Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for 2015

Center for Public Integrity gives Louisiana an F; ranks 41st overall in 13 areas of judgment with numeric grade of 59

Posted in Ethics, Exemptions, Governor's Office, Judges, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Louisiana Purchase, Politicians, Public Records, Transparency on November 9, 2015| 8 Comments »

While Bobby Jindal is touting all the wonderful innovations, budget cuts, employee reductions, etc., that he has initiated in Louisiana, The Center for Public Integrity has a few items he may wish to soft peddle as he goes about trying to convince Iowans that he’s really serious about running for President and not the joke we in Louisiana know him to be.

The center has just released its 2015 integrity grades for each state and it isn’t very pretty for Louisiana.

In fact, the state received a flat-out grade of F and ranked 41st out of the 50 states overall with a composite score of 59 out of a possible 100. Only seven states had lower composite scores—Pennsylvania and Oregon (58), Nevada (57), Delaware and South Dakota (56), and Michigan and Wyoming (51).

Mississippi (61) and Alabama (67), normally found competing for Louisiana on lists of all things bad, were well ahead of Louisiana with rankings of 33rd and 7th, respectively. Alaska had the highest score at 71, good enough for a C. Michigan was the worst with its 51.

Louisiana wasn’t alone in getting a failing grade of course; there were 10 others but in the other states we can only assume the governors are at least attempting to address their problems. Jindal isn’t. He capitulated long ago as he set out on his quest for the brass ring that continues—and will continue—to elude him. Though he has only two months to go in office, he in reality abandoned us three years and 10 months ago—right after he was inaugurated for his second term. Truth be told, he has been at best a distracted administrator (I still can’t bring myself to call him a governor) for his full eight years and at worst, guilty of malfeasance in his dereliction of duty.

Harsh words, to be sure, but then his record screams out his shortcomings (loud enough to be heard in Iowa, one would think) and his lack of a basic understanding of running a lemonade stand, much less a state.

States were graded on 13 criteria by the Center for Public Integrity:

  • Public Access to Information—F
  • Political Financing—D
  • Electoral Oversight—D+
  • Executive Accountability—F
  • Legislative Accountability—F
  • Judicial Accountability—F
  • State Budget Processes—D+
  • State Civil Service Management—F
  • Procurement—D+
  • Internal Auditing—C+
  • Lobbying Disclosure—D
  • Ethics Enforcement Agencies—F
  • State Pension Fund Management—F

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18407/louisiana-gets-f-grade-2015-state-integrity-investigation?utm_campaign=stateintegrity&utm_source=digest&utm_medium=link&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-08c0be5058-100352837&mc_cid=08c0be5058&mc_eid=c4ee01d834

The scores given each of these, and their national ranking were even more revealing.

Public Access to Information, for example scored a dismal 30, ranking 46th in the country.

In the scoring for Internal Auditing, on the other hand, the state’s numerical score was 79, but was good enough for only a ranking of 32nd.

Likewise, the grading for Procurement (purchase of goods and contracts) had a numeric score of 69, good enough to rank the state 25th. But numeric score of 64 for Lobbying Disclosure while rating only a D, was still good enough to nudge the state into the upper half of the rankings at 24th.

One of the biggest areas of concern would have to be the state’s numeric grade of only 40 for Judicial Accountability, plunging the state to next to last at 49th. (This is an area that has flown under the radar but one the legislature and next governor should address.)

The lowest numeric score was 30 for Public Access to Information, fifth from the bottom at 46th. LouisianaVoice can certainly attest to the difficulty in obtaining public records, having found it necessary to file lawsuit against the state on three occasions in order to obtain what were clearly public records. Even after winning two of the three lawsuits, we still experience intolerable foot-dragging as agencies attempt to stall in the hopes we will give up.

We will not. If anything, the stalling only strengthens our resolve to fight for the public’s right to know.

