so I am not surprised. In reality, nobody will be fooled by these pathetic attempts at solving our perception problems. As I said previously, the best way to solve our ethics perception problem is to solve the ethics problem. However, as this ethics session continues, it is clear that Jindal’s “plan” will only fool those die hard Jindal supporters who will view anything passed with the title of “ethics” as success for their wunderkind.

And as I said, if any of them try and claim that Jindal is still strong on ethics, I will outwardly laugh at them.

The Mayan Calendar ends in 2012, some saying that this means the end of the world. I find it quite fitting that Jindal’s ethics plan will also be starting that year. Perhaps Bobby Jindal feels that ethics change will literally (sorry oyster) be the end of the world.

On 99.5 this afternoon, Garey Forster was discussing the planned start date for Jindal’s ethics legislation. Garey, a former Republican legislator, was highly aggravated (to say the least) at the fact that Jindal’s ethics call will not effect Jindal, or any other of the legislators, for the entire first term.

There was also talk of the legislation grandfathering in current people serving in government.

I think I will just outwardly laugh at anybody who tries to claim that Jindal is strong on ethics. I mean seriously, 2012? How is that supposed to fix the “perception” of ethical problems in Louisiana, let alone the actual ethical problems?

Of course, I anticipate that the Jindal apologists will claim that this was the only way for him to get any legislation passed.

I find it hard to believe that Jindal actually feels that we are embarking “on the single most important endeavor for the future of Louisiana“. Seems like if it was that important, he would want to get there in much less than 4 years.

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.

Jindal’s campaign treasurer, Rolfe McCollister, has said he will pay the fine, according to The Associated Press.

Now my question is this. How much more money will Rolfe McCollister get paid as campaign treasurer over the next year? And the answer is, we won’t know until next February 15th when Jindal’s 2008 annual campaign finance report will be due. Because until then, they do not have to file any funds spent over the course of 2008 to anybody. So the Bobby Jindal campaign gets to give the appearance of being consistent by “forcing” the treasurer to pony up the cash. However, the reality is that by simply paying him to be treasurer, they can get around the whole issue of whether his campaign is paying the fine and nobody will know the difference. So I guess, only time will tell.

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.