If there was any lingering doubt that Bobby Jindal has been committing payroll fraud, that doubt was erased in last Monday’s State of the State address to legislators at the opening of the 2015 legislative which, thankfully, will be his last such address.

Fraud is defined as:

  • The wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain;
  • Deceit, trickery, or breach of confidence perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage;
  • A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Payroll fraud is further defined as the unauthorized altering of payroll or benefits systems in order for an employee to gain funds which are not due. The person making financial gain could be the employee or could be an associate who is using the employee to commit the fraud while taking the funds for himself.

There are generally three types of payroll fraud but for our purposes we are interested in only one:

  • Ghost employees—A person, fictional or real, who is being paid for work he does not perform. In order for the fraud to work the ghost employee must be added to the payroll register. If the individual is paid a monthly salary this is easier for the fraudster, as once this has been set up there is little or no paperwork required. In order for the fraud to work, the ghost employee must be added elected to the payroll register. Once this has been set up, there is little or no paperwork required.

Under that definition, Jindal could certainly be considered a ghost employee. One person even suggested that it was not really Jindal speaking to legislators, that Jindal was actually in Iowa and they were being addressed by a hologram.

We maintain that Jindal is committing payroll fraud by vacating the state so often and leaving the details of running the state to appointed subordinates as inexperienced and naïve as he. The point here is this: No one on his staff was elected; he was. And he has not been at the helm of the ship of state and by absenting himself so frequently and so consistently as he gins up his presidential candidacy, he is committing payroll fraud, theft, and malfeasance. Others, like former Desoto Parish School Superintendent and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member Walter Lee have been indicted and been prosecuted for payroll fraud.

Before we really get into his speech to legislators, JINDAL ADDRESS TO LEGISLATURE we simply must call attention to the feeble effort at humor he (or someone) injected into the third line of his speech:

“Well, here we are…at the moment that some of you have been waiting for a long time—my last state of the state speech.”

After an apparently appropriate pause, he continued: “No, that was not supposed to be an applause line…and I do appreciate your restraint.”

Seriously? You actually wrote that line in your speech? If you have to write that in, if you are incapable of ad-libbing that simple line, then we now understand that idiotic response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address in 2009.

Before getting to the real meat of his legislative agenda for this year (if you can call it that), he touched ever-so-lightly on a few other points he generously referred to as his administration’s accomplishments. Our responses to each point are drawn directly from statistics provided by 24/7 Wall Street, a service that provides a steady stream of statistical data on business and government:

  • “We cleaned up our ethics laws so that now what you know is more important than who you know.” (A quick look at the appointment of Troy Hebert as director of the Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control after the baseless firing of Murphy Painter could quickly debunk that bogus claim. So could several appointments to the LSU Board of Supervisors and the equally egregious firing of key personnel like Tommy Teague who did their jobs well but made the fatal mistake of crossing Mr. Egomaniac.)
  • “We reformed our education system…” (Louisiana is the fifth-worst educated state and we are the third-worst state for children who struggle to read);
  • “We reformed our health care system…” (Really? Is that why the privatization of our state hospitals remain in turmoil? That same reform ultimately forced the closure of Baton Rouge General Mid-City’s emergency room because of the overload brought on by the closure of Earl K. Long Hospital? Can we thank your “reform” for the fact that Louisiana still has the nation’s third-lowest life expectancy rate or that we enjoy the nation’s third-most unhealthy rating, that we are fifth-highest in cardiovascular deaths or that we have the highest obesity rate in the nation?);
  • “…Our economy is booming.” (Seriously? Louisiana is rated as the worst state for business in the U.S.; we rank sixth-highest among states where the middle class is dying; we remain the eighth-poorest state in the nation with a poverty rate that is third-highest, and we’re saddled with the fourth-worst income disparity in the nation and we’re rated the 10th-worst state in which to be unemployed.);
  • “We have balanced our budget every year…and have received eight credit upgrades.” (This one of those claims so preposterous one doesn’t know how to respond, but we’ll give it our best. Jindal has repeatedly patched budget holes by skimming funds from other agencies, like more than $400 million from the Office of Group Benefits reserve fund, from the sale of the tobacco settlement, from ripping funds for the developmentally disadvantaged (to fund a race track tied a political donor—what was that line again about “what you know, not who you know”?), by cutting health care and higher education, by selling state property, and now he’s trying to cover the current $1.6 billion budget hole by selling the State Lottery. As for those credit upgrades, we can only point to the February action by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s bond rating agencies to move the state’s credit outlook from stable to negative—and to threaten the more severe action of a downgrade.);
  • “The end result is a stronger, more prosperous Louisiana for our children. I measure Louisiana’s prosperity not by the prosperity of our government, but by the prosperity of our people.” (So, why are the fifth-most dangerous state in the nation? The 10th-most miserable state? Why do we have the eighth-worst quality of life? And the 11th-worst run state in the nation? And why have you never once addressed in your seven-plus years in office our ranking as the number-one state in the nation for gun violence or our ranking as first in the world for our prison incarceration rate?)
  • “We don’t live by Washington’s rules of kicking our debts down the road.” (For the love of God…);
  • “We have laid out a budget proposal that seeks to protect higher education, health care and other important government functions.” (And that’s why higher education and health care have been cut each of your years in office and why more cuts are anticipated that could conceivably shut down some of our universities. You really call cuts of up to 80 percent “protecting” higher education?);
  • “We have a system of corporate welfare in this state.” (Wow. After more than seven years of giving away the store to the tune of billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks, you finally come the realization that perhaps your generosity to the Wal-Marts, chicken processing plants and movie production companies may have been a bit much—that those policies may have actually hurt the state? What brought about this sudden epiphany? Bob Mann, in his Something Like the Truth blog, was all over that when he called attention to Jindal’s latest comment in the face of his claim a couple of years ago that we were “crushing businesses” with oppressive taxes. We’ll let him take this one.) http://bobmannblog.com/2015/04/17/bobby-jindal-is-now-against-corporate-welfare/
  • “We have identified over $500 million of corporate welfare spending that we think should be cut…” (Why the hell did it take you seven years?)

