Jindal’s ethics book report.
Jul 30th, 2007 by Daniel Z.
Jindal unveiled the first plank in his campaign platform today. As the campaign stated it would, he provided us with his plan on how he intends to make ethics reform (if Louisiana is unfortunate enough to have him become our next governor). However, a careful look at his plan shows that his platform is far from being original and it does not solve one of the main problems in governmental ethics.
So why is Bobby Jindal’s pamphlet a glorified book report? A simple look at “Blueprint Louisiana” and “LA Ethics #1” will show that many of these proposals are not Jindal’s original ideas at all. Gubernatorial candidate Foster Cambpell has previously endorsed Blueprint Louisiana and LA Ethics #1. Jindal just has a fancy flier that he released as a PDF and he claims his plan as his own. At least Foster Campbell gives credit to the people who proposed those same ideas before him. If I turned these ideas in without citing proper credit in any of my English classes, I would be given an F and charged with plagiarism. Where is Jindal’s F?
What does Jindal’s plan miss? Well, Jindal’s plan does not seem to do anything about the ability of companies who are awarded with government contracts to give campaign donations. Jindal focuses on the lobbyists, but does not worry about the purchasing of candidates by companies who make campaign contributions in order to secure government contracts for themselves. This is something that should be illegal at all levels of government. I wonder why Jindal ignored this problem. Does Jindal collect campaign contributions from those who do business with the state? I wonder.
Fighting for ethics reform is good and admirable. Jindal claims, “This reform will cause howls of protest, I am certain“. I wonder which candidate for Governor will fight the ethics reforms suggested by Blueprint Louisiana and LA Ethics #1?
(11 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...
Loading ...
Dan - Here we go again. I do wonder how bright you really are. I know you’ve heard of the US Supreme Court. Apparently you don’t know where they have interpreted the 1st Amendment’s free speech provisions to encompass campaign contributions, i.e. money. Now you and I probably do agree on the proposition that corporate money does more ill in politics than it does good. But absent some new SC judges that think like we do on this issue or Congress proposing and passing an amendment to the Constitution (along with 2/3 of the states), naive politicos such as yourself are going to have to content yourselves with crap like this website. To rail on Jindal for not proposing something that is patently unconstitutional is just stupid, but certainly on par with the rest of the “criticisims” you provide the five of us who actually come to this website.
Trotsky: You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Solving the problem of companies making campaign contributions in order to obtain government contracts does not have to be a 1st amendment issue. You assume that I am discussing a fix that would violate the constitution when I havn’t even stated what the fix would be! And you know what happens when you assume……
The PROBLEM is that people who want government contracts can give campaign contributions to try and obtain them. The SOLUTION need not violate the Constitution.
But go ahead, don’t let the truth get in the way of you attacking me.
Jindal taking credit for other peoples ideas? We are starting to see a pattern here and it is not very ethical is it?
My thoughts exactly FP.
Dan - You are so caught up in hating Jindal, you can’t even think straight. You tell us, oh great one, how you are going to limit corporate financial contributions to political candidates without running afoul of the supreme court’s 1st Amendment jurisprudence when that jurisprudence has explicitly held that money=speech?
Trotsky: Did you know that Corporations are restricted from making campaign donations to federal candidates? THATS RIGHT! Under federal campaign finance laws, a corporation MAY NOT make campaign donations to any federal candidate.
So when it comes to the Federal Government, corporate financial contributions to federal political candidates are ALREADY limited (to $0) and such regulations hve not run afoul of supreme court jurisprudence that holds money=speech.
But go ahead, don’t let the truth get in the way of attacking me.
Is Jindal running for federal or state office?
Jindal is running for state office, obviously.
You brought up the Supreme Court and the 1st amendment. So I am showing you that there already exists a COMPLETE ban on corporate donations at the federal level. Since you cannot ban corporate donations any more than the Federal government does, any restrictions placed on corporations if you are trying to prevent them from occuring at the state level would clearly not be a violation of the 1st amendment (contradicting your incorrect assertions about needing different judges or needing a constitutional amendment to stop the abuse that can happen when businesses who accept government contracts are allowed to donate to campaigns of the people that award those contracts).
Are you ready to admit you are incorrect yet?
That is why we call him: Jindal the Swindle!