To compare Louisiana to other states in each of the 13 criteria, go here: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18822/how-does-your-state-rank-integrity

In the final days of the 2015 legislative session the state Senate approved a bill that removed the exemptions pushed through by Jindal in his first month in office in 2008 which kept most government records from disclosure. State Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) was quoted in the report as saying, “It turns out we were boondoggled on that.”

Jindal called his changes his “gold standard,” but the report said it is “riddled with loopholes and cynical interpretations by the governor and other state officials.”

That looked like a promising reversal to the secrecy of the Jindal administration but then the legislature agreed to postpone implementation of the new law that abolished the abused “deliberative process” exception until after Jindal leaves office next January.

Jindal also managed to gut the state’s ethics laws early in his first year. Enforcement of ethics violations was removed from the State Ethics Board and transferred to judges selected by a Jindal appointee. That prompted long-time political consultant Elliott Stonecipher of Shreveport to say that while the state’s ethics laws looked good on the surface, there was “no effective enforcement and that breeds more than just a system of corruption, but an acceptance of those practices,” the center’s report said.

The center reported that it is not Louisiana’s ethics laws that produced such a poor grade, but the day-to-day interpretations of the laws by various departmental legal advisors.

Since the center’s first survey of public integrity on a state-by-state basis, no fewer than 12 states have had legislators or cabinet-level officials charged, convicted or resign over ethics-related issues, the report said.

Read Full Post »

At last: guest columnist offers common sense response to that vile Vitter distortion about releasing 5,500 prisoners

Posted in Courts, Crime, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Judges, Legislature, Media, Politicians, Prison, Vitter on November 7, 2015| 14 Comments »

A professor of Criminal Justice and retired Louisiana State Police Officer compares drug offenses with sex crimes in Louisiana in response to David Vitter’s vitriolic political ads suggesting that releasing non-violent drug offenders will harm public safety.

By Wayne “Steve” Thompson, PhD (Special to LouisianaVoice)

According to Louisiana Revised Statute 40:967, the state of Louisiana has a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for possession of 28 grams of cocaine or crack cocaine. According to Louisiana Revised Statute 14:34, the state of Louisiana does not have a mandatory minimum for aggravated battery which includes shooting or stabbing someone. Second degree rape has a mandatory minimum of two years (LRS 14:42.1). To sum it up, a man who threatens to kill a woman so she will not resist while he rapes her is required to do less time in jail than a person with a handful of cocaine or crack cocaine.

I have personally worked cases involving drug use and drug dealing resulting in decades if not centuries of incarceration. I have served numerous warrants on drug dealers while serving on the LSP SWAT team. I have assisted in the investigation of sex crimes cases. I found it frustrating the level of leniency towards sex offenders who received less punishment than drug offenders. Leniency for sex offenders is required to make sure there is room for the statutorily mandated sentences of non-violent drug offenders. My frustrations are shared by many in the criminal justice community.

Incarceration does not work

 Thirty-two percent of state felony convictions were for drug offenses in 2002 and more than 60 percent of those were sentenced to incarceration (Vanderwaal et al., 2006). There were 253,300 drug offenders in state prisons in 2005 (United States Department of Justice, 2008). The estimated cost of incarcerating these offenders is from $5 billion to $8 billion dollars per year. The average incarceration cost per offender is around $30,000 per year.

The drug war is an exercise of futility. Drug prices have gone down and the availability of drugs has increased (Caulkins & MacCoun, 2003). Long incarcerations result in higher recidivism or have zero effectiveness in reducing recidivism (Marinelli-Casey, et al., 2008; Caulkins & Reuter, 2006; Harvard Law Review, 1998; Vanderwaal et al., 2006). The user is still able to obtain drugs because there are plenty of people willing to stand in for a drug dealer when he or she is incarcerated. It is not the same for a violent offender. There is no line of violent offenders who want to step into the shoes of a sex offender, robber, or murderer. There are only victims. The incarceration of violent criminals can actually reduce the number of victimizations.