After all was said and done, after his hit-and-run sideswipes at all his purported “accomplishments,” Jindal devoted the bulk of his address to only two issues: Common Core and religious liberty. Of the latter issue, he said, “I absolutely intend to fight for passage of this legislation.”

Jindal was referring to Bossier City Republican State Rep. Mike Johnson’s HB 707 which would waste an enormous amount of time and energy—time that could be better spent on far more pressing matters, like a $1.6 billion deficit—on preventing the state from taking “any adverse action” against a person or business on the basis of a “moral conviction about marriage.”

Despite claims by Jindal and Johnson to the contrary, the bill is nothing more than a clone of the Indiana law that constitutes a not-so-subtle attack on gays or anyone else with whom any businessman deems a threat to his or her definition of marriage.

So, after eight addresses to the legislature, Jindal has yet to address any of the issues like inadequate health care, violence, poverty, pay disparity or equal pay for women, increasing the minimum wage, poor business climate (his rosy claims notwithstanding), our highway system (we didn’t mention that, but we are the seventh-worst state in which to drive, with the 15th-highest auto fatality rate), or our having the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Instead, the thrust of his address is aimed at Common Core—he called it federal control even though Common Core was devised by the nation’s governors and not the federal government—and something called the “Marriage and Conscience Act.”

And he expects those two issues, along with something he calls “American Exceptionalism,” to thrust him into the White House as leader of the free world.

And, of course, attacking national Democrats like Obama and just today, Hillary Clinton, on her claim of having immigrant grandparents. Jindal, of course, wants exclusive rights to that claim and says so with his oft-repeated platitude: My parents came to this country over 40 years ago with nothing but the belief that America is the land of freedom and opportunity. They were right. The sad truth is that the Left no longer believes in American Exceptionalism.”

Well, to tell the truth, if Bobby Jindal is the example—the standard-bearer, if you will—for what is considered “American Exceptionalism,” then frankly, we don’t believe in it either.

Dr. Randall M. Wilk operates a medical practice in Gretna dedicated to the surgical treatment of diseases in the head and neck. http://www.drrandallwilk.com/#

Approximately 25 percent of his patients are cancer sufferers. Licensed to practice medicine in the state of Louisiana (License No. MD022962), Wilk earned his medical degree from the LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans. He did his general surgery training at the Ochsner Medical Institutions and did his head and neck surgery training in Portland, Oregon.

He also has a Ph.D. in anatomy from LSU and a DDS from the Baylor College of Dentistry and has a certificate in oral surgery.

But even though he does not operate a dental facility, that DDS degree has cost him more than $100,000 in legal fees because of the heavy-handed tactics of the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry which carried its badgering of Wilk all the way to the floors of the Louisiana House and Senate.

“Since graduating from dental school 25 years ago I have never filled a tooth, made a denture, made a crown, cleaned teeth, restored a tooth, or anything that one would consider a dental practice,” Wilk says, adding that he went “from graduating dental school in 1987 to starting graduate school” that same year.

