Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Campaign Contributions’ Category

As predicted, Vitter comes out swinging with distorted attack ad saying Edwards wants to free convicts, give them pensions

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Prison, Retirement, Vitter on October 27, 2015| 24 Comments »

As predicted, David Jitter Vindal Vitter has unleashed his first attack lie ad against State Rep. John Bel Edwards in their runoff campaign for governor.

Unlike the distortions and lies perpetrated against fellow Republicans Jay Dardenne and Scott Angelle leading up to last Saturday’s primary election, this ad was paid for the Vitter campaign and not his Washington, D.C.-based super PAC Funds for Louisiana’s Future (FLF).

Nevertheless, lies are lies and Vitter has shown himself to be not only shameless, but a damned cowardly liar as well.

Vitter’s newest ad has all the warmth and charm of the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad.

For a man with the sordid past of David Vitter, it seems a bit ironic that he would ever approve an ad attacking the character and integrity of another candidate. But hey, that’s Vitter who is rumored to have once asked Rosie O’Donnell if she had ever been mistaken for a man only to have her reply, “No, have you?” (How’s that for an attack ad?)

And events of last Friday (the arrest of his “investigator,” and the auto accident where he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his campaign finance director Courtney Guastella Callihan whose home address coincidentally just happens to be the Louisiana address of FLF (although the Secretary of State’s corporate records contain no listing for FLF).

The Federal Election Commission has no authority over super PACs in state elections. Even if it did, the board is comprised of three Republicans and three Democrats and never the twain shall meet. Any oversight is left to state ethics commissions but everyone knows what Bobby Jindal did to the Louisiana Ethics Commission back in 2008, so there’s no help there.

But just in case you might be wondering, a reader has researched the criteria for coordinated communications and independent expenditures:

  • In order to satisfy the payment prong, the communication need only be paid for, in whole or in part, by someone other than a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, a political party committee or an agent of the above.
  • Content – names the candidate.
  • Conduct – If the person paying for the communication employs a common vendor to create, produce or distribute the communication (Emphasis ours).

Guas­tella has been paid $55,476 by Vit­ter’s Sen­ate com­mit­tee since the be­gin­ning of 2013 and $97,273 by the su­per PAC.

FLF paid for media that names the candidate. She is a vendor common to both Vitter and FLF as evidenced by the payments listed above and as campaign finance director and she was responsible for creating communications for the Vitter campaign.

As for that “Willie Horton” ad, one of the things claimed by Vitter was that Edwards advocates releasing 5,500 hardened criminals from prison and that he “voted for taxpayer-funded pensions for convicts.” The ad cited HB 224 as its source without providing a year for the bill.

Well, we went into the Legislature’s web page and called up House Bill 224 for 2015. That bill, it turns out, was filed by Rep. Frank Hoffman and called for the levy of an additional tax on cigarettes and never made it out of committee.

So, we moved on to 2014. That bill called for a prohibition against installers of satellite television from installing satellites on leased premises. Filed by Rep. Thomas Carmody, it was withdrawn before any action could be considered.

Rep. Paul Hollis filed HB 224 in 2013 and provided for the removal of a school bus driver for violations of certain DWI offenses. That bill passed and was signed into law by Jindal.

On to 2012. HB 224 of that year was filed by Rep. James Armes and dealt with enforcement of child support. It, too, was passed and signed into law.

Act 224 of 2011by Rep. Rick Nowlin also passed and was signed into law by Jindal. But it only increased court costs in criminal cases in the 10th Judicial District.

Only after we went all the way back to 2010 did we find the HB 224 cited by the ad. And no, the bill did not provide for “taxpayer-funded pensions for convicts.” Instead, the bill, authored by Rep. Kevin Pearson, would have required “suspension of public retirement benefits during incarceration.”

As for Edwards’s plan to release prisoners upon the helpless citizens of Louisiana, he did no such thing. Instead, he suggested a comprehensive plan to address Louisiana’s ranking as the number one state in the nation when it comes to per capita incarceration. (The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world so Louisiana, with the highest rate in the U.S., necessarily has the highest incarceration rate in the world.)

And there you have a clear illustration of how the meanings of words can be twisted and distorted in a political campaign. And yes, John Bel Edwards did vote against the bill.

So did 55 other House members as the bill failed, 56-42, with five members absent.

If 56 members voted against the bill, there must have been a reason.

There was.

