"Jindal Faces Ethics Charges": Say It Ain't So, Bobby!
By Vladimir Posted in Bobby Jindal | Ethics Reform | Louisiana | State Politics — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Jindal Faces Ethics Charges (B.R. Advocate)
Jindal Faces Questions Over Campaign Expense Report
Governor says it's innocent mistake (N.O. Times-Picayune)
Watch for the Forces of Darkness to try to make this POS into a story: Act I in "Jindal vs. The Machine".
The state GOP spent $118,264 between June 4 and June 28 in mail expenses on behalf of the Jindal campaign.
[Jindal Chief of Staff Tim] Teepell said the Republican Party did not submit invoices to the campaign showing the expenditures on Jindal’s behalf. So, he said, there was no way of knowing for reporting purposes.
After the omission came to light, the money was promptly reported and the party started filing in-kind expenditure reports with the campaign, Teepell said.
“We are all about transparency,” Teepell said.
The money was supposed to have been reported on a July 23 report reflecting campaign contributions and spending through July 12. It did not show up until Jindal’s campaign filed an amended report on Sept. 7.
[Jindal campaign accountant William] Potter said the problem didn’t come to light until a news report alleged that advertising the Republican Party did for the Jindal campaign wasn’t being reported.
Chris Stow-Serge, a New Orleans public high-school teacher with Democratic ties, said he had filed the complaint.
Postage. We're talking about postage, $118 K worth in a campaign that raised $12 million.
The expenditure was reported by the Party, but it wasn't reported timely by the campaign. The campaign's accountant has admitted the oversight. Jindal has already ordered payment of the maximum $2,500 fine.
But the episode has been referred to the State Ethics Board, who will consider it in a public hearing in July.
< rhetorical question>Why is the Democratic Party interested in derailing Bobby Jindal and ethics reform, over an obvious technical oversight? < /rhetorical question>
Potter said the ethics charges cannot occur at a worse time as Jindal is preparing to call legislators into a special session to revamp state ethics laws.
The charges against Jindal followed “a private investigation concerning information presented to the Louisiana Board of Ethics,” according to the letter outlining the charge.
A majority of the board voted at its Jan. 10 meeting to proceed with charges based on investigation findings. The vote came behind closed doors and surfaced as Jindal was formally notified of the charges against him.
[emphasis added]
I would doubt anyone could get worked up about a timely filing issue.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Jindal Violates Ethics Law" is screamed from the masthead of every paper and is the lead story on every news cast. Only wonks like us look at it and say, "It's a D operative filing it and it's only a reporting violation." The impression Joe Sixpack gets is that the Candidate broke the law. Do enough of that with little Dem "concerned citizens" and before long, every R in the state is an unethical SOB who should be tossed out of office and into jail. Starting to sound familiar. It is especially troubling when it is sometimes true; all they need is a real one now and again and they can tar the whole brand as they've done with much this strategy here in AK. They've done a good job of it using the media alone at the federal level.
In Vino Veritas
...LA badly needs ethics reform.
The heirs of Huey Long benefit from his theft and corruption to this day.
The favorite trick of the legislature (and of statewide elected officials, like recently departed Sec of Ag Bob Odom) is owning an office building or a warehouse & leasing it back to the state in a sweetheart deal.
I fully support Bobby's plan to shine a little daylight on the dark side of legislative perks & business deals.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
who can you rent one from?
You know I fundamentally agree with ethics laws, I've just seen them used more for bad acts than good ones for the reasons I discussed.
In Vino Veritas
...in the VECO scandal?
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Ray Metcalfe kept filing against Ben Stevens for PR purposes, but it never went anywhere. I've never seen those laws used effectively for any purpose other than harassing people - including me! I have a very harshly worded letter from the AG in my desk drawer right now reminding me of my obligations as a former officeholder under the Ethics Act. He has his own harshly worded letter from me reminding him of all the ethics related things I might just love to discus in a public forum, and from this arose an "uneasy peace." I'm careful not to violate the thing, but the only reason is I know I have enemies in high places who are just salivating over the prospect of being able to file charges against me. Basically, my attitude is "be sure to spell my name right."
Really only the criminal law and its processes are effective with true corruption, and even they are susceptible to political manipulation. Most ethics laws give any citizen the right to present what amounts to an indictment of a public official, and there's little the public official can do to protect his name. The charge makes headlines, the dismissal or acquittal is on page 86. Where do you apply to get your reputation back?
The whole thing with VECO was pretty much done in spite of Alaska law by the Public Integrity Section of the USDOJ - the Democrat Party should give those people a medal! I'm not going to defend the scumbag legislators. I'm especially offended that they could be bought so cheaply. But I do truly wish that GWB's DOJ could share some of their love and affection with some truly corrupt Democrat states.
In Vino Veritas
The irony of democrats in Louisiana giving rat's rear end about ethics is breathtaking in scope.
And to do get upset over a corrected clerical error only makes people in Louisiana hate democrats even more.
I hope they pursue as hard as possible.
Don't Louisiana Democrats keep sending the guy who had bribe money in his freezer back to the "Most Ethical Congress in History?" Oh wait, there aren't anymore Democrats in Louisiana because Hurricane Katrina was part of a Rovian conspiracy to disenfranchise urban voters.
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
... it was an honest mistake, they paid the fine, and that's it. Besides, the purpose of filing reports on contributions is to make sure that interest-group and corporate donations don't go unnoticed. This wasn't that sort of donation.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Of course the punishment should fit the crime. It was a violation of the rules and the $2500 fine seems reasonable. Mr. Jindahl can be a hero here by showing that he owns up to his mistakes no matter how minor. Then, he can move on to clean up the real mess in LA and then let's see if those criminals are as quick to own up to their crimes.
This isn't even as bad as an "unreported contribution." This is a semi-reported contribution, as the stories indicate that the reports filed by the state party disclosed the expenditures on Jindal's behalf. The crying is over the fact that the campaign's report for the period did not contain a matching disclosure.
So this isn't even like a case where some interest group gave Jindal money and he didn't report it, and the non-report meant that nobody could find out about the donation. The information was already timely disclosed here - just not in the "correct" place. And the expenditure was disclosed by the campaign late, but still well in advance of the actual election (which was held in late October), so it is not as if the interest groups couldn't have raised the issue to the voters before hand.
So I agree with Achance that, in this case at the least, the ethics law is not being used for public integrity or to keep campaigns on the straight and narrow. It is being used to discredit an official and to smear him for political purposes. I say the Governor should get out there and publicize the real facts of the story as much as possible - make sure there is an alternative to the narrative that partisans in the media will use to sell misleading headlines.
to ensure ethical behavior by officeholders and candidates because they are used for political advantage, not ethical compliance.
The fact that almost all ethics boards rely entirely on citizen complainants turns everyone with an agenda or axe to grind into a District Attorney able to indict. So a "concerned citizen" who just happens to be a part of an interest group iextricably allied with the Democrat Party does a lot of "volunteer" work going through campaign reports and "just happens to discover" some unreported contributions. The board, which early in an administration is still usually controlled by the other party, finds probable cause and headlines are made, reputations destroyed, jobs lost, then a year or two later either the board itself exhonorates the accused or a Court does, the news of which is in eight point on page 86.
In Vino Veritas