Wilk noted that the dental board, in its 2009 financial statement, reported a loss to the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) of more than $60,000 and that the only plan put forth for managing that loss was “higher revenue from the collection of fines.”

Within weeks of that report, Wilk said, “I received a letter from the board sating that they had received a complaint on me from a Camp Morrison.”

Morrison, a private investigator, has worked for the board for numerous years under a series of contracts totaling more than $1 million. Moreover, even though he is an independent contractor, he is given free office space in the board’s suite at the high-rent One Canal Place office building in New Orleans.

Dating back to 1997, Morrison was issued nine consecutive contracts totaling more than $1.8 million. Most of his contracts were for two-year durations. His first, from March 1, 1997 to Feb. 28, 2000, was for $45,000. But from Sept. 1, 2000, through Aug. 31, 2002, his contract more than trebled, to $150,000 and increased again to $200,000 with his next contract which ran from Sept. 1, 2002 through Aug. 31, 2004.

Beginning on Sept. 1, 2004, he was awarded four consecutive two-year contracts of $240,000 each. Those four contracts combined to run through Aug. 31, 2012.

For whatever reason, on Sept. 1, 2012, the board cut his contract back to nine months and $110,000 but when that pact expired on June 30, 2013, he was issued a new contract, this one for three years, from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016, for $340,000.

Wilk said he was told that Morrison had reported to the board “that they had no record of me having an anesthesia permit from the dental board in 2007, that they had no record of me having a certificate in oral surgery, and that I was suspended from the Medicaid and Medicare programs.

“All of those are false statements,” he said, but the board refused to produce a copy of Morrison’s report. “I believe that filing a false report is a crime.”

Wilk said a meeting was scheduled and at that meeting two board members said they wanted him to sign a consent decree and to pay the board $5,000.

When Wilk said he had no intention of signing anything without first having his attorney examine the document, they left the room for a short time and returned with an adding machine “and told me that if I did not sign the document right then and there, that they could levy fines of over $100,000.”

He said the two handed him the adding machine tape “and placed the consent decree in front of me. For those familiar with the Godfather movies, the only thing missing was Luca Brassi with a pistol to my head.” He said a board member said it appeared that he (Wilk) felt his medical degree was more important than his dental degree.

“This was a pure and simple shakedown,” Wilk said.

He said it’s not unusual for medical specialists to obtain a dental degree prior to going to medical school and residency. “In the state of Louisiana, dozens of doctors are in this position. At least half-a-dozen are otolaryngologists, several are plastic surgeons, general surgeons, head and neck surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, gastroenterologists, anesthesiologists, even psychiatrists.

“Having a dental degree does not make your medical practice a dental practice,” he said.

Apparently the dental board and its investigator, Camp Morrison, disagree. Here are minutes of a 2011 dental board meeting at which Wilk’s case is discussed. DENTAL BOARD MINUTES MAY 20, 2011 (bottom of page 14)

Moreover, the DENTAL BOARD BULLETIN also mentions disciplinary action against Wilk (Item no. 14 in the left column near the bottom of page 3).

Wilk obtained legal counsel but the barrage from the dental board continued “for almost two years,” he said. “They subpoenaed me five times, requested copies of my patient records for several years and required my staff to go over 12,000 records. The final documents sent to them weighed several hundred pounds.

“Despite my being represented by counsel, Mr. Morrison continued to serve me subpoenas, to appear in my office waiting room, the operating room at Ochsner Hospital and at my home,” all the while passing out his cards to people and saying he was the investigator for the board of dentistry.”

Eventually, the board relented somewhat by notifying Wilk’s attorneys that if he paid the board $10,000 the matter would “go away.” Wilk said he feels that such tactics are tantamount to corruption or shakedowns. Again, he refused to pay.

Louisiana Revised Statute 37:793 (H) (2) says:

  • A personal permit is not required when the dentist uses the services of (1) a trained medical doctor, (2) doctor of osteopathy trained in conscious sedation with parenteral drugs, (3) certified registered nurse anesthetist, (4) a dentist who has successfully completed a program consistent with Part II of the American Dental Association Guidelines on Teaching the Comprehensive Control of Pain and Anxiety in Dentistry, or (5) a qualified oral and maxillofacial surgeon provided that the doctor or certified registered nurse anesthetist remains on the premises of the dental facility until any patient given parenteral drugs is sufficiently recovered.