What does work?

According to Vanderwaal et al. (2006), drug treatment is more effective than incarceration in reducing drug use and reducing recidivism. Many states have realized this evidenced by numerous legislative acts which reduce mandatory minimum sentences and the establishment of over 1,600 drug courts by the end of 2004. The Back on Track (BOT) program in California is focused on first time low level drug dealers. They participate in extensive community service and meet positive goals such as school and employment requirements. If the participants successfully complete the program, they have their records sealed. Rivers (2009) reported the program has a recidivism rate of less than 10 percent and the cost is only $5,000 per participant. When this amount is compared to the reported prosecution expense of $10,000 and an annual incarceration rate of up to $50,000, it is a great success, a bargain for taxpayers.

Why does Louisiana lead the world in incarceration rates?

Research based treatment programs are a common sense alternative to incarceration that improves the ability to incarcerate violent offenders. An ad recently released in the Louisiana gubernatorial campaign condemned efforts to release up to 5,500 nonviolent drug offenders. That is 5,500 prison beds that can be used for violent offenders. The fiscal impact alone based on current incarceration costs is a savings of approximately $165 million every year. I am sure our schools could use that money.

The excessive punishments have been inspired by political popularity which also inhibits our ability to use common sense penalties and treatment. The public and law enforcement have shifted to the ideals that the drug problem is social, psychological, biological, and medical. The criminal justice system is ill equipped to deal with such problems.

Politicians are hesitant to change how we treat drug offenders for fear of appearing soft on crime resulting in damage to a political career. The fear is not created by the person who chooses innovation over ineffectiveness. The fear is created by opponents of the candidate by taking the methods out of context. I will attempt to place them in context.

Any effort to reduce the incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders through research proven treatment is a stance against violent criminals. Those who oppose such efforts are actually supporting keeping violent offenders in our midst. An attempt to create fear for political gain is described by Sheriff Tony Mancuso of Calcasieu Parish as “irresponsible” and “dangerous.”

Why do politicians think these ads work?

There is only one explanation, the perception of ignorance. The candidate must believe the voters at large have never dealt with a friend or family member who suffers from drug abuse and believe they should be treated versus incarcerated. We need representatives who will reduce our prison population with research proven best practices to make room for violent offenders. The people behind such political ads do not want violent offenders on the street and I would never make that claim. But, by putting such blatantly ignorant ads out, that is what they are facilitating.

References

Caulkins, J. P. & MacCoun, R. (2003). Limited rationality and the limits of supply reduction.       Journal of Drug Issues, 33(2), 433-464.

Caulkins, J. P. & Reuter, P. (2006). Reorienting U.S. drug policy. Issues in Science &        Technology, 23(1), 79-85.

Harvard Law Review. (1998). Alternatives to incarceration. Harvard Law Review, 111(7), 1863-  1991.

Louisiana Revised Statute 14:34. (1980). Aggravated Battery.

Louisiana Revised Statute 14:42.1. (2001). Forcible Rape.

Louisiana Revised Statute 40:967. (2007). Prohibited Acts-Schedule II, Penalties.

Marinelli-Casey, P., Gonzales, R., Hillhouse, M., Ang, A., Zweben, J., Cohen, J. Hora, P. F., &    Rawson, R. A., (2008). Drug court treatment for methamphetamine dependence:           Treatment response and posttreatment outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.      34(2), 242-248.

Rivers, J. L. (2009). Back on track: A problem-solving reentry court. Bureau of Justice Statistics    Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved on November 22, 2009 at             http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/BackonTrackFS.pdf.

United States Department of Justice. (2008). Number of persons under jurisdiction of state           correctional authorities by most serious offense, 1980-2005. Retrieved November 24,    2009 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/corrtyptab.htm.

