Artur Davis' Ethics Proposals - If You're Gonna Be a Bear, Be a Grizzly Bear!

Echoing Gradyw (4.00 / 2)

... who made a valid point about Davis's ability to produce a major statement every day, unless the topic happens to be Ted Stevens getting a better deal than Don Siegelman.  And Davis's sagesse du jour always gets great press from The Birmingham News, something that ought to give us all a moment of hesitation.  I note that the News, in its update story,  fawns over the similarity of the Davis and Riley plans. More cause for pause.

Finally, the idea of requiring an indicted official to step aside, while sounding nice, indicates its author slept the sleep of the content from 2001 through 2009. Granted, for right now, we have a(n arguably) Democratic U.S. Attorney General, though he seems to be in no hurry to be rid of Alice Martin and Leura Canary.  But we still have Troy King, and even if we fervently hope to be done with him in two years, he alone should be all the object lesson we need to avoid giving a prosecutor (remember the adage about a DA and a ham sandwich) the power to vacate a legislative seat.

---

by: PubliusIX @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 17:21:17 PM CDT

What PubliusIX said, (4.00 / 2)

Echoing gradyw. 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 17:25:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not really sure what I said (4.00 / 1)

but glad to get the props and to have said something that made sense.

---

by: gradyw @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 18:30:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oops (4.00 / 1)

My major bad, it was Redeye's comment here I was thinking of.  Sorry if I misled anyone as to what who was saying when and/or where. (If I can scramble an apology any further, I might have a future on Mike Rogers's staff!)

---

by: PubliusIX @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 01:44:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is a valid concern (4.00 / 1)

But I'd say the average citizen is willing to take that risk -- the proposal to have indicted public officials step aside was one of the biggest applause lines at The Women's Network lunch.  Here is the whole explanation from the Davis release, emphasis mine:

The Davis plan would require public officials indicted on state ethics charges or on federal corruption charges to immediately vacate their office until the allegations are resolved. At the same time, Davis would allow any public official who was acquitted of ethics or corruption charges to recover damages from the government if they can prove that such charges were wrongfully brought. If a public official could prove that a prosecutor deliberately or recklessly brought charges that had no merit, that prosecutor could be personally liable.

“Any ordinary citizen who is charged with a crime related to his job would be suspended or placed on leave,” said Davis.  “Politicians should not be held to a lesser standard. At the same time, an indictment cannot become a political tool for pushing someone out of office. I would strongly discourage such a misuse of the criminal justice system by adding new civil penalties for indictments that are filed in a reckless manner or in a manner that deliberately disregards the evidence.”

Notice that there would be a means to hold both the government and the individual prosecutor liable for wrongful prosecution.  That has to have some deterrent effect on political prosecutions. 

 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 18:05:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I definitely don't like that provision (4.00 / 2)

but the rest sounds like it has some teeth.

I think that the dangers of misuse and the fact "you can indict a ham sandwich" clearly outweight the benefits of removing indicted officials. It's good in theory, but it's a very dangerous slope.

Remember Davis is a former Federal prosecutor so he might be a little slanted on this. I think if he really understands the concerns on this he might realize the unfairness.

---

by: gradyw @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 18:29:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The other proposals ... (4.00 / 1)

Are all common sense good government reforms, many of which we have been railing about since this blog began.  I don't know how many posts I have written about PAC-to-PAC transfers or the $250 per day disclosure trigger on lobbyist gifts -- mind you that isn't a limit on lobbyist gifts, it's just the point at which they have to disclose the gift.  And requiring lobbyists targeting the executive branch to register?  Common sense.  It's unbelievable that they get a free pass now.

One of the more controversial proposals may be the conflict of interest rules for legislators and their outside employers.  This will impact a number of legislators of both parties, but it's morally indefensible to funnel state money -- either through a lawmaker's discretionary funds or via lobbying a colleague -- to an entity who employs you.  Sorry if that isn't a popular view with some, but I've looked hard and can't find a way to defend it. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 18:53:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the problem (4.00 / 2)

The "balance" of the removal-under-indictment by allowing a suit against a wrongful prosecutor doesn't work - at least not under the current Alabama Constitution.  Under it, the State (and for this purpose, a prosecutor is "the State") has absolute immunity from suit.  So much immunity, that, as the Alabama Supreme Court recently reiterated, "Immunity is provided by the Constitution. Because the Constitution prohibits suits against the state and its agencies, the legislature cannot consent to such a suit."  Ex parte Hale County Bd. of Educ., 2009 WL 130085, *2 (Ala. 2009).  Davis's proposal amounts to the legislature claiming to "consent to such a suit."