When Wilk’s pointed out that the statute “specifically exempts me from what they are fining me for, their lawyer stated that he will have to ‘get that law changed.’” Wilk said. He said the board, which in 2010 reported an operating loss of $104,000, “held its own trial and fined me and held me for the board’s legal costs, totaling about $100,000.” They are their own judge, jury, and executioners,” he said. DENTISTRY BOARD 2009 FINANCIAL STATEMENT

The board subsequently prevailed on then-State Rep. Herbert Dixon to introduce legislation giving the dental board the necessary leverage to pursue claims against medical practitioners like Wilk who were not practicing dentists.

Wilk was scheduled to testify in committee against Dixon’s bill, HB 172, at 10 a.m. on May 15, 2012 but upon arriving, learned that the bill had been moved up to first on the calendar and had already been discussed and passed by the committee. It subsequently passed unanimously in both the House and Senate, yet more evidence that legislators often pass bills without really knowing what they contain or the implications of the language.

Wilk said that State Sen. David Heitmeier (D-New Orleans) had a discussion with Peyton Burkhalter, who had by then succeeded Barry Ogden as executive director of the board, and that Burkhalter had assured Heitmeier that the board had decided to drop the charges against Wilk. “He said that Mr. Morrison’s Gestapo tactics would end,” Wilk said.

State Sen. Fred Mills (R-Breaux Bridge) told LouisianaVoice on Thursday that he and former House Speaker Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) had experienced clashes with the board in the past. “They’ve got some problems with that board,” he said, “and I believe the answer in the end will be the establishment of oversight over them,” he said. “We’ve had to threaten them with legislative action, including replacing the entire board, in order to back them down in the past.”

Wilk said he feels there is outright corruption on the board and that its shakedowns of dentists and non-dentists alike constitutes extortion. “Knowing that no violation of any statute occurred but demanding payment under threat of costly litigation is unethical conduct,” he said.

“I believe that their changing the law was intended to persecute me but also puts many other practitioners at risk. The implications…are far-reaching and as such constitute a restraint of trade. The precedent set by this bill (HB 172) (allows) other boards to reach beyond their jurisdiction. This law does nothing to protect the public,” he said.

A couple of weeks ago, we received a comment from a reader identifying himself only as “The Truth Man” who proceeded to go on a 128-word tirade against another reader who called himself the “Dental Genie” and gloating over the outcome of the lawsuit of Dr. Randall Schaffer against the Louisiana State Dentistry Board.

Normally, it is the policy of LouisianaVoice to protect the identities of those commenting on our stories. We take the position that if they do not wish to divulge their real names, there must be a legitimate reason. Often, that reason is that the writer is a state employee who would fear for his job should his name be revealed.

But when the writer turns out to be the former director of the state board that was being sued by Dr. Randall Schaffer and when that writer attempts to color the results of the legal action in the board’s favor, we take the position that he is waiving his anonymity. He is, after all, a very public figure, retired or not.

Barry Ogden, former director of the Louisiana Board of Dentistry, was referring to Schaffer’s lawsuit against the board after the board turned on him for blowing the whistle on a defective joint replacement device for temporomandibular jaw (TMJ) sufferers by the head of the LSU School of Dentistry’s Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department in the mid-1980s. http://louisianavoice.com/2014/03/11/from-protecting-their-own-to-persecution-of-a-whistleblower-its-all-part-of-the-bureaucratic-shuffle-by-state-dental-board/

Schaffer who was a resident at LSU at the time, became aware of the negative effects to patients receiving the implants and when he was named as a witness and consultant in the class action cases that ensued, the Board of Dentistry immediately launched an investigation and ultimately revoked his license to practice dentistry.

Schaffer sued the board and moved to Iowa where he worked as a consultant and expert witness in legal matters involving dental malpractice. His case wound its way slowly through the courts, as legal cases always do, running up tremendous costs in the process. Meanwhile, Schaffer was forced to undergo bypass surgery and the combination of medical problems and legal costs left him with no choice but to allow his case to abandon.

Thus, he did not “lose” his case; it was dismissed because of the aforementioned reasons. “I simply could not afford to keep feeding the (legal) beast,” Schaffer said. “It has cost me more than $100,000 and it broke me.”

Ogden’s misleading and less than gracious rant led to several email exchanges between LouisianaVoice and Ogden. We first reminded him that the dismissal of Dr. Randall Schaffer’s case was not based on the merits of the case, but upon extenuating circumstances—money and health. We also reminded him that there are other lawsuits pending against the board and that state agencies have—and are continuing to—investigate tactics by the board and its contract investigator Camp Morrison, who inexplicably was given free office space in the Dental Board’s suite, paid for by taxpayers.

“Are you going to print my comment or not?” Ogden replied. “You obviously have made up your mind about me. Everything I said is true and public. Is your blog blocking what you don’t want to hear? I hope you will give myself and the other defendants a fair and balanced report after we prevail in court.”