A public employee pays into the retirement system his entire career and that money is earned. If the employee commits a crime within the scope of his employment, there might be an argument to be made for revoking the employee’s pension.

But suppose the employee is convicted of a crime that has nothing to do with his job? Let’s say, for example, he loses control of his vehicle and kills an innocent bystander and is convicted of negligent homicide. And it turns out he was drunk. Certainly, it would not make the employee a saint but neither should it negate his state retirement that he earned through his years of service. That’s constitutionally protected.

HB 224 of 2010 had nothing to do with providing “taxpayer-funded pensions for convicts.” It was about a blanket denial of earned retirement benefits. There’s a huge difference and that’s why John Bel Edwards and 55 other House members correctly voted to kill the bill. The real shame was that it even made it out of committee. Both the claim that Edwards wants to free hardened convicts and that he wants to provide pensions for pensions for convicts are pitifully pathetic attempts to tie Edwards to President Obama because that’s all the arrows Vitter has in his quiver.

Vitter can only resort to blatant lies to bolster his chances.

But then he has never been above lying and character assassination.

He has no integrity and we’ve already had eight years of that.

“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency” (U.S. Army Chief Counsel Joseph Nye, on June 8, 1954, to U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings, but which could well apply today to David Vitter)

Here’s the ad. You watch it and decide for yourself if you really want someone like David Vitter operating by his own depraved code of ethics for the next four years.

http://www.politico.com/video/2015/10/david-vitter-ad-accuses-edwards-of-wanting-thugs-out-of-prison-030693#ixzz3pnP5wFr0

Read Full Post »

David Vitter/Fund for Louisiana’s Future: Where’s the Board of Ethics? Line of separation between candidate, Super PAC?

Posted in Bundling, Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Politicians, Vitter on October 26, 2015| 14 Comments »

Folks, this incestuous relationship between David Vitter’s campaign and his Super PAC, Fund for Louisiana’s Future (FLF), just keeps getting more and more entangled and you have to wonder how long it’s going to take for the Louisiana Board of Ethics to become involved.

(Before I go any further, I would like to thank yet another sharp-eyed reader who steered me to the latest plot twist with a brief email on Monday morning.)

On Wednesday, Oct. 21, we posted a story about Baton Rouge attorney/lobbyist Jimmy Burland’s email of Oct. 20 “To the Louisiana Lobbyist Community” in which he solicited lobbyists’ attendance (and $5,000 checks) at a string of receptions across the state in the days following Saturday’s primary election.

“We need to raise more than $3 million for the runoff and we hope you will join us in maxing out $5,000 contributions from you and each of your clients,” he wrote, “bundling as much as possible as soon as possible!”

There are more than 800 lobbyists who work the Capitol in Baton Rouge and while some represent a single client, most of them have several clients. So if a lobbyist receiving Burland’s email has, say, five clients, Burland is asking the lobbyist to not only chip in $5,000, but to coerce all five clients into also ponying up the $5,000 maximum, thus allowing the lobbyist to “bundle” a cool $30,000. If any of the clients happens to have a political action committee (PAC), other companies under its corporate umbrella, and the client company’s CEO is married and has children, the $5,000 contributions can increase exponentially.

Pretty soon at that rate, you’re talking about real money—money that gets a politician’s ear when the chips are on the legislative line. Need a bill granting a special tax break for one of your clients? If you bundled several multiples of $5,000 at one of the eight receptions, the governor will see to it that floor leaders in the House and Senate carry the water for you.

But here’s the kicker with Burland’s email (to which our anonymous friend alerted us): “Please make check(s) payable to David Vitter for Louisiana and bring to one of his events or mail to 6048 Marshall Foch St., New Orleans, LA 70124. You may also contact Ms. Courtney Guastella for more information at 504-615-2083 or (email) at courtney@davidvitter.com.” (Bold emphasis Burland’s, italic emphasis ours.) https://louisianavoice.com/2015/10/21/baton-rouge-attorneylobbyist-tries-to-strongarm-lobbyists-on-behalf-of-david-vitter-via-email-for-5000-contributions/

Courtney Guastella is actually Courtney Guastella Callihan, wife of Capital One Bank director Bill Callihan and she is Vitter’s campaign finance director.

But the Callihan’s residence is also the address of the Fund for Louisiana’s Future (FLF), Vitter’s Super PAC.

By law, there is supposed to be an arm’s length relationship between candidate and Super PAC. While communications are allowed, discussions of campaign strategy between the two are strictly forbidden.