And Davis, Harvard Law grad and former prosecutor who doubtless snickered at those who threatened to sue him, knowing they couldn't, knows this; so the fact he's selling it as part of his package doesn't speak well for his veracity.  Oh well, it's nice to know he can practice regular politics.

I have got to talk to someone with the Sparks campaign about inviting him to a group; I will see what I can do.  But yes, that's me, and my beef is with the News, not LiA. I am assuming you could care less where Tim James is speaking. ("IX" was actually "born" on al.com. When I first tried to register there, I got "name taken" from "Publius" through "PubliusIV." I figured, heck, throw the long ball, Hence, "IX.")

---

by: PubliusIX @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 23:39:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you can find out who's doing Sparks' press (4.00 / 1)

please let us know!

We'd like to be on their distribution list, but can't get an answer about who's doing the pr/press job.  And there's no contact us link on his campaign Web site.

Odd, given that he announced for governor a couple of weeks ago, but maybe the info will be available soon.

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 06:54:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't take that seriously (4.00 / 1)

While the Canary is still singing.

This kind of legislation would probably be a real trail blazer, and the first cases would be years in the courts.

Meanwhile, if the person charged were innocent of wrongdoing, their career would be in ruins by the time things were resolved. The countersuits would be more years in the courts.

Innocent til proven guilty still works best, I think.

When in doubt tell the truth. It will confound your enemies and astound your friends.---Mark Twain

---

by: julie @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 08:40:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

PubliusIX (4.00 / 1)

I was reading the comments on the B'ham News article and there was one left by someone also purporting to be PubliusIX that mentioned Ron Sparks is giving speeches every day and no one is covering them.  If that was you, can you put me in touch with whoever announces those speeches?  I've been wondering what if anything Sparks is doing -- have asked some people who were with him last Friday to add LiA to their press distribution list but nothing so far.

We would cover his events -- can't guarantee all but at least some of them -- if we only knew about them. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 22:19:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oops... sorry. (4.00 / 1)

I should have read down before responding above about Sparks' press people.

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 06:54:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Publius, the ability to issue major statements and get them covered (4.00 / 1)

is good campaign strategy and politics.  It's a sign of a campaign that's competently run, issue-focused, and on top of the news cycle.

It's also good strategy to focus specifically on Alabama issues and the future when you're running for governor of the state.

I know that Sigeleman is the single, overriding issue for a lot of people, and everyone has a big thing of two that pushes their buttons particularly.  We all know a lot about the case here, but we're not typical Alabama voters.

Keep in mind that Sigelman was vulnerable because - although he came in as a reformer and a breath of fresh air - some of the people around him were "politics as usual" guys - not a few of whom seem pretty shady to me.

As long as the power brokers in Montgomery are able funnel money at will to their buddies, stifle reform legislation because it derails their gravy train, and circle the wagons to protect the bad actors, we'll never get better state government.

I agree with Mooncat.  These guys don't dislike Davis because they're afraid he'll lose and take them down with him.  They're terrified that he might win and shine a bright light on Montgomery shenanigans. 

Why would Reed, Smitherman, Hubbert, etc. etc. want to change a system that has them sitting on the top of the heap? Davis is dangerous to them because he says he wants to change how thinks work, and this Ethics package is a big, loud warning shot across the bow of the "business as usual" crowd.

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 07:20:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not about Don Siegelman (0.00 / 0)

It's about what was done to Don Siegelman.  It's about Justice.  It's about the rule of law. 

countrycat said, emphais mine;

I know that Sigeleman is the single, overriding issue for a lot of people, and everyone has a big thing of two that pushes their buttons particularly.  We all know a lot about the case here, but we're not typical Alabama voters.

Speaking only for myself and not "a lot of people", I could care less about Don Siegelman. But I do care about  what happened to Siegelman.  I do care that he was targeted, investigated, indicted, convicted and jailed for partisian, political reasons.  If it can happen to a former sitting Governor it can happen to me and to you. And yes, political prosecutions push my buttons big time.

countrycat said, emphasis mine;

Keep in mind that Sigelman was vulnerable because - although he came in as a reformer and a breath of fresh air - some of the people around him were "politics as usual" guys - not a few of whom seem pretty shady to me.