We promised to publish his comment, but in context with the facts of the Schaffer case and Ogden’s 400-page deposition in another pending legal matter (Dr. Ryan Haygood). “The Schaffer case does not end the legal actions against the Louisiana Board of Dentistry,” we wrote, adding that as long as we were now communicating (we couldn’t get a comment from the board in our original story), “please explain how it is that the private investigator (Morrison) who is (or was) under contract to the board had the luxury of having an office in your office suite.”

Rather than answer that question, Ogden wrote back, “I cannot authorize you to publish my comment until I see how you plan to edit it and in what context. Are you on a witch hunt against the board or are you willing to publish non-biased comments? I do not wish for my comments to be changed. However, you may delete the final sentence admonishing you to know your subject before commenting. Further, do you require that I will only have my comments published if I allow you to controvert them with your own commentary?”

Well, yeah, when we feel it appropriate to clarify certain claims we do reserve that right.

We then asked him to please answer a few simply questions, to wit:

  • Why do you send in people posing as patients with the express purpose of setting these dentists up?
  • How is it that many of the dentists penalized with the board just happen to be in competition with board members?
  • How do you justify levying a fine of say, $2,000 and when the dentist refuses, you suddenly hand him a bill for $100,000?
  • How can you justify the board serving as accuser, prosecutor and judge? That makes it impossible for a dentist to receive a fair hearing.
  • When the U.S. Constitution says that everyone accused of wrongdoing is innocent until proven guilty, how is it that a dentist first learns of his “guilt” upon receiving notification of his fine?

We wrote that we had other questions, but unless he could address those satisfactorily, we could see no reason for further discussion. “You answer these and we can talk further,” we said.

“All I was attempting to do in my first comment,” he replied, “was to set the record straight, as I have been fed up with the  lies being said about the board and, in fact, all the horse manure thrown at us by you which you believed from the start… Now you wish me fill in the blanks in your next story which you have probably already written. I see no use in further communication, especially on matters in litigation. You are attempting to take advantage of me knowing I cannot answer your questions.

“Therefore, please do not print any of my comments, and let’s call it a day.”

Sorry, Mr. Ogden. That’s just not the way it works. You opened this dialog with your April 3 email to us in which you taunted us about the dismissal of Dr. Schaffer’s case—without revealing the real reasons for the dismissal—and advising us to keep our mouths shut. You offered your remarks as a comment to our story and even asked if we intended to print it before apparently having a change of heart and asking that it not be printed.

Sorry again, but when you want something to be off the record, you preface it that way—up front. You don’t come back after the fact and ask that your ill-advised remarks not be printed.

Accordingly, here is the original comment by Barry Ogden, retired director of the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (verbatim, as he requested):

  • For all of you who believe the fairy tale told by the dental genie, please be advised that ALL lawsuits filed on Dr. Shaffer’s behalf have been DISMISSED. I guess now you have to complain that both state and federal judges are as corrupted as the dental board. Further, how can anyone make a legitimate comment without looking at both sides? You can obtain a copy of the decision revoking Dr. Shaffer’s license from the dental board. It’s a public record. You may also look up all the lawsuits he has filed in state court and federal court in New Orleans to get the true picture. You know the old saying it is better to keep your mouth shut if you don’t know what you are talking about.

Next, we will examine how the board attempted to revoke the medical license of a New Orleans surgeon who has never even practiced dentistry using highly questionable investigative methods and employing tactics can only be described as extortion.

My granddad had an admonition for someone (more than once, that someone was me) who he thought was running his mouth off a little too much: “Don’t let your alligator mouth overload your jaybird ass.”

Loosely translated, that means don’t go shooting off your mouth with claims you can’t back up—physically or factually.

And from our perspective, it would seem that Bobby Jindal’s fusillade of fulminations, besides causing a “there he goes again” rolling of the eyes, has placed quite a burden on his scrawny backside.

It’s bad enough that he has waded off into the murky waters of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, a bill being copied in other states, including Louisiana) by voicing his support of the bill during, of all things, a speech at the National Rifle Association (NRA) convention. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/10/bobby-jindal-likens-gun-rights-to-religious-liberty/

(Bobby, Bibles and Bullets: what a presidential campaign slogan.)

But then, Team Jindal, in its weekly email blast, went to great lengths to point out that Iowa radio talk show host and Washington Times columnist “Steve Deace Proclaimed Governor Jindal A ‘Champion’ And ‘The Winner Of The Week’ For Standing Up For Religious Liberty.”

