Gov. Bobby Jindal loves to travel across the country telling anyone who will listen about the “gold standard” of ethics reform he singlehandedly passed to strengthen Louisiana’s ethics laws as one of his first acts upon taking office in 2008.
Except it simply isn’t so.
There are more than 981,000 reasons that indicate Jindal’s boasts are just so much hot air, devoid of any substance.
More than 300 candidates for local, state and national offices, many of them attorneys (and more than a few disbarred attorneys) owe more than $891,500 in fines for filing campaign finance reports late or not at all.
Moreover, 25 political action committees (PACs) owe an additional $90,000, according to figures provided by the Louisiana Board of Ethics.
So, just how is it that so many fines and such a large amount—at least four candidates had accrued penalties in excess of $25,000 each—have managed to go uncollected for so long (some dating as far back as 1999)?
For the answer to that, we have to go all the way back to January, 2008, Jindal’s first month in office. One of his first acts was to call a special session of the legislature to pass his “ethics reform” package that effectively gutted the State Board of Ethics. Ten of the board’s 11 members resigned in protest—seven of those because the “reform” legislation transferred ethics enforcement power from the state ethics board to administrative law judges, a move that rendered the board useless.
Next question: What’s so wrong with turning enforcement power over to administrative law judges? Well, for starters, the administrative law judges are selected by an appointee of the governor, hardly a hands-off, arms-length, non-political approach to ethics. In fact, Elliot Stonecipher, a Shreveport demographer and political analyst, observed the Jindal package created a situation in which “we could have people with a relationship with the governor (enforcing ethics laws).”
For decades the ethics commission had full authority to bring charges, hear cases and impose penalties on public officials accused of wrongdoing. No more.
Former Ethics Chairman Frank Simoneaux, who has been critical of the manner in which the ethics board and the administrative judges have interacted on issues, said he agrees that the responsibility for investigating and deciding ethics cases should be split but that administrative judges are not the method that should be employed.
Oh, and there’s this: Jindal proposed the legislation while he was under investigation by the Louisiana Board of Ethics. The timing of his “reform” measures has to be considered at least somewhat suspect, given that the ethics commission cited Jindal’s campaign for campaign finance disclosure violation just before Jindal pushed through his package.
Examples of outstanding ethics fines for late campaign finance reports include:
• Richard C. Bates, a 2006 candidate for 24th Judicial District Judge (Jefferson Parish) who has since been disbarred: $2,600;
• Michael Bell, former legislative assistant to former Sen. Wilson Fields (now a district judge) and himself an unsuccessful 2011 candidate for the state senate: $3,260;
• District Judge Wilson Fields, unsuccessful 2010 campaign for First Circuit Court of Appeal: $1,000;
• William Bowman: unsuccessful 1997 candidate for St. Helena Parish Clerk of Court: $2,720;
• Raymond Brown: unsuccessful 2004 candidate for Orleans Parish Sheriff: $9,500;
• Douglas Castro: unsuccessful 2005 candidate for Orleans Parish Clerk of Court: $10,420;
• Albert Donovan, former legal counsel to Gov. Edwin Edwards, 2003 unsuccessful candidate for Secretary of State: $39,500;
• James Fahrenholtz: 2000 and 2004 candidate for Orleans Parish School Board: $41,000;
• Sandra Hester: unsuccessful 2004 candidate for Orleans Parish School Board: $10,660;
• Percy J. Marchand: unsuccessful 2007 candidate for Orleans Parish state representative: $26,600;
• Robert Murray: unsuccessful 2003 and 2007 candidate for state representative: $16,900;
• Donald Ray Pryor: unsuccessful 2002 candidate for Orleans Parish Registrar: $36,200;
• Gary Wainwright: unsuccessful 2007 candidate for Orleans Parish District Attorney: $30,700;
The Ethics Commission is so weakened by Jindal’s 2008 ethics revamp that it is not only unable to collect outstanding fines but it is even powerless to prevent those with unpaid fines from running in subsequent political races.
Enforcement is just as ineffective with political action committees.
The United Democratic Ballot, Inc., for example, owes $14,000 in unpaid fines dating back to 2002.
Others include:
• The Westbank Independent Coalition (Jefferson Parish): $8,000 in 2003;
• The African American Voters League: $9,000 in 2002;
• Baton Rouge Youth Movement: $8,000 in 2011 and 2012;
• Home Builders Association of Central Louisiana: $8,000 in 2010;
• Independent Rx PAC: $3,500 in 2010;
• Shreveport Committee on Political Education: $4,400 in 2006 and 2010;
As a reward for his comments critical of Jindal’s ethics reform package, Simoneaux was not re-nominated to another five-year term on the board—effectively fired—by the Committee on House and Governmental Affairs in April of 2012.
Ethics, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Put another way: those who have the gold are making the rules.
The apparent absence of teeth would seem to render the Ethics Board without a reason for existence.
Do these members of the Ethics Board still draw per diem for being a member of this Board? If they have no duties and perform no service why would they exist? Once this was an honorable group of individuals on this board who only wanted to “keep in line” politicians, appointees, and elected individuals. Now they are little more than a proxy for Jindal. Since Jindal has ruined many boards and commissions, why not save money by dissolving them all?
Is CNN subscribed to this newsletter? This stuff needs to be publicized for all the world to see ….
The reason for the continued-though diluted-existence of the Board of Ethics revolves around what I call the “Charlie Tuna Technique.” Just like Charlie Tuna, Jindal wants things to “look” good and to heck with reality or functionality of the situation. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. On one hand, Jindal could hardly do away with an Ethics Board and, then, on the other hand parade across the US talking about how he “championed” ethics reform in Louisiana. So, in the spirit of “Charlie Tuna,” appearances in Jindal’s World are paramount.
Jindal “recalibrated” the ethics board for the sole purpose of complimenting, furthering and fostering his political power base in Louisiana. When viewed from this standpoint or manner, it is less a matter political irony and more of a political fact of Machiavellianism on Jindal’s part. Perhaps such is the reason for his “exorcistic” control and influence over politics and certain politicians in the state. Jindal is employing the Board of Ethics to keep the politicians at both the state and local level in line to forward his political agenda. He has and is blackmailing his way to power. The fact that Jindal neutered the Louisiana Board of Ethics and placed the ultimate power at the executive level is not totally surprising. That is Jindal’s way of doing business. The Louisiana Board of Ethics existence provides Jindal with a platform, a big political stick, to control and dictate politics in Louisiana.
TANGENT: Maybe someone could help me out with this? This story reminds me of an interview Jindal gave on a talk show a few months after passing his “ethics reform” package. I can’t remember the talk show or the group in question, however, in the course of the interview, Jindal claimed that because of “his” ethics reforms Louisiana had “jumped” from 50th to 4th in the country based on an ethics review performed by a highly respected group that performs ethic reviews on a state by state basis. When Jindal’s assertion was placed before the head of this organization, he/she stated emphatically that the group had not reviewed or evaluated Louisiana from the standpoint of ethics in the last two years and was not planning an ethics review of Louisiana until 2010. In other words, Jindal lied. I just wish I could remember the name of the talk show or at least the group Jindal cited. I do remember the interview was conducted in 2008, the first year of Jindal’s governorship.
Is there anything about which he has spoken the truth? Ever? The sad fact is, the bigger the lie, the more aptly the general public accepts it as fact.
The purpose of the Ethics board is to keep their political enemies in line.
To quote an impeached President from our era who wouldn’t let the self-righteous Republicans bludgeon his political prospects, “it’s time to investigate the investigators?”
“Louisiana’s ethics laws as one of his [Jindal’s] first acts upon taking office in 1981.” What office did hold he then, or is this date a typo? Just want to make sure your excellence in investigative reporting isn’t degraded by bad proof reading before posting.
You must’ve gotten the email version of the post because I was alerted to the typo (should’ve been 2008) within minutes of posting the story and went back in an made the correction immediately.
Did get it in an email as one of your subscribers. Thanks of taking the time to reply and keep up the good work. Just wish someone would hire him away … I must have sent out a gazillion copies of his resume, no bites on the little worm yet! How sad for our state and her citizens.