Bobby Jindal ran for governor on a one-word campaign platform - "Ethics!" He raced around the state claiming that, if/when he became governor, the state would enact "the gold standard" of state ethics programs.
Immediately after his inauguration in 2008, Governor Jindal convened the Legislature in a special session dedicated exclusively to reforming the state ethics code. Sure, in some ways his legislative package weakened ethics enforcement, removed the process from the public view, and did absolutely nothing to eliminate pay-to-play in the form of corporate campaign contributions, but Jindal and his band of sycophants proclaimed the session a success, the state rid of a dread scourge, and purity restored to our governmental processes. Behold, our political savior!
Recently, Governor PBJ touted the Center for Public Integrity assessment of the brand-spanking new ethics package passed by the Lege last spring on MSNBC:
"We've revamped ethics. Louisiana is now on the top of the list, according to the Center for Public Integrity"
Louisiana ain't on the top of the list, mainly because other states have also revamped their ethics packages since 2006, and the Center for Public Integrity hasn't rescored all 50 states in order to rank them. Here's what the Center for Public Integrity's blog, PaperTrail, has to say:
The Center's States of Disclosure project systematically ranked disclosure laws for state legislatures in 1999, 2004, 2005, and 2006. In these reports, our team evaluated every state's laws in order to compare them accurately. In 2008 the Center re-scored Louisiana's new ethics law when Jindal's substantial reform package made the changes a newsworthy event. The law certainly scored better on our survey than its predecessor, which ranked a dismal 44th. But other states have passed ethics reform since 2006, and since we didn't reevaluate every state's law, our report was careful to say that Louisiana's law was only among the best.
That means that it's not "the strongest law in the nation" (Jindal to his state legislature, March 9), "ranked... number one by the Center for Public Integrity." (Jindal to the Southwest Daily News, March 20) or "first in the country" (Jindal in The Wall Street Journal, August 29). Again, it's a good, strong law, Guv, and we sure appreciate you name-dropping our humble little shop. We just hope you can settle for being one of the best, just not necessarily the very, very best
Gee whiz, Guv. I wonder what would happen if Center for Public Integrity ever scored the actual implementation of Louisiana's new ethics laws ... considering that it took you nearly 9 months to have a functioning Ethics Board, Guv.
(Dealing with a project from work that is a major pain in the butt right now. Hopefully, my share will be done tonight, and I can resume blogging regularly. Let this informative post from Mike Stagg tide you over ... - promoted by ryan)
Here's what a review of Jindal's campaign finance records and corporate records from the Louisiana Secretary of State's reveal:
On September 5, 2007, the Jindal campaign booked $30,000 in contributions that were directly related to David Voelker, with another $10,000 possible connected to him. There were four $5,000 checks from Voelker and members of his household. There were also two checks from LLCs he controls or shares control.
F/V Diversified LLC, which shares an address (and initials) with Frantzen/Voelker Investments LLC, also contributed $5,000 to the Jindal campaign that was booked on the same day. Records on file with the Louisiana Secretary of State list only one member of the F/V Diversified company — JSC Management LLC, which is managed by Richard C. Conway, Jr. The Jindal campaign booked a $5,000 contribution from JSC Management LLC on September 5, 2007, as well.
Ethics reform without campaign finance reform is a farce.
Governor Jindal continues to reward his largest contributors for their largess. This is the most blatant form of the kind of "pay to play" politics that Jindal railed against as a candidate. As governor, he's proven that ethics reform is for other people — not for him, his administration and his well-heeled, deep pocketed friends.
Yesterday, when you were carrying the Jindal Administration's water on HB 1100, which seeks to limit the open records exceptions claimed by the Governor, you dropped a condescending little history lesson:
"Our forefathers wrote the Constitution in secret."