I respectfully but forcefully disagree with your assertion that Siegelman was vulnerable because of "some of the people around him".  I submit that Siegelman was targeted because he was a popular democrat, because of the lottery iniative and because he was a Governor for all the people and not just rich people.  He is the victim of "politics as usual".   As a matter of fact, the people who convicted him seem pretty shady to me. Now here comes Davis, trying to come in as a reformer and breath of fresh air, I hope he doesn't have any "shady people" around him, because it could make him "vulnerable".

countrycat said, emphasis mine;

As long as the power brokers in Montgomery are able funnel money at will to their buddies, stifle reform legislation because it derails their gravy train, and circle the wagons to protect the bad actors, we'll never get better state government.

As long as the power brokers can prosecute their political adversaries we'll never get better local, state or federal government.  We are a nation of laws not men, remember? 

countrycat said, emphasis mine;

I agree with Mooncat.  These guys don't dislike Davis because they're afraid he'll lose and take them down with him.  They're terrified that he might win and shine a bright light on Montgomery shenanigans. 

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "sheanigans" is, cause I certainly don't see Davis shining a bright light on the Justice Department shenanigans, something he certainly could have done if he hadn't resigned from the House Judiciary Committee so he could run for Governor.  I don't dislike Davis, but I'm afraid if he wins, so will the status quo. I don't see him standing for truth,  justice and the rule of law on behalf of Governor Siegelman, Representative Sue Schmitz, or any of the other Alabama political prisioners.

countrycat said, emphasis mine;

Why would Reed, Smitherman, Hubbert, etc. etc. want to change a system that has them sitting on the top of the heap? Davis is dangerous to them because he says he wants to change how thinks work, and this Ethics package is a big, loud warning shot across the bow of the "business as usual" crowd. <!-- have to do this to make the /postComment work Here we store the parentCommentId and parentDiaryId I should learn how to do struts hiddens -->

 I don't know what heap Reed, Smitherman, Hubbert etc. etc. are "sitting on on top of", but I do know that Reed and Hubbert are legally elected by members of the Alabama Education Association and that  Smitherman was elected by the people in her district to represent them on the City Council.  If they are  "sitting on the top of the heap" it's because voters put them there.  Artur Davis must be sitting on the top of the heap too because he was elected to serve in Congress and he is asking people to let him sit on top of the heap as Governor.  Any power Reed, Smitherman, Hubbert, Davis, etc. etc. have is because we the people gave it to them, and we the people are the only ones that can take it away from them.  Evidently the people who elected Hubbert, Reed and Smitherman, etc. etc., don't have a problem with them. 

countrycat said, emphasis mine;

Davis is dangerous to them because he says he wants to change how thinks work, and this Ethics package is a big, loud warning shot across the bow of the "business as usual" crowd

Who specifically are the "business as usual crowd"? Reed?  Hubbert?  Smitherman? Democratic legislators?  Democratic employees of the two year college system?  Democratic African American elected officials?  Democratic women elected officials?  I want to know who they are because I don't get it. 

Again, it's not about Don Siegelman the man, it's about justice. It's not about Reed, Hubbert and Smitherman "sitting on top of the heap" either.  They aren't enemies of the State.

We have seen the enemy and it is us.

 

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:47:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lengthy comment (0.00 / 0)

I'm not going to go point by point with you, but if you don't know what heap countrycat is talking about, who sits on top of it and how they got there -- and it has little to do with being democratically elected -- then your attention must have been distracted elsewhere.  Montgomery is a mess.  Republicans are part of the problem.  So are some Democrats.  Deal with it.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 12:24:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

MeOuch! (0.00 / 0)

We don't disagree that Montgomery is a mess, nor do we disagree that Republicans and some democrats are part of the problem, but when we do disagree do you think we can do it without being disagreeable?  I apologize if my choice of words, or the format of my lengthy comment offended you or countrycat because I hold you both in high esteem and consider you friends.

Let me see if I can rephrase the question about "sitting on top of the heap" by saying maybe you are giving Reed, Hubbert, Smitherman, etc. more credit and more power than they actually have.  They are in they serve at the will of the people they represent.

I'm not the enemy.  

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 12:52:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we all type at the same time, and look what happens! (4.00 / 1)

;-)

I really don't think I'm giving them more credit or power than they have. If anything, we underestimate it.

The Alabama Legislature functions like a feudal manor.  If the top leaders don't want legislation to come to the floor, it doesn't. Period.

Lowell Barron is a case in point.  He's chair of the Rules committee and the gatekeeper for legislation on the floor.  A Senate committee can pass a bill unanimously (sp?), but that doesn't guarantee a vote.  It has to go to rules.  The Rules Committee can vote to send it to the floor, but the chair can overrule it.  And it it goes to the floor, the chair sets the rules for debate (ie: you get 10 minutes of talking then have to take a vote, so if someone opposed talks 11 minutes, there's no floor vote).