And the Justice Department has been increasing scrutiny of the cozy relationship between candidates and Super PACs. A Virginia campaign operative was convicted in February of this year. Tyler Harber was sentenced to two years in prison for illegal coordination between a campaign and a purportedly independent ally (read: Super Pac).

Harber admitted in court that he helped create a Super PAC and arranged for it to purchase $325,000 in ads to help the campaign of 2012 unsuccessful congressional candidate Chris Perkins.

“The opportunity to commit the crime (of campaign strategy coordination) has increased dramatically,” said U.S. Justice Department spokesperson Peter Carr. At the same time, however, he said, “Illegal coordination is difficult to detect.”

The Justice Department’s increasing presence in prosecuting such cases comes as complaints to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have stalled. The FEC has failed to move ahead with coordination investigations since the 2010 Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court triggered an explosion of big money PACs. For state elections, the responsibility for investigation lies with the State Board of Ethics which was gutted by Bobby Jindal in 2008. So, in effect, there is little to no oversight over PACs in state elections.

This is yet another unseen consequence of the Citizens United decision which removed citizen participation in the political process and placed it in the hands of multi-national corporations, Wall Street, big pharma, big business, and big oil by allowing them to purchase the politicians of their choice.

On close examination, FEC regulations say that campaigns (candidates) may convey needs (as in contributions) to Super PACs. Those regulations are generally tracked by the State Board of Ethics. Operatives on both sides may communicate to each other directly so long as they do not discuss campaign strategy. A PAC may also confer with a campaign about “issue ads” featuring a candidate, prompting some legal experts to believe that a Super PAC could even share its entire paid media plan as long as no one on the candidate’s team responds.

Lee Goodman, a Republican appointee to the FEC, said the courts have said that friendships and knowledge between Super PAC and candidate cannot be prohibited. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-ways-super-pacs-and-campaigns-can-work-together/2015/07/06/bda78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

But where do you draw the line of separation between candidate and Super PAC?

FLF claims it has nothing to do with Vitter’s campaign and that “written confidentiality and firewall policies are in place to ensure that Fund for Louisiana’s Future will in no way coordinate its political communications or activities with any candidates, their committee or their agents.” http://dailykingfish.com/tag/fund-for-louisianas-future/

And yet, the address of Vitter’s campaign finance director and FLF are one and the same.

Where is the line of separation?

And Opensecrets.org shows that Vitter’s campaign has infused at least $890,000 into FLF. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cycle=2014&type=A&cmte=C00541037&page=1

Where is the line of separation?

Likewise, Courtney Callihan, nee Guastella, made 25 contributions totaling $148,381 to FLF between March of 2013 and November of 2014. Guastella, Courtney

Where is the line of separation?

On Friday, the day before the primary election, Vitter and Callihan were involved in a minor traffic accident in Metairie. Callihan was driving and Vitter was the passenger when Callihan hit a second vehicle. Vitter was quickly transported from the scene by a campaign staff member. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/10/25/minor-auto-accident-could-further-undermine-vitter-bid-for-governor-federal-campaign-finance-law-violations-possible/

On the one hand, Vitter was riding with his campaign finance director. On the other, he was riding with the person who shares an address with FLF.

Where is the line of separation?

Does anyone really believe that Vitter never discusses campaign strategy with Callihan?

Likewise, does anyone believe that Callihan never consults with FLF on campaign strategy?

Where is the line of separation?

Where is the Louisiana Board of Ethics?

Where is the Attorney General’s Office?

Read Full Post »

Minor auto accident could further undermine Vitter bid for governor; federal campaign finance law violations possible

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Senate, Vitter on October 25, 2015| 10 Comments »

No sooner had we posted the story below than we learn of yet another potential scandal that could inflict more damage to Dave Vitter’s already weakened bid for governor even more than the stories about his patronizing prostitutes.

Thanks to a tip from a reader, we were alerted to Forward Progressives, a web blog we’d never seen before which discusses the newest problem for the state’s senior senator and his bid to succeed Bobby Jindal. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/theres-brand-new-david-vitter-scandal-doesnt-involve-hookers/

And we’re not too modest to point out that we first posted a story about the potential problem with his Super PAC Fund for Louisiana way back on Dec. 17, 2013 https://louisianavoice.com/2013/12/17/lines-blurred-between-sen-vitters-campaign-committee-and-new-fund-for-louisiana-super-pac-jindal-to-succeed-vitter/

But the picture became crystal clear on Election Day Eve (Friday, Oct. 23, 2015) as a result of a minor fender bender at Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Carrollton Avenue in Metairie that could land Vitter in hot water over violations of federal election laws.