The email went on to say, “When a people’s very way of life is at stake, they look for a champion who stands up while others flee and says, ‘Here I am, send me.’ This week, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was such a champion. He articulated the very argument that will be necessary to preserve religious liberty against the now underway Secular Inquisition. (Inquisition? Really?) Religious liberty is poised to become the issue in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. Jindal decided to grab this issue by the throat and own it. For this reason Jindal is our winner of the week this week.”

If that puerile prose wasn’t enough to make you hurl, then perhaps a closer examination of Deace, an apparent Rush Limbaugh wannabe (Rush’s brother David Limbaugh even penned the foreword to Deace’s book Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again).

One not-so-complimentary online description of Deace describes him as knowing more about superheroes, Star Trek and college football “than any man not living under a vow of perpetual virginity in his mom’s basement should.” http://stevedeace.com/author/stevedeace/

Even more telling is the masthead to his web page http://stevedeace.com/ which says (and we’re not making this up): “Fear God, Tell the Truth, Make Money.” And then there is his online gift shop Patriot Depot which, besides Bibles, American flags and the usual gung-ho patriotic tee-shirts, features a USB thumb drive shaped like revolver, described as the COOLEST USB DRIVE EVER

We would strongly suggest that Deace and Jindal take time out from spewing hatred in the name of Jesus to listen to old troubadour Kris Kristofferson who wrote Me and Bobby Magee while sitting on a helicopter landing pad in Morgan City between shuttling workers to and from oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. The track we recommend for their enlightenment is a rather obscure song entitled The Law is for Protection of the People: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK8TSJuBMgM



All this is a prelude to Jindal’s propensity, indeed a determined effort, to step on his own tongue. He has successfully talked himself into a corner this time and it’s going to be interesting to see how he tries to wiggle out of a contradiction he created all by himself.

It was less than a week ago (Tuesday, April 7) that Bobby Jindal, while promoting his non-candidacy candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in Iowa, called Hillary Clinton’s scandal over private email use while Secretary of State yet another misstep making her “the center of this administration’s failed foreign policies.”

Clinton described the practice of using a private email account as a “convenience” and not a means to prevent public disclosure of what would otherwise be considered public records. “I was waiting for her to say, ‘What difference does it make?’” Jindal told the Des Moines Register in an interview the same day of Clinton’s Tuesday news conference. “I was kind of surprised she didn’t say that. This isn’t simply an issue about her account or emails. There’s just a pattern here,” he said.

His ratchet jaw response was reminiscent to his actions during the flap by those birthers over President Obama’s citizenship. Jindal hauled out his own birth certificate to prove he was born in the good ol’ USA—without anyone ever asking and as if anyone really cared. To be fair, though, at least this time he was asked his opinion about Clinton’s email controversy by Register reporters who apparently ran out of relevant questions to ask Jindal—like say, a $1.6 billion budget deficit in Louisiana—the state where he should have been doing his job instead of campaigning—or about the lack of health care for a quarter-million Louisiana residents because of his mule-headed refusal to expand Medicaid, or about devastating cuts to higher education, or about the deteriorating infrastructure.

Well, as it turns out, the Baton Rouge Advocate and blogger Lamar White each made separate requests nine days apart for copies of work-related emails from Jindal’s office and executive counsel Thomas Enright, Jr., refused both requests, claiming that “no records responsive to your public records request” exist outside exemptions outlined in the state’s public records law and that the exemptions support open discussion by the governor’s staff “to make recommendations to assist the governor in the usual course of the duties and business of his office.” http://theadvocate.com/news/12074849-123/bobby-jindal-wont-release-emails#comments

That explanation did not sit too well with Lamar White who has the excellent online blog Cenlarmar.com. Enright, a veteran attorney, received in return a harsh lecture on the public records law from law student White. Rather than try to rehash the contents of Enright’s and White’s letters, you can read the exchange here: http://cenlamar.com/2015/04/11/bobby-jindal-invested-too-much-in-the-gold-standard/

But the clincher came in four paragraphs near the end of White’s response and that does bear repeating here:

  • By failing to produce even a single e-mail responsive to this request, your office is suggesting either that Gov. Jindal is either openly and actively violating the public records law or, alternately, the governor is somehow, absurdly, still in the process of deliberating issues resolved several years ago— records that are, therefore, no longer legally entitled to any exemption and should be considered historic and subject to disclosure.
  • Mr. Enright, your response implicitly suggests that neither Gov. Jindal nor any member of his staff have ever made a decision on a single policy, budgetary, or legal issue during his entire two-term tenure as governor. (Emphasis White’s)
  • In Louisiana, a citizen’s right to access public records is considered fundamental, and the burden is on the government to provide a legal basis for each and every record denied. Unfortunately, your office has elected to prevent the disclosure of even a single record.
  • Gov. Jindal recently requested the full disclosure of all e-mails maintained by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, presumably under the belief that those e-mails would enhance accountability and transparency and better inform the public.
  • Gov. Jindal’s unwillingness to disclose even a single e-mail, under the pretense of deliberative process, stifles the fundamental rights of Louisiana citizens and starkly contradicts the law and his own repeated pledge to implement a “gold standard” of ethics reform.

That, folks, is pure poetry.

We have seen comments to the Advocate story that accuse the newspaper to grandstanding because of the flap over Clinton’s emails. It would be assumed that the same accusations might be leveled at Cenlarmar.com as well. But LouisianaVoice has published stories in the past revealing how administration staff members (including the Department of Education) have been instructed to cease communicating on state email in favor of private accounts. That leaves no wiggle room for Jindal, nor does it permit him the luxury of criticizing Clinton without subjecting himself to that same scrutiny.

And most likely there was grandstanding by both. But sometimes that is what it takes to make a point. Like a baseball manager arguing a call with an umpire, they had to know their request would be denied. But in forcing Jindal’s hand, it revealed a deep-seated hypocrisy that has defined and continues to permeate Bobby Jindal’s administration—hypocrisy that should never have existed and which should be ended immediately. This is, after all, the administration that promised openness and transparency.

And before the question gets asked, do we condone Clinton’s use of a private email account? Absolutely not. She was a public servant with a secure public email account and government business should be conducted on that account. Just as with Jindal’s invoking of the deliberative process, there are safeguards built in that exempt disclosure of sensitive documents.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter and Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle could well be running for governor of Texas instead of Louisiana, if campaign contributions through March 31 are any indication.

That’s because between the two, there have been 69 contributions from donors in the Lone Star State totaling more than half a million dollars, according to campaign finance reports on file with the Louisiana Board of Ethics.

In fact, it might even appear to some that there is a disproportionate amount of out-of-state money that has already been invested in the four major candidates for governor—and the Oct. 24 primary election is still six months away.

Besides the 317 out-of-state contributors who have combined to pour $900,000 into the four campaigns, 954 special interests (corporations, political action committees, etc.) have funneled more than $3 million of the total $6.1 million contributed to the campaigns of Republicans Vitter, Angelle, Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and Democratic State Rep. John Bel Edwards, records show.

With nearly half the total contributions coming from special interests—the numbers do not include donations made by individuals and family members affiliated with corporations—it is evident that the decision of choosing political leaders has been taken away from the citizenry in favor of moneyed power brokers.

Elections now go to the candidate who has the most money to spend on the slickest image building and most damaging character assassination of the opposition—all with little or no attention given to real issues or genuine political ideology. It’s as if every candidate has adopted the sales adage that says you don’t sell the hamburger, you sell the sizzle. To create that sizzle, politicians have shamelessly sold their souls to people like the Koch brothers, financier George Soros, Amway founder Richard DeVos, Las Vegas casino magnates Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn.

Voters would probably be wise to examine the issues more carefully, question candidates on their positions and reject the big money the way the old 1960s-era print advertisement for the Volkswagen Beetle which shows two men campaigning from convertible vehicles, one photo has a candidate standing in the rear seat of a luxury vehicle (it appears to be a Cadillac) trailed by a marching band, and the other from the back seat of an economy Beetle with a lone bass drummer behind him—with the caption “Which man would you vote for?”


Indeed, Louisiana, which man would you vote for? It would behoove us to take long looks at the candidates and what they stand for and not vote for the one who can best saturate TV ads with photos of him and his beaming family as he prattles on about how much he loves corporate donors and PACs this state.

Julia O’Donoghue, writing for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, noted that each of the four leading candidates for governor said he will not be signing the “no-tax” pledge of Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/post_584.html

“As Louisiana’s next governor, I’ll make fiscal decisions that are best for Louisiana, not based on what a Washington group dictates,” says Vitter, the top money-raiser of the four. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/grover_norquists_no_tax_increa.html

But though Vitter says he would not sign the pledge as governor, he already has, as U.S. Senator.

That’s why it is so crucial to watch what the candidates do and not what they say. As you watch the polished TV ads in the coming months remember that old expression “What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you are saying.”

That’s especially true of Vitter and Angelle. One has somehow survived not one, but two, extra-marital scandals, either one of which would have destroyed the political careers of other men, and the other is nothing more than Third Term Jindal—an appointee of and anointed by the man who single-handedly wrecked higher education, the Office of Group Benefits, the state’s hospital system, the state’s infrastructure and the state’s economy while on his way (he somehow still believes) to the White House.