The difference between our forefathers and Governor Jindal, Mr. Kostelka, is that while our forefathers came together to write the Constitution of the United States in Philadelphia's Independence Hall, and did so in secret, they had to have a supermajority of the state legislatures of the country at the time ratify the Constitution. Governor Jindal merely needs a majority of the legislators in each chamber to ratify his proposals. And Governor Jindal has the advantage of procedural mechanisms, such as outright bribery, that our forefathers could only dream of.
The men that convened in Philadelphia had to undertake a public information campaign that you may not be aware of ... called the Federalist Papers, where they sought to explain to the American people why they came to the compromises and solutions they did when they wrote the Constitution. Indeed, the subject of ratifying or not ratifying the Constitution became the one of the first media sagas of our nation's history, debated from rural countryside to the cities, from Boston to Charleston, and in every single state legislature before packed galleries.
I've been to the Legislature recently, and I have not seen one packed gallery hinging on the every word of a single legislator. Indeed, you'll usually find lobbyists paying more attention to the people's business that the people themselves.
Explaining in full detail the actions that they have undertaken and why they have done so is not something that Governor Jindal's Administration has ONCE done, preferring instead to shut the door on the Louisiana media time and again.
Governor Jindal campaigned on a vague promise to strengthen our ethics laws to a "gold standard." The people of Louisiana, desperate for change, any change, stampeded toward the mirage erected by Governor Jindal.
It is only now that we see that the Jindal Administration, aided by YOU, is seeking to make it harder for the Ethics Board to conduct its' business of holding our public officials accountable to the people, and easier for politicians to break the law. After all, you've been fighting to make the burden of proof on the Ethics Board almost impossible to meet.
I must ask ... would you be carrying the water of the Jindal Administration, if say, it was not the Jindal Administration, but the Landrieu Administration? Somehow, I doubt it.
With apologies to The Reduct Box, I changed the title for clarity.
This afternoon, Democratic State Rep. Cedric Richmond struck a blow for Louisiana by pushing and passing an amendment to HB 906, written by Republican State Rep. Nita Hutter which is a bill that requires the Ethics Board to do the following (emphasis added):
"A certified copy of the vote; a detailed explanation of the matter, including the specific factual allegations upon which the board based its decision to investigate; and a copy of any complaint received by the board, which includes the name of the complainant and the name of any other person providing information that the board has considered in the matter shall be sent by certified mail to the accused and the complainant within ten days after the vote occurs or after receipt of a signed sworn complaint.
I have one BIG problem with this bill, in that it provides absolutely no protection for whistle-blowers. A copy of the complaint shall be sent to the accused within 10 days of a vote or a signed sworn complaint? Now our legislators never have to worry about their staff turning them in, if the staffer wants to keep their job, anyway.
But that amendment ... ahhh, it's beautiful. State Rep. Cedric Richmond convinced a majority of his colleagues to restore the original standard of substantial for all complaints that the Ethics Board must prove in order to have a judge adjudicate the matter. Here are the results of the vote:
The red = Republican. Blue = Democrat. There are two Independents in the House - Richard (YES) and Robideaux (NOT VOTING), with 48 GOPers in the House and 54 Democrats. There is one vacancy, thanks to Cazayoux's election to the US House.
Do you notice something? A majority of the Republians voted AGAINST this amendment. There are 48 GOPers in the State House. Thirteen (13) voted YES, twenty-eight (28) voted NAY, and seven (7) didn't vote. Thus, Republicans voted to make it harder for corrupt politicians to be found guilty of ethics charges.
And the Republicans say they are the reformers? Wake up, Louisiana, your Republican politicians are lying to you, yet again.
Sunday's Advocate included an editorial from the Editorial Board that excoriates Governor PBJ for the con game that his Administration is pulling on the people of Louisiana. Here's how Jindal is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes:
"There's a serious question whether enforcement of the shiny new reforms will be an illusion - undermined by decisions of Jindal's own lieutenants in the Legislature ... The governor appears to be having it two ways: reforms in the media releases, obstacles to enforcement in the legislation."
I will freely admit that Governor Jindal's staff is very good at setting the narrative, especially since we have a lazy ass BSM that often swallows the manure shoveled by politicians without even thinking about it. It's nice to see the Advocate's Editorial Board finally waking up ...
"One issue is the decision to add another layer of lawyers to the enforcement process by removing from the Board of Ethics the actual decision of who is in violation of ethics laws. Under the Louisiana Constitution, that was placed with the board. Jindal legislation requires that administrative law judges rule on cases brought before them by the board."
"We don't know yet whether that new process will be a barrier to enforcement, but it does replace a one-step process with a — no pun intended — two-step process."
Might the legislation be in violation of the Louisiana Constitution? I ask, because the Louisiana Supreme Court recently threw State Senator Cleo Field off the ballot this past October in the fall legislative elections because they ruled that the Legislature's law on the issue when a legislator began his term of office did not supersede the Constitution. Thus, if that was the case in that instance, wouldn't it be the case in this instance as well?"
"The second issue is the burden of proof in ethics cases."
"The amendment raised the burden of proof on the ethics board when it seeks to enforce the ethics code. The new "clear and convincing" standard of evidence is much tougher to meet than the old standard of "reliable and substantial" evidence of a violation."
"A recent change to the state’s ethics code will weaken the enforceability of the state's ethics laws by making violations more difficult to prove. There have been no problems cited with the lesser burden of proof, which continues to be in effect until August 15. Rather, increasing the burden of proof seems to be an attempt to undermine the recently strengthened ethics laws."
"It is clear that this change will slow the prosecution of ethics cases already in the works, likely create a backlog of investigations and discourage violators from admitting guilt when they think the evidence of their offense is slim. The three-word change was inserted into the controversial ALJ bill as a late amendment that was added with little debate. Many legislators who voted for the change likely didn't understand its impact. As Louisiana struggles to improve its image, the timing of this change is particularly troublesome, but it can be remedied during the current session before its detrimental impact on ethics reform occurs."
The legislators didn't understand the impact of the language change for the burden of proof? BWAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh, PAR.
Well ... I've been so busy with LA-06 and law school finals, that I've neglected the Legislative Session that is currently underway. Starting today, I will be focusing a tad more on the bills that are under consideration in the Legislature. And let me warn you ... there's some baaaaaaad bills. Here are three bills and one potentially explosive issue that I am going to take a look at:
It's now in the House, and I have absolutely no doubt that it will find itself on the Governor's desk for his signature in short order because we have a lot of spineless Democrats in the Legislature who are afraid of standing up to the religious right.
The third bill is the "Let's Allow ANYONE To Have A Concealed Gun On College Campuses Bill", or HB 199. A concealed gun permit is the answer of the NRA, which sponsored this bill, and lobbied for it in the State Capitol, to the campus shooting that occurred at Virginia Tech. My problem with the bill is that all you have to do is be 21 years of age, take a safety course, and pass a background check, which does not include checking to see if you are on medication for mental illness.
It is currently awaiting a vote on the floor of the House. I have no doubt that it will pass the House and be sent on to the Senate. Hopefully, they will amend it to ensure that folks who are on medication for mental reasons will be automatically denied the concealed gun permit.
The final thing I will be watching is perhaps the most explosive. It deals with the "gold standard" of ethics changes that Governor PBJ got passed in the 1st Extraordinary Session. The bills that were passed weakened the Ethics Board in at least two respects:
1. It removed the Ethics Board from the role of judging the results of the investigation, putting that job in the hands of judicial appointees, who are FAR MORE susceptible to political pressure, as they serve at the pleasure of the Governor; and
2. Heightened the standard to convict to "clear and convincing", from "reliable and substantial" burden, which essentially means that the judge or jury must find it more likely than not that an ethical violation occurred. The clear and convincing standard is similar to having absolutely no doubt that a violation occurred.
The change in the standard was introduced by State Senator Bob Kostelka of Monroe, but according to The Reduct Box, Governor PBJ's top lawyer, Jimmy Faircloth, is rumored to have authored the amendment that changed the burden of proof on the Ethics Board at the 11th hour.
So there's a lot to rake and discuss. What bills are y'all interested in? Let me know in the comments!
The move will bring 30 jobs to Baton Rouge, adding about $7 million in payroll to Baton Rouge. That's an average of more than $200,000, y'all. They're moving jobs for wealthy folks to Baton Rouge. YIPPEE! I'll be more impressed when they decide to open a manufacturing plant that employs the brothers from North Baton Rouge.
"As the governor came in, it became an easy decision."
Would that be the ethics session? Or the fact that Governor PBJ's wife Supriya used to work for Albemarle? Or the fact that Governor PBJ repaid Albemarle for their generous campaign contributions - Albemarle Corporation donated $5,000 to Governor PBJ's '07 campaign, Albemarle CEO Mark Rohr donated $1,000 to Governor PBJ's failed campaign against Blanco in 2003 - with the $4.2 million in relocation incentives? Or was it the nice tax breaks that Jindal secured for businesses here in Louisiana back during the 2nd special session that made them want to come here?
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A nonprofit group formed to tout Gov. Bobby Jindal's political and policy plans raised nearly $750,000 since forming three months ago — nearly all of it from 10 big money contributors.
The Sunday edition of the Baton Rouge Advocate pulls back the curtain on the still legal, still ethical form of pay to play as practiced by Governor Bobby Jindal and his Republican patrons.
The subject is the brazen $15 million payoff that Louisiana taxpayers will make to GOP heavy hitter Gary Chouest. Chouest, his family and companies gave more than $135,000 to Republican causes in the recent state election cycle. It took Jindal only two months — had to get that ethics special session out of the way — to pay back Chouest's largess.
Here's how the story begins:
The first business to benefit from state economic development aid under Gov. Bobby Jindal is run by a man whose family and businesses donated at least $135,250 to the governor’s campaign and local Republican Party causes during the past year.
Jindal introduced the donor — Gary Chouest, of Galliano — as a leader of Louisiana business in the same March 9 speech when the governor proclaimed before the Legislature that the state’s political culture had moved beyond "who you know" motivations.
Jindal used part of the state's $1.1 billion surplus to put $10 million in a Terrebonne Parish port expansion. Jindal also gave an additional $4 million grant to the project.
The state Legislature approved both proposals earlier this month. The taxpayer dollars help Chouest’s privately owned companies expand a state-of-the-art shipbuilding facility and to upgrade the port where the new plant is located.
All the huffing and puffing of the great ethics special session charade is over and now it's back to business as usual in Louisiana politics as run by Republicans.
Lafayette's The Independent weekly's blog, The Ind, has a story today about how the Ethics Governor, the Ethics Speaker and the Ethics Republican State Senator from Lafayette are joining forces to raise money for Republican campaign finance lawbreaker Don Trahan.
Trahan, The Independent reported in December, accepted more than $23,000 in political action committee (PAC) contributions in excess of the limit allowed by state campaign finance laws. Trahan won re-election with that illegal money by only 33 votes.
Michot, who took exception to Trahan campaign literature that claimed the senator had endorsed him over his opponent Nancy Landry, defended his embrace of Trahan now:
I've written two previous posts on Speaker Jim Tucker's ethical lapses, which you can view here and here.
Only one of those came before the Ethics Board, the one on the GOZone credits he claimed, then relinquished, and the Ethics Board chose not to file charges against him.
Despite that, Speaker Tucker is pushing a bill - HB 41, which will do the following:
House Bill 41 would put state administrative law judges in charge of issuing ethics rulings, while leaving the ethics board to investigate and prosecute allegations of wrongdoing.
Currently, the Ethics Board investigates and rules on ethics charges filed before it, which has been deemed constitutional by both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
Is Speaker Tucker rushing this through the House because he feels that the Ethics Board has not treated him fairly? I find that difficult to swallow, the being treated unfairly part, that is. He escaped being punished for claiming the GOZone credits, yet he still claims that the charges were politically motivated. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you oughta undergo ethics re-education, and then you'll realize, perhaps for the first time, that you actually violated the law by applying for the credits in the first place.
But Speaker Tucker will almost certainly have to go before the Ethics Board for his role in pushing and voting for then HB 501, now Act 99 of the 2007 Legislative Session, which benefited his new wife quite nicely. So if he can get the laws governing the Ethics Board changed, especially the part where it says the Ethics Board has the power to enforce the law, it may benefit him quite nicely.
I say this because the members of the Ethics Board are nominated by state colleges before being appointed by the Governor or the Legislature, whereas administrative law judges are appointed by the Governor. This, I think, makes administrative law judges more susceptible to political influence from whomever sits in the Governor's chair.
Further, the current Chairman of the Ethics Board, Henry "Hank" Perret Jr., stated:
"The board's collective wisdom is better than that of a single judge."
I couldn't agree more. If the Ethics Board needs to have a more formal division from the staff of the Ethics Board, which does the investigating of ethics charges, then by all means, legislate that. Don't push the enforcement of our ethics laws into the hands of administrative law judges that are appointed by the Governor.
So the Legislature is moving some of Governor PBJ's "gold" standard ethics bills through the House and the Senate. Predictably, some serious questions are being raised by the legislators themselves, but there is one glaring question yet to be raised by the legislators about one of the bills.
Our friends over at CenLamar tout Democratic Senator Ben Nevers' SB 24, which states (emphasis added):
A. The legislature hereby finds and declares that training, education, enforcement, and public perception of ethical standards for public servants in Louisiana are jeopardized and undermined when a public servant is allowed to request or receive certain preferential treatment by virtue of their office or position. The emoluments of public office or position should not include favoritism in the ability to attend certain public events, to the detriment or exclusion of other citizens of this state.
B. No public servant shall request or receive preference by reason of his office or position, in the obtaining or purchase of tickets for athletic, sporting and cultural events.
C. The provisions of this Section shall supersede and control to the extent of conflict with any other provision of law.
So let's go over what we know ... there is a bill that reaches that "gold" standard that Jindal is clamoring for, and yet the Senate is pushing SB 3 (offered by Senator Joel Chaisson, Governor PBJ's pick for Senate Majority Leader), which is a competing bill that will NOT stop the practice of special access to things like the National Championship game?
Could it be that our Senators like getting the privileges they receive from being an elected official? Could it be that Governor PBJ is all talk about strengthening our State's ethics laws? Isn't that in contradiction to what we've been hearing all our elected officials say about strengthening our ethics laws?
This post originally appeared at www.louisianad2d.us
Governor Jindal might be the smartest guy in some rooms, but a sense of irony is apparently completely missing in the man.
Jindal brought his ethics campaign road show to Lafayette on Thursday. The new governor made an impassioned plea against "special interests" and others who drown out the voices of ordinary people in the political process.
Standing at Jindal's right hand in a Baton Rouge Advocate photo in Friday's edition was none other than Republican District 31 Rep. Don Trahan who, it has been revealed, used more than $23,000 in illegal contributions from political action committees (PACs) to secure his 33-vote win in the October primary.
Jindal has studiously avoided making substantive campaign finance reform part of the special session on ethics that he called and which will begin on Sunday. He gets downright antsy when the discussion turns towards campaign finance reform, probably owing to the fact that his own campaign has admitted to violations of state campaign finance laws.
Late last week, on a Friday, which is generally 'throw out the trash" day in politics, Governor PBJ threw out his call for the Special Session he's calling on ethics.
You can read his call here or below the jump, where I've pasted it in full.
The House Democratic Caucus beat Governor PBJ to the punch by sending a letter to him asking him to include the following in his call:
• Improved financial disclosure for elected officials
• More transparency in dealings with lobbyists
• More transparency and contribution limits for third-party organizations
• Ban on contributors serving on boards or commissions
• Requiring electronic filing of campaign finance and disclosure reports
• Beefing up resources for the ethics board
• Separating ethics administration functions
Now, go back and look at Governor PBJ's call. Do you see ANYTHING dealing barring contributors from serving on boards or commissions? I didn't think so. There is something unseemly about contributors being asked to serve on a board that the Governor creates. Why does one need to pay in order to play? Shouldn't the best and brightest be tapped, not the richest?
Also, Governor PBJ's campaign is now under investigation by the Ethics Board for failing to disclose $118,000 of in-kind donations to them by the Louisiana Republican Party for nearly 3 months. Several folks, including Governor PBJ's own transition advisory panel, have called for legislators to pay their own ethics fines out of their own pocket, not their campaign accounts. Needless to say, Governor PBJ doesn't believe in that, mainly because he doesn't want to pay the $2,500 fine himself. He wants to use other people's money to pay it off.
I thought that Governor PBJ was responsible for his own campaign. After all, he is the head of it, and voters will hold him responsible for anything it does. Thus, he should pay the paltry fine of $2,500. After all, he was making a princely sum of $160,000-some dollars to be the Congressman from the 1st CD. Surely, he has the money to do so.
Further, take a look at Item No. 4. Particularly the part about where a confidential advisory process will be established. Why does it have to be confidential? The whole point of an Ethics Board is to ensure that the public has confidence that its servants are complying with the law. Hiding the identity of folks asking for opinions will hurt this goal.
In addition, the Advocate has an article today about how current and past Ethics Board officials are concerned that Governor PBJ's plan will do the following:
* Strip the Ethics Board of powers to enforce the law.
* Allow closed-door settlements to be reached between the Ethics Board and violators prior to charges being filed with no public discussion.
Why is the Ethics Board being stripped of its power to enforce the law? Also, why is Governor PBJ trying to hide violations? Are there more things in his closet that we need to worry about? I wonder.
Finally, any ethics plan NEEDS to include campaign finance reform. There is a major problem when contributors can expose loopholes in the law by giving multiple donations to their candidate by creating multiple LLC's or corporations to make said donations. It happened this past election cycle, not just for Governor PBJ, but for Republican legislative candidates as well.
Oyster caught it, and delivered quite the smackdown. Allow me to pile on a bit more.
Yes, there was a fight in New Orleans last night that led to a gunshot. Nobody was killed. But I find it interesting that Chad Rogers of The Dead Pelican would be so alarmist about the prospects of a turnaround in New Orleans. Oyster links to several of Chad's Rants in this post, one of which states:
... I must say that had I been able to vote in the election, [Ray Nagin] would have had my vote.
...And I have no real praise for Ray Nagin. However, I believe that the Landrieu dynasty is something that all Louisianians should work together to put a stop to. They have been a powerful force in bringing New Orleans to its knees, along with the the state of Louisiana.
Dang, Chad, why are you not supporting your buddy C. Ray anymore? Is it because you've finally realized that C. Ray actually doesn't give a shit about the rising crime rate?
But more importantly, why so alarmed? After all, it's a new day in Louisiana. Your man Governor PBJ is in the Governor's chair, and all will be well with the Gret State in short order. He did have this to say in his Inauguration Speech:
"Wherever you are today hearing my voice...to my fellow Louisianians...Make Louisiana's rebirth your own priority."
Chad, can't you kill off the Dead Pelican, and rename it something more optimistic? Like the Reborn Pelican or something? After all, we've got a war against corruption and incompetence, y'all. Never mind that Governor PBJ's campaign didn't report some $100,000 in in-kind donations from the LA GOP for three months.
The news media of this state is going ga-ga over the very first Executive Order signed by Governor PBJ. The very first Executive Order signed by Governor PBJ makes a splashy entrance:
WHEREAS, Louisiana has long suffered nationally from an image of public corruption and a lack of accountability for conflicts of interest for elected and appointed officials ....