Vitter was a passenger in a 2006 Mercedes Benz driven by Courtney Guastella, 36, of New Orleans, according to New Orleans police.

Ms. Guastella, identified as Vitter’s campaign finance director, it turns out is actually Courtney Gaustella Callihan, wife of Bill Callihan, a Capital One Bank director, and the two reside at 6048 Marshall Foch Street in the Lakeview area of New Orleans.

That is the same address of the Fund for Louisiana’s Future (FLF) Super PAC set up to in 2013 to help Vitter with a run for governor in 2015.

FLF was responsible for a barrage of TV ads directed against fellow Republican candidates Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle which now are expected to focus on State Rep. John Bel Edwards of Amite.

Angelle received 19 percent of the vote in Saturday’s Jungle Primary while Dardenne received 15 percent. Both were eliminated from the Nov. 21 General Election in which Vitter, who got 23 percent, will face Democrat Edwards, who led with 40 percent.

LouisianaVoice has been concerned about the close relationship between Vitter and FLF since our first story nearly two years ago, thanks to an early heads-up by the Daily Kingfish blog. http://dailykingfish.com/tag/superpac/

Washington attorney Charles Spies challenged the Louisiana Board of Ethics in December of 2013, saying that Louisiana should fall in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that removed the limits on money that may be contributed to Super PACs.

The Daily Kingfish said at the time that while Spies was the mover and shaker behind the effort to remove the state’s contribution cap, the Louisiana FLF address was 6048 Marshall Foch Street in the Lakeview area of New Orleans.

Federal law prohibits any interaction between or coordinating with a candidate and any Super PAC established on his or her behalf.

Daily Kingfish and LouisianaVoice noted nearly two years ago that Courtney Guastella Callihan was listed on invitations as the contact person for a Bayou Weekend Cajun cooking, airboat swamp tour and alligator hunt set for Sept. 5-7, 2014, with Vitter as “special guest.” (Clarification: In our initial story in December of 2013, her name was spelled Gaustella instead of Guastella.)

And while it is legal for a candidate to appear at a Super PAC event, he is prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions. So, when Courtney Callihan’s name appeared on invitations as the contact person for the event, the picture got a little murky. It was enough that she served in the dual role of campaign finance director and as spokesperson for the Super PAC but Vitter dumped at least $890,000 of his own funds into FLF (far more, it turns out, than our initial reports), which seemed to blur the distinction of separation between candidate and Super PAC. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cycle=2014&type=A&cmte=C00541037&page=1

Citizens United legalized independent groups raising unlimited funds (Super PACs) but it did not legalize politicians establishing dummy organizations to evade campaign finance laws.

It turns out that one Courtney Guastella has contributed $148,381 to FLF and another $55,476 directly to Vitter’s Senate campaign before than. (Note: The first of her 25 payments to FLF began in March of 2013, some nine months before Spies initiated his efforts to remove the cap on contributions.)

Guastella, Courtney

That blurs the line just a little more.

But on Friday, that picture was cleared up considerably and it was not a pretty image for Vitter, who should never have been in the vehicle with the woman.

And he wasn’t for long.

On the same day that a private investigator was arrested for illegally videoing a supporter of Edwards, Vitter was a passenger in the vehicle being driven by Callihan when she clipped a second vehicle. Vitter, who has attempted to position himself as an anti-corruption candidate, was quickly whisked away from the scene by a staffer in another vehicle and Callihan was ticketed for improper lane usage. Police said it was legal for Vitter to leave since he was not a driver. Legal, but was it ethical? Did it give the appearance that he may have had something to hide?

All things considered, it figures that Vitter would want to vacate the premises quickly.

But one thing I’ve learned in my seven decades on this earth is that no matter how fast you run, life has a way of catching up with you.

We can’t wait to see if he will show for two scheduled debates with Edwards or if Edwards will be debating an empty chair.

We’re certain there are a lot of questions about the past few days that Edwards as well as debate panelists would love to ask.

Given the flurry of events that have taken place since Friday and their possible implications, Vitter probably won’t even be asked about the hookers.

We’re betting that “Senate business” will prevent Vitter from attending the debates.

Read Full Post »

Vitter looking more and more like Jindal in avoiding debates, interactions with voters: ‘Doing the job I was elected to do’

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Congress, Earl Long, Elections, Governor's Office, Politicians, Senate, Vitter on October 12, 2015| 9 Comments »

Associated Press reporter Melinda Deslatte had an interesting column on the Louisiana governor’s race that appeared in a number of state dailies and even in what one of our readers derisively calls “The Hayride North,” but which is known to most of us as The Washington Times.

In her column, Deslatte notes that Republican Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle, Republican Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and Democratic State Rep. John Bel Edwards are somewhat irritated that Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter.

The four, for those of you who have drifted off into the semi-conscious state induced by football overdose, are the leading contenders in the Oct. 24 governor’s race and most observers have already conceded the top two spots to Vitter and Edwards.

But Vitter, who remains ensconced in Washington where he insists he is “doing my job that I was elected to do,” is apparently so cocksure of his position that he feels he doesn’t have to get out and meet voters and answer questions or, as the late President Lyndon Johnson would have said, “press the flesh.”

You see, Vitter is trying to buy this election, pure and simple. He’s got this Super PAC called Fund for Louisiana’s Future carrying the water for him. Translated to terms we can all understand, his PAC is his attack dog. He doesn’t have to put his name on those nasty half-truths and outright lies being tossed around about Angelle and Dardenne.

The way Super PACs work, there is supposed to be arms-length separation between the candidate and the Super PAC. There is supposed to be no coordination between the candidate and the Super PACs. That’s why all the attack ads have the disclaimer at the end of the ad that tells us that the message you just heard was paid for by Funds for Louisiana’s Future.

Funds for Louisiana’s Future has somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million to tear down Vitter’s two Republican opponents (notice we never said the ads are used to bring any kind of positive message about Vitter’s accomplishments—just negative messages about Angelle and Dardenne).

But isn’t it interesting that with all those rules about arms-length separation and a ban on coordination, a check of contributions to Funds for Louisiana’s Future finds that Vitter chipped in $250,000 of his own money to the Super PAC. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cycle=2014&type=A&cmte=c00541037&page=1

How’s that for arms-length separation? Still think there was no consultation between candidate and PAC?

And don’t think for one minute that Edwards is exempt from attacks. The National Republican Governors Association, after having said it did not plan to do any ad buys for the first primary, has done a sudden about face.

But of course the RGA didn’t count on a surge in popularity by Edwards before the Oct. 24 primary. Everyone assumed Edwards would make the runoff, being the only Democrat in the race, but the RGA got a real shock when Edwards actually forged into the lead in not one, but two separate polls two weeks or more before the first primary.

Panic set in quickly and the ads attacking Edwards, trying to tie him to President Obama, suddenly began flashing across TV screens across the state. It evokes memories of when Buddy Roemer came from nowhere in the final weeks of the 1987 election.

But it’s not the polls or the attack ads that have Angelle, Dardenne and Edwards upset. That, after all, is in keeping with the tradition of Louisiana politics and can be expected. After all, when did the truth ever matter when it came to winning an election?

The thing that’s got the three a mad as a wet hen is Vitter’s refusal to participate in TV debates.

Deslatte says the three are accusing Vitter of:

  • Refusing to attend unscripted events;
  • Engage in real policy debates;
  • Interact directly with voters;
  • Participate in question-and-answer sessions where he is not allowed to review questions in advance “or control the forum style.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/10/12/vitters-absence-tv-debates-rankles-competitors/73767224/

Does all that sound a little too eerily familiar? Did a shiver just run up your spine? Did the room suddenly experience an unexplained chill?

The answers for us were yes, yes, and yes, so we did a little historical research and we find some uncanny similarities with someone else you may remember.

First, let’s take Vitter’s earlier claim that “I’m doing my job that I was elected to do.”

Doesn’t that sound a little too much like, “I have the job I want” repeated by Bobby Jindal so often during his first term?

How about Vitter’s:

  • Refusal to attend unscripted events? Anyone remember Jindal ever holding an unscripted event of any description? He couldn’t even participate in a hot dog eating contest without every bite being choreographed in advance.
  • Refusal to engage in real policy debates? Has anyone ever seen Bobby Jindal talk about any issue without repeating the same tired talking points repeated verbatim from one venue to another ad nauseam?
  • Refusal to interact with voters? Ever see Jindal work a crowd? I mean come down off that stage and mingle without a taxpayer-funded State Police security detail protecting him from any human contamination? Didn’t think so.
  • Refusal to participate in question-and-answer sessions when he isn’t allowed to review the questions in advance or control the forum style? Do we even have to say anything here?

The similarities are so strong and so frightening—especially with the prospect of another four or eight years of Jindal-like “leadership.”

Skeptics are saying that Angelle as governor would be “Jindal 2.0.” But Vitter as governor would be “Jindal on steroids.”

Already, it’s becoming difficult to keep from saying Jitter or Vindal.

But one thing is abundantly apparent: Vitter is not running for governor; he’s purchasing the office by attacking opponents on TV instead of confronting them face to face like a man. My grandfather had a name for that: cowardice. And if he’s elected, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We will have been purchased, in the words of the late Earl Long, “like a sack of potatoes.”

As for me, my vote is not for sale.

 

Read Full Post »

Did a million dollar contribution influence Jindal’s decision to upgrade LA 1 with BP settlement money to benefit donors?

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Finances, Governor's Office, Politicians on October 9, 2015| 13 Comments »

Just when you think Bobby Jindal is AWOL, we learn that he’s still on the job.

Sort of.

Jindal recently went off on the father of Umpqua Community College shooter Chris Harper Mercer’s father for being an “absentee dad” in yet another of his futile attempts to bring attention to his faltering president campaign.

Never mind that as governor, he is something of a titular head of     a family of 4.6 million souls but has been an “absentee dad” for much of his term while he pursues his own selfish interests, leaving us to our own devices.

But hey, it’s good to know that he’s not too busy to see to the needs of his favorite contributors children.

Take his latest scam plan, for example. Last month Jindal announced that he wanted to rip surplus money from the $700 million in coastal restoration funds from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill settlement to use on the $350 million LA. 1 project.

While there is no prohibition against the use of coastal restoration funds on infrastructure, it is something that has never been done in the 10-year history of the Louisiana Coastal Authority prior to Jindal’s latest brainstorm.

Two gubernatorial candidates, Democrat John Bel Edwards and Republican Jay Dardenne are opposed to the idea while Republican Scott Angelle declined to state a position for or against while Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter typically did not respond to an inquiry by the New Orleans Times-Picayune. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/louisiana_gubernatorial_coasta.html#incart_river

LA. 1 runs from the Arkansas line in Caddo Parish to Grand Isle but more importantly, it runs right past a handful of businesses enterprises owned and operated by the mega-wealthy Chouest family of Lafourche Parish. Improvements to LA. 1 would necessarily enhance the bottom line of those businesses which are concentrated primarily in the shipbuilding industry. https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m16!1m12!1m3!1d361617.85208354063!2d-90.43452757962136!3d29.350605373288044!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!2m1!1sedison+chouest!5e0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1444571122922

Don’t buy into our skepticism? Well, consider this. Barely a year into his first term of office, Jindal announced that the state would invest $10 million into the Port of Terrebonne to accommodate LaShip, an Edison Chouest company. http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/deep-pockets/Content?oid=1255831

At the time of Jindal’s announcement, the Chouest family and affiliated businesses had coughed up $85,000 to Jindal’s campaigns to that point. Since then, an additional $45,000 has found its way from the Chouest family and businesses into Jindal’s campaign coffers.

Last year, Jindal pulled $4.5 million from the developmentally disadvantaged and gave it to Laney Chouest for repairs to his $75 million Indy racetrack. The inaugural—and last Indy race was held last spring and was an unqualified bust that resulted in litigation filed by race sponsors.

So, weren’t the $10 million for the Port of Terrebonne and the $4.5 million for a one and done racetrack sufficient payback for $130,000 in contributions?

Well, perhaps, but consider this:

Boatbuilder Gary Chouest in July contributed a cool $1 million to Bobby’s Believe Again super PAC.

So while Jindal blithely allows the state’s fiscal condition to metastasize from neglect, abuse and absenteeism, it’s good to know that he’s looking out for the welfare of his favorite children.

It’s refreshing to know that while he parties in Iowa, protected by taxpayer-funded state police security, he has not forgotten those who have been good to him. The Chouest family should be so proud of their sugar daddy.

In real estate, the three most important words are location, location, location.

In politics, the three most important phrases are follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.

It’s also important to understand that no political contribution is ever given without an ulterior motive. People don’t throw money away for high ideals; they invest in a big payoff down the road.

Whether it’s a port improvement project, a racetrack or a $350 million improvement project for a major highway that runs by its myriad businesses, a million dollars isn’t tossed around lightly.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »