forgotston.com

“Good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.” — Aristotle

Governor Bobby Jindal, the leges and the so-called “good government watchdogs” and the media are busy patting each other on the back about the laws passed during the special session that purport to limit what lobbyists can do.

Apparently, lobbying is an inherent evil in government.

The new laws only affect those lobbyists who work for us private citizens. That is, those persons we hire to represent us in Baton Rouge because we’re too busy to go there. It’s a form of exercising our First Amendment Right.

Illegal lobbying

Nothing has been done to control the public lobbyists, i.e., public servants who push for law changes and funding for government agencies many times against the interest of the taxpayers.

Another example of “good government” laws that goes unenforced is the one that prohibits public servants from lobbying the legislature.

LA R.S. 43:31(D) provides in part:

No branch, department, agency, official, employee, or other entity of state government shall expend funds of, administered by, or under the control of any branch, department, agency, employee, official, or other entity of state government … to lobby for or against any proposition or matter having the effect of law being considered by the legislature or any local governing authority.

In other words, it is illegal to do what is a common practice at the Capitol.

Members of the governor’s staff and others being paid by the taxpayers regularly lobby in front of lege committees urging leges to vote for and against pending legislation.

Less obvious lobbying goes on behind-the-scenes when leges are called by the governor’s minions to pressure them into voting for or against legislation or to drop legislation not supported by the administration.

Catch 22

There was a lot of effort during the special session to make lobbyists more visible at the Capitol.

Laws were passed to limit how much lobbyists can spend on wining and dining leges.

Laws were passed to prohibit lobbyists from giving leges tickets to athletic and other events.

All those laws only apply to or would apply to REGISTERED lobbyists.

Persons who lobby leges on behalf of state agencies, including the governor’s office, are not REGISTERED lobbyists. They can’t register because the above law makes lobbying by public servants illegal. Thus they can’t be regulated because they can’t do what they do legally.

These public servants not only avoid any of the lobbyists’ restrictions, but they are illegally lobbying.

If lobbying by the private sector is as bad as some of the rhetoric we heard during the special session, then illegal lobbying by those who are paid by the taxpayers is worse.

When will the illegal lobbying be regulated?

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:00 am

The more rhetoric I hear about “transparency” in state government during the current special Session, the more hypocrisy I see.

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans, introduced House Resolution No. 20 which would prohibit members of the general public from entering into to the House’s “private dining facility” without being accompanied by a member of the House. The House Order of the Day (agenda) shows that the resolution is “subject to call for final passage” on the House Floor today.

There is something fundamentally wrong with prohibiting public access in a public building (State Capitol). One can understand the need to restrict access to certain areas for security reasons, but a “dining facility” in the “people’s building” is not one.

This situation becomes even more of a hypocrisy when one listens to the debate on the House Floor about limiting how much lobbyists can spend on meals for leges because of the need to access the leges during mealtimes.

Eliminate the problem

Seems to me that the public would be better served by the transparency of leges eating in commercial restaurants.

Rather than a rule to prohibit public access in a public building or to limit the amount lobbyist can spend to wine and dine a lege, perhaps it is time to eliminate the House’s “private (soon to be exclusive) dining facility” in OUR building.

Of course, my suggestion assumes that the governor and leges are really serious about transparency” in state government.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:12 am

The public has been outraged for years about the practice of members of the LA House of Representatives changing their votes at anytime before the Lege adjourns Sine Die.

The Senate does not allow such practice.

Governor Bobby Jindal included Item 5(3) in his “call” for the current Special Session which provides: [P]rohibiting legislators from changing votes after completion of floor action….

Friday, the House enacted a rule that allows a member to change his vote as long as the does it on the same day. See House Resolution No. 3.

A step BACKWARD

Prior to the adoption of House Resolution No. 3, 2008 E.S., House Rule 10.8 prohibited the changing of one’s vote after the result of the vote was announced by the presiding officer.

Previously, the House got around House Rule 10.8 by simply suspending the rules and allowing a member to change their vote at any time before the House adjourned that particular session.

In other words, by suspending the rules there was no prohibition against changing one’s vote.

Under the newly-amended rule 10.8 (as amended by House Resolution No. 3), there is still nothing to prevent a member from changing his vote until Sine Die adjournment as long as the House simply suspends the rules.

Thus, nothing has changed except to codify in the House Rules the practice of vote changing.

A solution

Had Governor Jindal and the House been serious about stopping the practice of vote changing, they would have enacted a statute prohibiting the practice. At least, then it would have required both houses of the lege to suspend the statute for the session to allow vote changes.

A violation to correct a violation

In explaining why he offered House Resolution 3…

House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Terrytown, [author of HR 3] said he did not want to simply take away members’ right to change their vote. The Advocate, February 23, 2008.

Often times, he said, a seatmate will vote for a lawmaker who is in the Senate or in the bathroom. (emphasis mine) Ibid.

The seatmate may get the vote wrong, Tucker said. Ibid.

However…

House Rule 10.3 prohibits anyone from voting a member’s machine when that member is not in the Chamber. If one violates House Rule 10.3, there are sanctions on the member who voted another’s machine if the person who was voted was not in the Chamber.

Therefore, if one is in the Senate one is definitely not in the Chamber. Depending on which bathroom a member may be in, they may not be in the Chamber.

A sham

This is another case where we should not listen to what we are told, but what is being done.

It’s just another attempt to deceive the public and to allow Governor Jindal to claim he accomplished something that he didn’t.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:00 am