Vanderwaal, C. J., Chriqui, J. F., Bishop, R. M., McBride, D. C., & Longshore, D. Y. (2006).       State drug policy reform movement: The use of ballot initiatives and legislation to       promote diversion to drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(3), 619-648.

Editor’s note: In one of the two debates attended by Vitter prior to the Oct. 24 primary election, both he and State Rep. John Bel Edwards agreed that alternative programs needed to be implemented in order to alleviate prison overcrowding. That, of course, was before Vitter decided to ignore his own position to the issue and to paint Edwards as “soft on crime.”

Read Full Post »

Jindal marked down by K-Mart as Vitter supporters launch all-out blitz against Edwards, Dardenne over endorsement

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Senate, Vitter on November 6, 2015| 23 Comments »

Can the campaigns of Bobby Jindal and David Vitter possibly be any more pathetic or repugnant?

Can the Louisiana Republican Party possibly look any more dysfunctional and puerile?

Between the events being reported on both campaigns, it would appear that each has reached the depths of degradation. But then experience has taught us to never underestimate the stupidity of a desperate individual—or in this case, two desperate individuals, both apparently headed in the same direction albeit via vastly different stratagems.

(Hint to Republicans still possessing a modicum of mental stability: you may wish to disembark from the Disoriented Express at the next stop. It’s not too late to check out of the Hotel Silly.)

First, we have Jindal, still clinging to the watery thin hope that somehow he may yet be thrust to the forefront of that gaggle of geese, aka Republican presidential hopefuls.

As we have mentioned from time to time, we somehow lucked up and got on his email list so that we get regular updates on his “surging” poll numbers and his “awesome” speeches and kiddie table debate performances. Here’s one we received on Nov. 3:

From: Gail, BobbyJindal.com [mailto:info@bobbyjindalhq.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 5:11 PM

To:

Subject: New Poll: Jindal Leads Bush in Iowa

According to the latest poll out of Iowa, Bobby Jindal has moved up to 5th place, and currently has the third highest favorable rating. Bobby doesn’t have a $100 million Super Pac backing him like Jeb, but it doesn’t matter because he has grassroots supporters like you. With your help, Bobby has stood up to the DC establishment and fought for conservative principles. There are 90 days left until the Iowa Caucus. Chip in $250, $100 or even $25 right now so we have the resources to keep building our grassroots campaign and continue to rise in the polls. With your help, Bobby will win Iowa and ride the momentum to the White House.

Thank you,

Gail Gitcho Senior Advisor,

Jindal for President

P.S. please share this big news with your family and friends!

We’re not certain but we suspect by “senior advisor,” she means she is a senior in high school.

But now it seems that Bobby has been marked down by K-Mart. Here is the email we received today:

From: Brad Engle, BobbyJindal.com [mailto:info@bobbyjindalhq.com]

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 9:22 AM

To:

Subject: Today’s challenge

Hi, I just got out of our senior staff meeting, and I need your help on something. Our digital team just got challenged to get 1,000 new Jindal for President donors today. Can I count on you to help us get there? All we need is for you to chip in $1.

I need to send Governor Jindal a list of how many people chipped in before I leave the office tonight. Thanks,

Brad Engle Digital Director,

Jindal for President

Are you freakin’ kidding me? Has Bobby actually gone from soliciting amounts of $10, $25, $50, $100, and $250 to support his languishing campaign to begging for a buck?

One dollar to run for President? Oh, the humanity! (With apologies to Herb Morrison, the radio reporter who provided live coverage of the Hindenburg disaster on May 6, 1937—and of course, to Les Nessman the WKRP newsman who covered the live Thanksgiving turkey drop from the WKRP helicopter only to find that the turkeys could not fly.)

But if it’s abhorrence you want in lieu of cheap humor, then consider this little jewel: Jindal is scheduled to join Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Gov. at a National Religious Liberties Conference in Des Moines today and tomorrow (Friday, Nov. 5 and Saturday, Nov. 7) hosted by pastor and radio host Kevin Swanson.