LouisianaVoice received a most interesting web post about so-called “dark money” in political campaigns. The post, entitled Be Afraid of the Dark: How Dark Money affects elections, is the creation of Accounting-Degree.org and though dated, provides a thorough explanation of how $200 million in dark money—money not covered by federal disclosure rules intended to inform the public of who is paying to influence its vote—was expected to be spent in the 2014 Congressional elections last fall. http://www.accounting-degree.org/dark-money/

It goes into a detailed explanation of:

  • The 1976 U.S. Supreme Court Decision Buckley v. Valeo, which allowed unlimited campaign expenditures by individuals;
  • The Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision by the Supreme Court allowing unlimited outside campaign expenditures by corporations and labor unions;
  • The 2010 Speechnow v. FEC Appeals Court decision allowing unlimited contributins to political action committees by individuals;
  • Super PACs, the political action committees that accept and spend unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions (donors publicly disclosed);
  • 501(c)(4) Committees, the nonprofit campaign committees regulated by the IRS, not elections officials. Though not political in their primary function, they may accept and spend unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions and may then funnel money to super PACs (donors not publicly disclosed).

With an estimated $5 billion poured into last fall’s federal election campaigns, one has to wonder why the contributors, those who love power and love using it, would not be satisfied with using that money for the greater good—feeding the poor, paying teachers more, building infrastructure, health care, etc., rather than using it for the more sinister purpose of buying candidates and elections.

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the campaign contributions from Jan. 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 for the four leading gubernatorial candidates:


  • Total contributions: 1,158 totaling $3.7 million (Ave. contribution: $3,195);
  • Total contributions of $5,000 maximum: 592 at $2.96 million (Ave. contribution: $5,000);
  • Total special interest (corporations, PACs, etc.) at $5,000 maximum: 328 at $1.64 million (Ave. contribution: $5,000);
  • Total special interest contributions of all amounts: 532 at $2 million (more than half his total contributions of all amounts from all sources) (Ave. contribution: $3,759);
  • Total out-of-state contributions: 186 at $490,835 (Ave. contribution: $2,639) (including Texas: 54 for $201,500; Virginia: 19 for $38,500; Washington, D.C.: 12 for $27,000).


  • Total contributions: 430 at $1.5 million (Ave. contribution: $3,486);
  • Total contributions of $5,000 maximum: 230 for $1,150,000 (Ave. contribution: $5,000);
  • Total special interest contributions of $5,000 maximum: 130 at $650,000 (Ave. contribution: $5,000);
  • Total special interest contributions, all amounts: 213 for $800,500 (Ave. contribution: $3,758);
  • Total out-of-state contributions: 84 for $339,000 (Ave. contribution: $4,036) (including Texas: 74 at $316,000, an average contribution of $4,270).


  • Total contributions: 409 at $597,000 (Ave. contribution: $1,460);
  • Total contributions at $5,000 maximum: 46 at $230,000 (Ave. contribution: $5,000);
  • Total special interest contributions of $5,000 maximum: 16 at $80,000 (Ave contribution: $5,000);
  • Total special interest contributions, all amounts: 115 at $111,825 (Ave contribution: $972);
  • Total out-of-state contributions: 24 for $36,350 (Ave. contribution: 1,515) (Texas: 13 for $20,320 for an average contribution of $1,563).


  • Total contributions: 198 at $299,700 (Ave. contribution: $1,514);
  • Total contributions of $5,000 maximum: 15 at $75,000 (Ave. contribution: $5,000);
  • Total special interest contributions of $5,000 maximum: 5 at $25,000 (Ave. contribution $5,000);
  • Total special interest contributions, all amounts: 94 at $94,250 (Ave. contribution: $1,003);
  • Total out-of-state contributions: 23 at $24,200 (Ave. contribution: $1,052).


  • Out-of-state contributions: Vitter with 186 for $490,835, compared to 131 for $399,550 for the other three candidates combined;
  • Special interest contributions: Vitter with 532 for $2 million, compared to 422 for $1,006,375 for the other three candidates combined;
  • Special interest contributions of $5,000 maximum: Vitter with 328 for $1.64 million, compared to 151 for $755,000 for Angelle, Dardenne and Edwards combined;
  • Contributions of the $5,000 maximum: 592 for $2.96 million while the remaining three candidates combined for 291 contributions totaling $1,455,000.

Finally, it might be worth mentioning that in 2011 Bobby Jindal raised a whopping $12 million for his re-election campaign.

And you see what that bought us.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,849 other followers

%d bloggers like this: