Politicians | Louisiana Voice

Archive for the ‘Politicians’ Category

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 41^st 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 33^rd and 7^th, 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 46^th 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 32^nd.

Likewise, the grading for Procurement (purchase of goods and contracts) had a numeric score of 69, good enough to rank the state 25^th. 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 24^th.

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 49^th. (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 46^th. 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 »

Hayride credibility shot; rabidly conservative political blog on Vitter payroll at $1K per month: ‘a lot like prostitution’

Posted in Ethics, Governor's Office, Media, Politicians on November 3, 2015| 12 Comments »

“That seems a lot like prostitution, don’t you think?”

When LouisianaVoice held its recent fundraiser, one elected official donated $250 to us from his election campaign.

Because we have never laid claim to being objective but we do pride ourselves in our independence, we thanked the donor for his generosity…and returned the money. We explained that while his support was appreciated right down to our very bone marrow, we felt it would not be good for him—or us—should someone delve into his campaign expense report and discover that he was sending us money.

In politics, as with anything with the word ethics attached to it, perception is everything and the last thing we wanted to give the appearance that we were beholden to any candidate. We may—and do—support political candidates, but we reserve the right to be critical of any policy with which we might disagree. Accepting payment from an elected or appointed official strips us of our ability to view that official objectively and to report what needs to be reported.

Republican State Senators Dale Erdey of Livingston and Danny Martiny of Metairie are examples of elected officials with whom we generally agree but with whom we have occasionally had our differences. Likewise any number of other members of the Louisiana House and Senate.

While Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle was roundly criticized for leaving his position as Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources in the wake of the Assumption Parish sinkhole at Bayou Corne, we vigorously defended him and Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne from the merciless attacks of Diaper Boy Dave Vitter in the weeks leading up to the recent gubernatorial primary election.

Which brings us to the subject of Vitter who finished a distant second to State Rep. John Bel Edwards and is now launching one of the most vicious smear campaigns in recent history in a desperate effort to woo Dardenne and Angelle supporters in order to overcome the huge Edwards lead. Perhaps the sting of those unwarranted attacks have caused Dardenne and Angelle to thus far refuse to endorse a candidate in the runoff.

Usually, the losers to a candidate of the same party would support that candidate in a race against someone from the opposing party. Not this time and that sends a not so subtle message to their supporters: if the Republican leader is not worthy of the support of two Republicans who failed to advance, perhaps their supporters might consider looking elsewhere.

That is the dilemma facing a desperate Vitter who is on the verge—like Edwin Edwards in 1987—of losing the first political race of his life. Edwards avoided that fate by withdrawing from the runoff, giving the governorship to Buddy Roemer but did eventually lose his first race last year when he sought the Sixth Congressional District won by Garrett Graves.

We make no secret of our distaste for Vitter but we have taken our position free of charge.

Not so with Scott McKay.

McKay is the publisher of The Hayride political blog which has for some time now received income (we presume) from a series of really cheesy, thinly-disguised “news stories” (advertisements, really) for such things as a biblical cure for cancer, sure-fire riches via questionable schemes, scary stories about imminent collapse of world financial markets and ways to protect your wealth, etc.

And while we have refrained from openly criticizing his blog because we feel he has the same right as we to express his views openly and without reprisals, fellow blogger Lamar White today (Tuesday, November 3) revealed that Vitters’ campaign expense reports reveal that he has paid Hayride Media, LLC of Baton Rouge $1,000 per month since last February.

That’s $8,000 total to someone who should insist that his blog remain above reproach in the interest of any shred of credibility he may have.

We have long suspected that Bobby Jindal’s organization was somehow funneling money to The Hayride, but could never find proof that was the case. Vitter, however, is a different story. Thanks to Lamar White and his blog, CenLamar, we now have that proof of the latter’s support. http://cenlamar.com/2015/11/03/david-vitter-pays-controversial-blogger-1kmonth-to-attack-john-bel-edwards-as-a-treasonous-terrorist-in-al-Qaeda/

To further demonstrate just how low this campaign has sunk, thanks to Vitter and his now-revealed media mouthpiece, here is a tweet from McKay, also provided by CenLamar:

12122755_10100305564922271_8600061212285523052_n

Vitter is now like Jimmy Swaggart, according to McKay—an undesirable but a clear preference to Edwards, who McKay compared to American-born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki.

Folks, this is insidious—and despicable. McKay has single-handedly plunged this campaign into the depths of his own personal sewer.

If this is the type person you prefer to listen to, then we can only express our sympathies that you are this shallow, this narrow-minded, this bigoted. McKay’s tweet borders on the psychopathic, the anti-social fringe element of society.

The irony is that they believe they are advancing Christian principles when in reality what Vitter—and McKay—are saying is about as far removed from the teachings of Christ as anything any member of….oh, say Isis, could utter. (Yes, that is extreme and a bit overblown, but we were hard pressed to find a comparable hate group with which to compare them other than the old John Birch Society or the KKK.)

On the hate meter, McKay’s tweet ranks right up there with General Phil Sheridan who, in January of 1869, when Comanche Indian Chief Toch-a-Way (Turtle Dove) said, “Me Toch-a-Way, me good Indian, replied, “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.”

Where is the humility, the love for others, the help for those less fortunate, the forgiveness? It’s not there. Instead, we have a paid shill for Vitter comparing an honor graduate of West Point and an 82^nd Airborne Ranger leader to a terrorist.

Edwards, in Denham Springs Tuesday morning for a campaign appearance, was asked by LouisianaVoice about White’s revelation that McKay was on Vitter’s payroll, responded, “That seems a lot like prostitution, don’t you think?”

We couldn’t agree more.

And we’re not being paid to say it.

Read Full Post »

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 10^th 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.