So what’s so repulsive about that, you ask? Just this. The good reverend, the wonderful Christian that he must certainly be, openly supports executing homosexuals. It’s not enough, apparently to merely advocate rehabilitating gays the way many fundamentalists do, he wants the U.S. to adopt Uganda’s death penalty for them. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/03/gop-candidates-speak-conference-hosted-pastor-supports-killing-gays.html

If Jindal had any sense in that pea-sized brain of his, he would run, not walk, as far from that event as possible. Instead, he apparently embraces it.

What have we become as a society? A nation? A civilization? Does this pseudo-preacher, along with Jindal, Cruz, and Huckabee really believe this is what Christ taught when he walked this earth? For Jindal, the very idea of his participation literally drips with inconsistent irony. As the leading proponent of Islamophobia (remember his claim of the “no-go zones” in Europe?), he now aligns himself with Islamics who advocate the death penalty for homosexuals.

And then there is this today from Robert Mann: http://www.salon.com/2015/11/06/david_vitter_hooker_shocker_new_charges_that_louisiana_pol_missed_vote_honoring_soldiers_while_scheduling_prostitute_rendezvous/

But when it comes to sheer audacity, it’s going to be difficult to top Vitter and his supporters. Republican leaders were quick to condemn Republican Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne, who finished fourth in the Oct. 24 primary election, for his endorsement of Democratic State Rep. John Bel Edwards on Thursday (Sept. 5). Some of the criticism was a bit humorous, some of it more than a little sick.

Louisiana Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere called Dardenne “the Nick Saban of Louisiana politics.” http://theadvocate.com/news/13896377-63/louisiana-gop-chair-calls-republican

That, of course was an attempt to label Dardenne a traitor to his party by comparing him with the University of Alabama coach who, like him or not, restored LSU football to national prominence after years of sub-par seasons with revolving door coaches. In 2003, he won the school’s first national championship in football since 1958 before moving on—not to Alabama, but to the NFL’s Miami Dolphins. When that didn’t work out, he took the Alabama job and has won three national championships there.

So when Villere called Dardenne the Nick Saban of politics, he was, in effect, calling him a winner though that obviously was not his intent.

But in politics, it seems that party loyalty, or branding, takes precedence over selecting the best candidate for the job. The Republicans are showing that trait now. The Democrats did it in 1979 when four Democratic losers to Republican Dave Treen and Democrat Louis Lambert in the primary endorsed Treen. The demand for party loyalty over ability can definitely be found on both sides of the aisle.

But for pure nastiness and below the belt sour grapes, none can match the letter to Dardenne by Peter Egan, chairman of the St. Tammany Republican Parish Executive.

In fact, Egan, after what he compared Dardenne to in a Nov. 5 (Thursday) letter to Dardenne, perhaps should just slink off into quiet oblivion and hope that no one remembers his name.

ST. TAMMANY GOP LETTER TO DARDENNE

In that letter, believe it or not, Egan compared Dardenne to a jilted man firing a gun into his ex-wife’s car. How he makes such a comparison is beyond comprehension—not far removed from the incredibly crass tweet of The Hayride blogger Scott McKay who compared Edwards to Anwar al-Awlaki, the American who joined ISIS and who was later killed.

12122755_10100305564922271_8600061212285523052_n

As for Vitter himself, has anyone seen the first Vitter ad that tells us what he intends to do to pull this state out of the morass that Jindal has placed us in? Has he offered any solutions? Didn’t think so. All he has done is hit us with a never ending barrage of negative ads feverishly attempting to tie Edwards to President Obama.

As we said at the beginning, never underestimate the stupidity of a desperate individual.

Read Full Post »

Major development: Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne has change of heart; will endorse John Bel Edwards at LSU on Thursday

Posted in Elections, Governor's Office, Legislature, Vitter on November 4, 2015| 22 Comments »

In the wake of his disappointing finish in the October 24 primary election, largely attributable to some of the most vicious attack ads by second place finisher David Vitter, Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne announced that he would not endorse either of the candidates in the Nov. 21 general election.