Yesterday, the phone deregulation bill passed the Senate.  Lowell Barron is from #$#@ Jackson County for God's sake!  It's going to hurt his constituents and many other poor rural people in the state.  Yet he let go to the floor.

Smitherman sponsored the bill.  With that kind of backing, passage was a done deal in the Senate.

After all, if you piss off Barron, in particular, good luck getting anything to the floor.

Too many of the people in power now no longer feel accountable to the people of Alabama.  Ethics reform may not be a panacea, but it will at least make the lobbyists' jobs harder and the process more transparent.

fingers and toes crossed!!!

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 13:30:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me see if I can clean up the typo's (4.00 / 1)

This is what happens when you type in a hurry;

Let me see if I can rephrase the question about "sitting on top of the heap" by saying maybe you are giving Reed, Hubbert, Smitherman, etc. more credit and more power than they actually have.  They are in they serve at the will of the people they represent.

Should read; They serve at the will the people they represent.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 17:12:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

blame it on the laptop! (0.00 / 0)

How's that going, btw....  Have y'all made friends yet?

Mine gave me fits when I first got it.

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 17:19:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My laptop is not my friend. (0.00 / 0)

To be perfectly honest I can't blame that last doozy on the laptop.  More on emotions and haste.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 17:21:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The business as usual crowd is the crowd in control now... (4.00 / 1)

and in some cases the crowd who would like to be.

Hubbert, Smitherman, Barron, Reed, Hubbard, etc... fill in your own list of powerful committee chairs here.

They benefit from the concentration of power in the Legislature and Alabama's almost non-existent Ethics laws and reporting requirements.  

And, I'll forgo the extensive blockquoting, and just make one point about consistency with a single quote:

Any power Reed, Smitherman, Hubbert, Davis, etc. etc. have is because we the people gave it to them, and we the people are the only ones that can take it away from them.  Evidently the people who elected Hubbert, Reed and Smitherman, etc. etc., don't have a problem with them. 

You know, each time DrIQ brings up his favorite issue: I&R, you're one of the many here at LIA who express strong opposition - the main reason being that voters in Alabama are likely to vote for all kinds of crazy, wingnut things if given the chance.  (I'm on the fence about it, because I share that concern)

But, you can't have it both ways.  If the people who elected "Hubbert, Reed, and Smitherman (the one I'm referring to is the president ProTem of the Senate, not a city councilman and the one doing AT&T's bidding to deregulate rural phone service), don't have a problem with them" does that make any action they take ok?  Is it that we can trust the voters to elect representatives but not to vote on I&R initiatives?  Why is it ok for one but not the other?

I don't mistrust Alabama voters.  I mistrust the PACs, corporations, and others who get involved in our elections and try to buy Supreme Court justices, legislators, etc.  Their task is a lot easier with the weak ethics laws we have now.  And it would be easier for them to pass wingnut I&R stuff without reform.

Ethics reform doesn't take power from the voters.  It takes power away from lobbyists, corporations, PACs, and big donors.  It brings light to the process and helps expose corruption. 

I think 2010 will be a change election because I both believe and hope that Alabama voters are fed up with a political system that holds the state back and operates for the benefit of the few. 

Democrats can't be seen as the roadblock to reform.  If they are, I fear that the Republicans will drive through at full speed take control of all state government.

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 13:22:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

countrycat rang my bell. (0.00 / 0)

If we trust voters to elect legislators who, hopefully, have the best interests of their constituents and Alabamians in general at heart, and if we trust voters to elect members of a constitutional convention and then to vote to approve a new constitution, then it just doesn’t make any sense at all (to me at least) to not trust them to use Initiative and Referendum (I&R) in a responsible way to propose real reform and accountability legislation for voters to accept or reject on a ballot after it has bypassed both the legislative and executive branches of our government that don’t seem inclined to do it. Those two branches have had their chance to do it for ages, now it’s time to give the people who own and finance our government a chance to do it.

As I’ve said before, one of the great things about I&R is that if it were ever abused in a way that it became unpopular with voters, then the voters could use I&R itself to remove it from our constitution. That sounds like a “win-win-” situation to me, AND I’ve not heard of any state where the voters rid themselves of I&R once they had obtained it.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 14:24:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, watch those subject lines, buddy.... (0.00 / 0)

my hubby reads this blog!  ;-)

As I said, I'm on the fence about I&R.  There are good and bad things about it, and I'm having trouble balancing it out.

Still on the fence and probably able to argue both sides.

Heavy sigh.....

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:42:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By "rang my bell" (4.00 / 2)

all I meant was that you got my attention. I hope your hubby understands that.  :-)

 

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:50:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just having fun poking you, silly! ;-) (4.00 / 1)

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:53:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do we need ethics reform, (4.00 / 1)

Or do we need public campaign financing?  That's the only way to get the lobbyist out of equation.  I often say it's not the candidate with the most votes anymore, it's the candidate with the most money to buy the media that gets the most votes.

Thank you for providing the specific information regarding Lowell Barron and ATT.  Thank you also for the tutorial on how a bill reaches the floor etc. Thats the kind of information I was seeking.  I see your point about trusting the voters, but  on the other hand, if voters keep electing Barron and Smitherman how can they be trusted to vote on I&R iniatives?  The same PACs, corporations and others who get involved in our elections and try to buy Supreme Court justices, legislators, etc. will do the same thing to I&R.

I'm sorry my friend, I don't see the 2010 election as a change election. I don't see any hope for change until we have campaign finance reform and public funding of political campaigns.  Right now we have the best democracy money will buy, not a government by, of, for the people. 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 17:07:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2010 and change election (4.00 / 1)

If I don't have something to hope for, I'll have to go bang my head against the wall!!!

I'm up for campaigning financing too.  Whatever gets the lobbyists out of the equation and the people back in.

But I think that, in today's climate, the "reform" message resonates better than "taxpayers paying for elections" - which is how the wingnuts would spin it.

Gotta go start Shabbas supper now... back on Sunday though!

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 17:16:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Getting the lobbyist out of the equation (0.00 / 0)

There is no perfect solution, but it will go a long way to limiting the influence of the few, the ones who can afford lobbyists, if the law is changed so that one person can no longer write a check for $100,000 or $200,000 or $500,000 to someone running for office or re-election to office.  $5,000 is a pretty reasonable limit although I'm sure some will cry that it infringes on their free speech rights.  Sorry, writing half million dollar checks to office holders is nearer corruption than the first amendment, imho.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 18:28:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why I have strong opposition to I&R (0.00 / 0)

The people pushing for I&R are the same people who want to tell us who to marry, who to have sex with, how many children to have, who to worship, and how to die.  They are the same people that are anti social programs, anti choice and anti civil right, anti labor union.  They claim to want the government out of our private lives yet they try and use the government to control private behavior.  They claim they want "personal responsibility" yet they want the government to dictate personal behavior.    What do you want to bet will be the first I&R iniative on the ballot in sweet home Alabama?  Marriage is between a man and a woman or, life begins at conception?  It will go down hill from there.

I don't know what part of everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is hard for some people to understand.  The U.S. Constitution should never be put up for a majority vote.  

We don't need I&R, we need a new constitution.  One that protects our rights, not take them away. If our present lawmakers don't agree, we the people have the power to elect lawmakers that do.  If our current lawmakers aren't representing our interest just say NO and stop voting for them.  It's that simple.  We don't need I&R for that. 

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 19:27:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

News gets covered (4.00 / 2)

I suspect Davis' speech got covered because it is a specific set of proposals that contains some genuinely new ideas. If Sparks and for that matter the announced Republican candidate Tim James are saying something new, as opposed to "I am the only candiate who can win and I will fight for jobs" (Sparks) and "I am a conservative Republican" (James), they might get more coverage too.

By the way, I have heard two people who attended this speech say that it was exceptionally good in its delivery and surprisingly substantive. One of them was a moderate Republican, the other a Democrat who had not been previously sold on Davis.  One of them called it the best speech she has heard any Alabama poltician give.

 

 

---

by: albecky223 @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 22:29:47 PM CDT

these weren't well researched (4.00 / 1)

Capping Campaign Contributions from Individuals, PACs, Unions and Political Parties - $5000 per election for individuals, $10,000 for PACs and unions, and $50,000 for political parties.

 The problems with this one are twofold. First, there are a number of Supreme Court decisions from the federal level that do define political contributions as protected political speech although they somehow still have the hard money limit and I assume these are incorporated to the state. The other problem with this is that it would seriously limit the ability of candidates who do not own yachts to run for office and would lead to this state passing over basically to a Corizine type of rule where everyone self finances. Think about this, Biden only had his Senate income while in office. If this kind of think had applied to Biden, a DuPont could have easily run and simply outspent him to the point that ground game wouldn't have mattered. You do this, you make political office a rich mans preserve only.

Requiring Indicted Public Officials to Step Aside - This is coupled with allowing a public official acquitted of ethics or corruption charges to recover damages if they can show the charges were wrongfully brought, with the potential to hold the prosecutor personally liable.

 On it's face unconstitutional. Innocent until proven guilty. Even in the case of Thomas, who looks guilty as hell, an who it is alleged had the son of Vivian Figures as one of his victims, even he, had he not resigned, would have still been allowed to remain in office until he was disbarred, which would have prevented him from being a judge. If you passed this, then all you would be doing is giving prosecutors the power to remove from office whomever they want because once again, if the prosecutor indicts, they're out, and despite the safeguard of "personally liable", for the most part that wouldn't hold because the prosecutor could easily convince a jury that he thought he was right, was proven wrong and shouldn't be punished for an "honest mistake"

 Simply a bad idea. The exact same as all the crap about "double dipping". When people hear "double dipping" they think bad. When you explain to them that Alabama has a citizen legislature and that if you pass such a law you would necessarily ban teachers from serving in the legislature but not hedge fund managers they suddenly change their tune

---

by: jacool @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 22:41:00 PM CDT

Finance caps needed (4.00 / 2)

The finance limits are a needed provision.  From my understanding of campaign finance law, the federal limits only apply on federal races inside the state of Alabama, not statewide races.  There is a statewide limit on corporate giving, but not on individuals.  These proposed limits by Davis are for hard money coming directly to the candidate.  They might force candidates to broaden their base of support, but it also makes them less susceptible to bribery charges.  Looking back at the Siegelman case, the issue started with the claim that Scruschy donated/bundled $500,000 to a campaign.  This is not an indictment or a statement in regrads to Siegelman or Scruschy, but points to the flaw of a system that allows fundraising where individuals can give unregulated amounts to candidates.

---

by: csduke @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 23:18:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree about campaign contribution limits. (4.00 / 1)

it would seriously limit the ability of candidates who do not own yachts to run for office and would lead to this state passing over basically to a Corizine type of rule where everyone self finances. Think about this, Biden only had his Senate income while in office. If this kind of think had applied to Biden, a DuPont could have easily run and simply outspent him to the point that ground game wouldn't have mattered. You do this, you make political office a rich mans preserve only.

Excuse me, but what is it now?

The current system lets PACs and individuals pump unlimited amounts of money into races and buy the candidates they like the best.  Hello?  Perhaps you remember this past years' Alabama Supreme Court race where Deborah Bell Paseur had hundreds of small donors from all over the state, while Greg Shaw was funded primarily by large donors who gave $50k+ or more.

And take note:  There's nothing in the reform proposal about banning musical groups from campaigning for anyone they choose.

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 07:06:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No doubt about it, (4.00 / 1)

(and leaving aside for now the merits of Davis’ ethics proposals) Davis’ ethics proposals will make great campaign material that will doubtless resonate with a large number of voters who don’t put them under a microscope and parse them as is being done here…..perhaps enough to help him win the election.

That said, what then?

Any governor of Alabama has limited ability under our constitution to exercise any real power. The power is vested in the state legislature and we all know that the legislature is controlled by certain “Big Mules”…special interest groups, lobbyists, and individuals that I don’t think I have to name because those who follow politics in Alabama know who they are.

About all Davis can accomplish under those circumstances is to try to “jaw-bone” legislators and arouse the public and ask them to apply pressure to legislators. Whether that will succeed and produce positive results is only a matter of conjecture.

It didn’t work for Governor Riley who proposed some ethics reforms, so why should we expect it to work for a Governor Davis? As I see it, his only advantage is that he would be a Democratic governor working with a legislature controlled by Democrats and those Big Mules. If somehow he can persuade enough Democratic legislators to ignore the Big Mules and follow his lead, what does that say for those legislators who have fought ethics (and other) reforms up until now?

Just food for thought, folks.

 

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 08:00:45 AM CDT

What you said is correct (4.00 / 1)

As I see it, his only advantage is that he would be a Democratic governor working with a legislature controlled by Democrats and those Big Mules.

Having a governor and a majority of the legislature of the same party takes the partisanship out of the argument.  Currently, Riley is proposing many ethics reforms and the Dems in the legislature suspect those would be used to target them, not the members of Riley's own party.  Take that partisan suspicion out of the equation by electing a reform-minded governor of the same party that controls the legislature.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 09:34:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]