It goes on to talk about how that image of public corruption has hampered Louisiana's ability to attract business to this state, and how Governor PBJ will call for a special session just to deal with ethics reform. All's fine and well, especially the line:
"I shall impose ethical standards for my cabinet and staff in excess of those currently required by the law"
"I hereby instruct my cabinet members to comply with the gubernatorial financial disclosure requirements of Louisiana Revised Statute 41:1124, commencing on January 15 of the year following his or her commission.
Why is Governor PBJ allowing his cabinet members to take a year before complying with the Executive Order? Do some of his cabinet members have compensation from employers that might not be kosher with the people of Louisiana?
Don't believe it? Look at the Executive Order after the jump.
(Sorry for the delay in promoting this. Internet service at my apartment was down for the last few days, thanks to Cox Communications. - promoted by ryan)
CityBusiness reports that Governor-elect Bobby Jindal has completed his appointments to his ethics advisory panel.
Based on one name, it appears that Jindal's version of ethics reform will not include campaign finance reform - an essential element of any comprehensive ethics reform effort.
By naming Deifenthal to the panel that is supposed to advise the Governor-elect on his much-anticipated ethics reform package, Jindal is sending a clear signal that he is not interested in reforming Louisiana's campaign finance laws.
Through the use of multiple LLCs under their control, a group of 28 individuals or companies made more than 100 contributions to Jindal's gubernatorial campaign which totaled more than $500,000. This method of using multiple LLCs to circumvent caps on campaign contributions has never been challenged before the state Board of Ethics, although it has been the subject of an advisory ruling based on a question submitted to the board in 2006.
Ethics reform that does not include campaign finance reform - particularly, the banning of corporate contributions from campaigns - leaves the door wide open for corruption. The Governor-elect is not interested in campaign finance reform and that undermines the legitimacy of his claim to be interested in ethics reform.
Turning Jindal's Ethics Campaign Gambit into Transformative Reform of Louisiana Politics
Bob Odom and Governor-elect Bobby Jindal would make a political odd couple in just about anyone's book, but the two have combined to provide Louisiana Democrats an opportunity to redefine themselves in a way not possible prior to now.
The elements at work here are the state's eagerness for ethics reform combined with the way Jindal has continued to hawk that issue since the election and Odom's decision not to contest the run-off against Republican Mike Strain.
Bob
Let's start with Odom's decision to drop out. It's no secret that Republicans were prepared to wage a campaign of innuendo against Odom based on charges that East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Doug Moreau brought against him almost five years ago.
Moreau, a Republican, fought doggedly to keep alive his case against Odom, even though the charges were repeatedly thrown out by the courts for various legal deficiencies.
Despite Odom's legal victory, in the court of public opinion he had been successfully tarred as corrupt - despite the fact that none of Moreau's charges ever stuck.
Odom is an astute politician and can read election numbers as well as anyone. He saw that his three Republican opponents in the October 20 primary took almost 60 percent of the vote in his race. His prospects for election were slim. So, rather than put his family and friends through what promised to be a mean and expensive campaign, he withdrew from the race.
In so doing, Odom also cleared the deck of old line Democratic state officeholders (Mitch Landrieu is squeaky-clean but a hybrid of old and new politics; he's still in office today probably because Republicans couldn't find anyone other than a bankrupt musician willing to seek the job).
Odom's departure opens the door for a new era of Democratic leaders who are untainted by scandal and who recognize that ethics reform is more than a campaign issue - it is essential for the state's economic well being.
The red = Republican. Blue = Democrat. There are two Independents in the House - Richard (YES) and Robideaux (NOT VOTING), with 48 GOPers in the House and 54 Democrats. There is one vacancy, thanks to Cazayoux's election to the US House.
Let's start with Odom's decision to drop out. It's no secret that Republicans were prepared to wage a campaign of innuendo against Odom based on charges that East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Doug Moreau brought against him almost five years ago.