That appears to have changed now.

Democratic State Rep. John Bel Edwards, who led the field in the primary election with 40 percent of the votes cast, has scheduled a special press conference for 9 a.m. Thursday (Nov. 5) at Free Speech Alley in front of the student union on the LSU campus.

Both the Baton Rouge Advocate and nola.com have posted online stories saying that Dardenne will be announcing his endorsement of Edwards at the press conference.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/jay_dardenne_edwards_endorseme.html

http://theadvocate.com/home/13888680-125/sources-jay-dardenne-ready-to

That would be a major coup for Edwards. In addition to the 444,517 votes cast for Edwards, Dardenne, who finished fourth in the primary election, received 166,656 votes. Between the two, that accounts for 611,173, or 54.8 percent of the 1,114,336 votes cast.

Vitter has captured the consolation prize of former Gov. Mike Foster’s endorsement.

But perhaps voters should remember that Foster is the one guilty of foisting Bobby Jindal upon the unwitting Louisiana populace. Based on that unenviable legacy, his endorsement could prove counterproductive to Vitter.

Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle placed third with 214,982 votes. So far, he has not endorsed either candidate for the runoff election but he was also the subject of the same attack ads as Dardenne.

Vitter is not making any new friends with his new wave of misleading attack ads, this time aimed at Edwards. Filled with distortions and outright lies about Edwards’s voting record as a legislator, the early ads have already backfired.

After a spate of ads claiming that Edwards planned to release 5,500 hardened criminals from prison, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association promptly endorsed Edwards. (Edwards actually called for prison reform that would offer rehabilitation to non-violent offenders, thus reducing the prison population for a state that has the highest incarceration rate in the world—higher even than Russia, Iraq, Iran, and every other country on earth.)

Dardenne, for his part, said his position on offering his endorsement “evolved over time,” according to nola.com. He and Edwards have kept the lines of communication open since the primary election and Edwards has repeatedly, even during the campaign leading up to the Oct. 24 primary, referred to Dardenne and Angelle as honorable men and “dedicated public servants.”

As for Vitter, when the state’s senior U.S. Senator said during one of his rare debate appearances that Edwards had voted for President Obama, Edwards replied, “Yes, I did vote for Obama but I never voted for David Vitter.”

Dardenne’s endorsement is significant in two ways:

It is extremely rare for a Republican to endorse a Democrat, or vice-versa, and

It sends an unmistakable message to his supporters that his brand of dirty politics is beyond the pale, even for Louisiana.

And while the Republicans in the Louisiana House have voted to endorse Vitter—no surprise there considering the gutless servitude to Jindal during his eight pitiful years in office—the Senate Republicans in so many words told its House counterparts to take a walk.

Vitter must be feeling the early symptoms of panic.

Read Full Post »

Guest columnist shows 90% of Vitter Super PAC costs were for trashing GOP opponents, lining staff members’ pockets

Posted in Politics on November 4, 2015| 10 Comments »

(Special to LouisianaVoice)

By MARK JOYCE

The Fund for Louisiana’s Future (FLF) is funded by David Vitter and his supporters. FLF shares staff and resources with the Vitter election committee. FLF has spent the bulk of its funds trash talking other Republicans.

