Impunity & Immunity: Governor Jindal out of control on the coast & at the Capitol

Bobby Jindal says he's not running for president. That's probably because he's too busy acting like a king.

It's been a heady couple of weeks for the Governor of a state mired in a deep fiscal crisis largely of his own making and confronting an epic ecological and economic catastrophe that he had a hand in creating.

Jindal swept into Baton Rouge on the Friday before the final day of the legislative session to declare his support for the Senate version of the budget and House conservatives rolled over and gave him what he wanted. He ignored large majorities in both houses and strong public support for transparency in his office by vetoing a bill (HB 37) that would have made all state records relating to the BP Gulf Gusher available under the state's open records act.

Jindal acted with impunity towards the Legislature and the public with his veto of HB 37. In his veto letter (bottom of the page) to Clerk of the House, Alfred Speer, Jindal added insult to injury by giving a completely bogus explanation of his action:

The Deepwater Horizon incident is a man-made event with responsible parties that will create long-term challenges for the State of Louisiana. This bill would allow BP and other parties with potential liability to the state to obtain information retained by any state agency responding to this tragic event. Such access could impair the state’s legal position both in responding to the disaster that is unfolding and in seeking remedies for economic injury and natural resource damage.

As was pointed out here, attorneys in lawsuits always petition records from the other party. It's called discovery and the state has no power to shield any records from such a process in a court proceeding. Jindal's veto, though, will keep those records out of the court where he is most vulnerable — the court of public opinion, where his high-handedness and disregard for the opinions and views of those outside his immediate circle have created a backlash against him in both houses of the Legislature.

Another veto prospect is HB 1443 which would require legislative involvement and oversight of the privatization contracts for state mental health hospitals. That bill passed by smaller margins than the Gulf Gusher records bill, but it did have the support of a broad bi-partisan coalition of legislators in both houses. Department of Health & Hospitals Secretary Alan Levine all but promised a veto in an attempt to block passage, but neither body would back down.

Jindal displayed so little regard for the Legislature that some of his allies in the House (at least they were allies before the budget deal) tried to sneak provisions into a Senate-passed bill that would have granted immunity from liability for state and political subdivisions for actions taken in the effort to combat the results of the BP Gulf Gusher. Another House amendment in the bill would have eliminated the need for Jindal to veto the Gulf Gusher records bill by protecting them. Senators caught on to what was happening and killed SB 520 and the sneak attacks contained in them.

The reason Jindal might have sought the immunity provision only became evident after the session ended when the U.S. Department of the Interior shut down dredging for Jindal's pet berms project because the state was violating the terms of the permit issued.

Jindal screamed "bureaucratic red tape." The Department of the Interior responded that the state had been told the dredging was not being carried out in compliance with the permit and had dragged its feet in moving the dredging operation to an approved source of sand. The Time-Picayune summed it up in a story that appeared on Wednesday, June 23, two days after the session ended and three days after the attempt to grant Jindal and Nungesser immunity from liability:

Jindal and Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser criticized the delay Tuesday and asked the federal government to allow the state to continue dredging from the current site as it prepares to move operations to another sand borrow site a mile farther offshore.

But the Obama administration said the state has been unprepared since the beginning, has caused further delay because it did not have the proper pipe available and has continued to ask for more time to shift to the offshore site. According to the Interior Department, it gave the state permission for more than a week to use the closer source of sand while locating the pipe, but that allowing the state to continue dredging could have negative impacts on existing barrier islands.

Jindal and Nungesser risked destroying the fragile island with their dredging ostensibly in order to save the coast from the oil. It is disturbing but consistent with this project that was never the subject of any scientific review and was rammed down the throats of federal regulators by the fear that Jindal or Nungesser — or both — would stroke out if their request for a permit of some kind was not granted. Having received the permit, the Governor, his parish government sidekick and his hand-picked contractor — the Shaw Group (who happens to be a heavy contributor to the Louisiana Republican Party) — immediately proceeded to ignore the terms of that permit.

By the time the dredging was shut down, Jindal had been resisting the federal government's prodding of the state to move its operations for at least a week. That means that Jindal was engaged in resisting the federal government at the very time his liability immunity amendment was inserted on the House side and the attempt was made to sneak it through the Senate.

The senators could not be fooled and Jindal was not able to intimidate the Department of the Interior on the dredging permit, so the work was forced to stop. The immunity question became moot. As is his custom, Jindal ranted and he raved, but the operation was stopped while the dredge was moved.

The New York Times pointed out that Jindal gets petulant when he does not get his way. He's not getting his way much along the coast — nor has he used the tools he's been given to handle the state's portion of the response to the disaster.

For starters, the paper reported, Jindal had gutted the state oil spill coordinator's office — with predictable results.

The state has an oil spill coordinator’s office. Its staff shrank by half over the last decade, and the 17-year-old oil spill research and development program that is associated with the office had its annual $750,000 in financing cut last year. The coordinator is responsible for drawing up and signing off on spill contingency plans with the Coast Guard and a committee of federal, state and local officials.

Some of these plans are rife with omissions, including pages of blank charts that are supposed to detail available supplies of equipment like oil-skimming vessels. A draft action plan for a worst case is among many requirements in the southeast Louisiana proposal listed as “to be developed.”

Initially the state and federal responders worked well together until Jindal started grandstanding.

On May 3, Mr. Jindal went public with his dissatisfaction.

“We kept being assured over and over that they had a plan, that there was a detailed plan, that it was coming; we never got that plan,” he said.

But under the law, oil spill experts said, there are only two kinds of government plans pertaining to spills, and the state is partly responsible for both.

Jindal had met the enemy and it was himself. Still, he insisted on blaming the federal government.

More evidence emerged that Jindal's frequent displays of public outrage were coming at the expense of the steps he should have been taking to effectively respond to the catastrophe.

CBS discovered that Jindal has not used all the resources at his disposal to fight the encroachment of oil into coastal waters. Specifically, the network reported that Jindal had not called out all of the National Guardsmen that President Obama had authorized him to use in the clean up.

According to the network, Jindal offered a tart response to that story. As posted at Pro Publica, the response from Jindal's spokesman doe not respond to the point of the CBS story but is filled with continued criticism of the federal government. Jindal apparently believes that the best defense is a good offense.

Jindal has left the business of governing the state to others in Baton Rouge. He's been bounding along the coast from microphone to camera to microphone for almost 60 days. In front of cameras, complaining about the federal government's inability to respond to his every whim, Jindal has felt empowered. He has not had to hassle with legislators or budget holes or people wanting to know what he's really doing besides preening for cameras.

So, he vetoed the spill records law. He'll veto the legislative oversight of his privatization push. But, he's staying on the coast — and near the national spotlight — until the gusher's capped or something really bad results from his berm idea.

The only viable alternative would be for Jindal to turn on the (again) disgraced Senator David Vitter and challenge him in the Republican primary, saying that he has to go to Washington to get more face time on TV this right for Louisiana. Don't forget that the Vitters' post-prostitute press conference near the New Orleans airport took place just 30 minutes prior what was supposed to be the final, triumphant stop on Jindal's announcement tour for his campaign for governor.

Don't think for a minute that Jindal's forgotten that. And, don't think for a second that he's going to stick around Baton Rouge to deal with a $2 billion budget shortfall next year. Been there; done that.

He's out of here. Like Sarah Palin, his day job is holding Jindal back. A fight with Vitter looks like the most attention-grabbing way out.

Pay to Play the GOP Way

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 $134,000 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.

Yes, it will create jobs, but it fails to pass Jindal's own test for ethical conduct as laid out during his campaign. Louisiana, candidate Jindal was fond of saying, cannot afford even the hint of corruption.

Looks like that was just for public consumption. Governor Jindal has apparently re-calibrated his ethics standard a bit.

Chouest, The Advocate points out, ran circles around Louisiana campaign finance laws in making those contributions to Jindal and other Republican causes:

But, it’s the connection between public investment and the way the Chouest family made private political contributions that sparked criticism.

State law limits contributions by individuals and corporations to $5,000 per candidate per campaign.

In a practice often called “bundling,” a single businessman gives the maximum $5,000 in the names of a number of different entities he controls.

Chouest gave $5,000 on May 18, as did other family members, according to the financial disclosures submitted to the Louisiana Board of Ethics by Jindal’s campaign.

Additionally, companies in which Chouest is listed as a president or chief executive officer on corporate records filed with the Secretary of State’s Office, also donated the maximum $5,000 amount to the Jindal gubernatorial campaign.

Chouest’s companies further donated to the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority and the Republican Party of Louisiana.

Both organizations contributed to Jindal’s campaign and provided mailings of campaign literature that personally attacked Jindal’s opponents.

The Chouest-related contributions that could be tracked through public records totaled at least $135,250.

This is a practice that is rampant in Louisiana politics. Again, The Advocate:

About one-third of Jindal’s $14.5 million campaign war chest came from bundling, according to the Ethics Board disclosures.

Twenty-five businessmen gave donations in excess of $20,000 through different corporations to Jindal’s 2007 campaign effort alone, plus another $20,000 or more to state Republican Party efforts.

Jindal's recent Ethics Extravaganza special session of the Legislature did absolutely nothing to rein in the practice of bundling. It's apparent why he wouldn't touch a system that has worked so well for him and his Republican cohorts. So stark a break in Jindal's ethics effort demonstrates the partisan nature of the effort as well. Republican funding sources can continue to bankroll elections unmolested in the new squeaky-clean era of Jindal.

In short, if they're not touching the dough, the ethics game is all for show. Again, The Advocate story has quotes laying out the bigger picture:

Wendell G. Lindsay Jr., the Baton Rouge lawyer who heads the state’s branch of Common Cause, said bundling donations, such as Chouest’s, creates the appearance that the elected official is beholden to his contributor.

“Our system is legalized bribery,” Lindsay said.

On a national level, the self-styled citizens lobby is working to end bundling. In Louisiana, the group backed Senate Bill 31 and House Bill 42, which would have required identifying donors’ employers on contributions of $250 or more.

Elliott Stonecipher, a Shreveport demographer, argued for doing away with bundling in Louisiana when he testified before Jindal’s transition committee that developed ethics legislation.

“This is the quid pro quo,” Stonecipher said of the link between Chouest and Jindal. “I believe that this is a smoking gun, and to hear Jindal say, ‘I’m going to follow the law’ without addressing campaign finance bundling, well, that’s a way to game the system for your own advantage.”

The Advocate article also points out that Jindal's ethics transition task force looked at campaign finance reform, but dropped it because it was too hard. The degree of difficulty might have had something to do with the fact that there were bundlers on the ethics task force who were not interested in having their own ability to influence elections limited.

The mainstream media is catching on to the Jindal ethics scam. Word has it that there will by money for other GOP heavy hitters coming via the budget in the upcoming regular session of the Legislature.

Now that the pattern has been recognized, it will be interesting to see how Team Jindal resorts to delivering the goods to their political friends.

Vitter flees Louisiana and his constituents

Republican Senator David Vitter has fled the state. Vitter's office announce Sunday that the Senator had cancelled a scheduled town hall meeting on Monday and had decided to head for what he must believe to be the friendlier confines of his DC apartment and the United States Senate.

Vitter's staff issued a terse, two-sentence statement on Sunday, informing the public and the press that he was cancelling a Monday Town Hall meeting scheduled for the small rural community of Greensburg in St. Helena Parish. The statement did not set a new date for the Greensburg event. It did say that Vitter was heading to Washington, ostensibly to vote on matters pending in the Senate.

Let the record show that, confronted with a collosal and growing political and moral crisis of his own making, the first-term United States Senator with a penchant for public moralizing spent a week in hiding (though he claimed to be in Louisiana) and did not in any way deliver his allegedly sincere apology to Louisiana voters for his actions that led to the scandal that threatens his political future.

The best Vitter has been able to muster has been a couple of statements on the scandal that is consuming his political career as we watch. The first statement was the one admitting his relationship with a Washington DC escort service. The second was the one on Sunday announcing Vitter's intention to duck his constituents and to flee to Washington.

The message from Vitter is clear: the people who elected him to office are not entitled to any answers from him. No, Vitter took a week off from work, spent some time with his family and missed at lease one key vote in the Senate. But, Louisiana voters who sent him to Washington to represent them are not entitled to any more than what he's said in a couple of press releases.

With these actions, Vitter places himself squarely in the Dick Cheney "Accountability is for Suckers" camp of elected officials (calling this "public service" would be to demean the language as much as Vitter has demeaned his office).

It will be interesting to see how Vitter's arrogance plays with voters. Are these the actions of a man asking the public for forgiveness or of a man shooting the public the bird?