  • FLF is a political organization registered with the Federal Elections Commission as a federal independent expenditure-only committee, commonly referred to as a “Super PAC,” and also registered with the Louisiana Supervisory Committee on Campaign Finance Disclosure as a state “political committee.” [1]
  • FLF is supporting David Vitter by bashing his opponents. The PAC produces no ads telling voters why they should vote for Vitter, only ads trying to damage the reputations of anyone running against him. (Note: The single exception is $3,000 for media buys for the Insurance Commissioner. This is the single instance of FLF saying something nice about a Republican.)
  • The single biggest contributor to FLF was “David Vitter for US Senate” to the tune of $950,000.
  • Charles Spies, the lawyer, who founded FLF and is now the Treasurer of FLF, is employed by Clark Hill in Washington, DC. Clark Hill has received more than 10% of all FLF expenditures to date or over $400,000. In 2014, Mr. Spies swore that:
  • FLF does not and will not make contributions to, or coordinated expenditures on behalf of, candidates or political party committees that all decisions concerning expenditures of FLF’s funds are made independent of any candidate, campaign, party committee, or their agents.[2]
  • Joel DiGrado, executive director of FLF is also Vitter’s communications director and the owner of Briefcase Strategies LLC. Briefcase Strategies LLC has received $96,357.03 from FLF so far in 2015.
  • Courtney Guastella (Callihan), ex-Finance Director for “David Vitter for US Senate,” is the current Finance Director for Vitter and the go-to person for various fundraisers for Vitter. Her home address is 6048 Marshall Foch Street, New Orleans. That just happens to also be the mailing address and registration address for FLF. Courtney has received $205,000 from FLF in the last few years for “fundraising consulting” as well as $145,000 from Vitter’s campaign. That comes to a grand total of $350,000 from the two organizations over the same period. Courtney is FLF’s highest paid individual consultant. (Remember that the FLF PAC and Vitter (campaign) teams are supposed to be independent and not collaborate. Yet the highest paid FLF staff person is also a six-figure consultant to Vitter’s campaign).
  • In April 2015, Nicole Licardi joined FLF and is now FLF’s Finance Director. Licardi has a long history with and is still a fundraiser for Bill Cassidy. Since April 2015, FLF has paid her $78,111.62 or about $12,000 per month.
  • As of November 1, FLF (Vitter’s hatchet boys and girls) spent one-third of all contributions to date or $2,342,343.71 on media across the state to belittle and trash talk Republican candidates Dardenne and Angelle (who, many agree, were the much better candidates). Vitter is now asking for their support. Breaking that down a little further and assuming their spending patterns continue:

FLF EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN

More than half the $6 million contributed to FLF went for:

  • Lining staff pockets (Spies, DiGrado, Guastella, and Licardi – $1 million.
  • Trash talking other Republicans (Dardenne and Angelle) – $2.3 million.

FLF spent seven times the money slamming Republican candidates as opposed to slamming Democrats and others.

Does it make sense for good Republicans to contribute to an organization that spends the majority of their funds slamming other Republicans?

Shameful.

The bottom line is that obviously, sleazy money is corrupting the system and not giving Louisianans the choices they deserve. What ex-supporter of Dardenne or Angelle would vote for Vitter now?

This is no way to run our state.

Louisiana taxpayers were forced to contribute $70,000 in legal fees to FLF to help Vitter raise the cap on amounts of money from out-of-state interests. That amount was the legal fees awarded FLF after it won its lawsuit against the Louisiana Board of Ethics. FLF uses that money to denigrate good Louisiana public servants. Republicans contributing money to be passed to people to beat up on Republicans. In what world does this make sense?

This is the first in a series of three articles as we pull back each layer and trace each link. To demonstrate openness, next week we have decided to release our complete databases – the entire contents of all our databases – in machine-readable form, all the results, all the tools & techniques for, a user’s guide, a guide to contributors and expenditures entities and all our results free of charge to anyone who wants them. One week from today. Complete unfettered access and they can download the entire data set. No charge. No registration.

Anyone can do his or her own research.

This information was gleaned from publicly available federal records, Louisiana Ethics Board reports and other publicly available sources. Corrections and comments are welcome. The authors believe in a fair and open debate based on the facts. What could be easier?

 

[1] The Fund For Louisiana’s Future v. Louisiana Board of Ethics et al, No. 2:2014cv00368 – Document 38 (E.D. La. 2014)

[2] Ibid

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »