Budget Hard To Swallow? Maybe Some Whine Will Help
In Budget Debate, House GOP Leaders Reveal End Game Plan
Sure – NOW They Worry About the Feds
Obtuse: Men Making Laws About Women
In Louisiana, there’s a way for the wealthy to avoid paying state income taxes.
Lipstick on the Pig
Could the Saints look for their quarterback of the future in this draft?
Opinion | If the speakership is his future, Steve Scalise first needs to tell the truth about his past
****
If it were not for one of the most stunning defeats in American history, Steve Scalise’s rapid ascent to the top of congressional leadership would have never been possible.
In June 2014, a little-known economics professor named Dave Brat defeated Eric Cantor, the second-most powerful member of the House, in a Republican primary, an election that Cantor had assumed he’d win easily. Kevin McCarthy would be promoted to Cantor’s old job; the contest was over who would replace McCarthy as House Majority Whip.
Although Scalise was, at the time, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, he wasn’t the most likely candidate for the job. For one, he was far more conservative than most of his Republican colleagues, and typically, the House Majority Whip has been more of a pragmatist than an ideologue.
But Scalise had two important things in his favor: The ascendancy of the TEA Party, which saw Scalise as one of their own, and the lack of Southern representation at the top.
He won on the first ballot, besting Marlin Stutzman of Indiana and Peter Roskam of Illinois.
“Scalise attributed his first ballot victory, against two opponents with sizeable GOP support, to having a ‘great team’ of fellow Republicans behind him. Scalise even brought back former Rep. Jeff Landry, R-New Iberia, a Tea Party favorite, to promote him with the GOP conference’s most conservative members,” The Times-Picayune reported at the time.
Steve Scalise, by most accounts, is a genuinely nice man and a loyal friend, but he’s also a far-right ideologue whose political ascendance was built on a version of the “Southern Strategy.”
The story I first reported, more than three years ago, was that Scalise, when he was serving as a state representative in 2002, had spoken at a national convention of a white supremacist organization, a known hate group.
It’s also a story that demands revisiting in any discussion over whether Scalise is the appropriate person to become second in the presidential line of succession, particularly because the details of that story have largely been either obscured or forgotten and because, today, our country’s political system has been poisoned by the ascendence of those who traffic in racial resentment.
****
Acting off a tip provided by his former Democratic opponent, Gilda Reed, and her son, Robert Reed, both of whom claimed they had repeatedly been told of the existence of a photograph of Steve Scalise standing alongside the most well-known racist in the world, David Duke, I spent months researching and attempting to track down the alleged photograph or anyone who had ever seen it. It was a dead-end. The photograph, I concluded, didn’t actually exist, and the story about it was nothing more than a rumor.
But then, late one December night in 2014, I began combing through the archives of the online hate group StormFront, searching for Scalise’s name. Almost immediately, I found the following comment from 2002, written under the pseudonym Alsace Hebert (bold mine):
EURO’s recent national convention held in the greater New Orleans area was a convergence of ideas represented by Americans from diverse geographical regions like California, Texas, New Jersey and the Carolina’s. This indicates that concerns held are pervasive in every sovereign state and Republic alike, within an increasingly diminishing view of where America stands on individual liberty for whites. In addition to plans to implement tactical strategies that were discussed, the meeting was productive locally as State Representative, Steve Scalise, discussed ways to oversee gross mismanagement of tax revenue or “slush funds” that have little or no accountability. Representative Scalise brought into sharp focus the dire circumstances pervasive in many important, under-funded needs of the community at the expense of graft within the Housing and Urban Development Fund, an apparent give-away to a selective group based on race.EURO or the European-American Unity Rights Organization was the latest iteration of David Duke’s former group, the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Scalise may have not gotten a photograph with Duke (who participated via video-link from Russia), but it appeared fairly obvious that he had shown up and spoken at Duke’s conference. Others had chimed in to Hebert’s thread, verifying his account. But I understood I needed more material and a better grasp of the context before I could report anything written by someone on a hate group’s online bulletin board. I asked a friend of mine, a skilled researcher and internet sleuth, to help. He attempted, repeatedly, to contact Hebert but never heard back. However, within only a day, he uncovered a second comment from Hebert, written two years later (we later confirmed Hebert’s real name and learned that he had recently passed away) (bold mine):
It was just announced that Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson will enter the race in the 1st Congressional District. Those that attended the EURO conference in New Orleans will recall that Scalise was a speaker, offering his support for issues that are of concern to us. I suppose if Duke does not make the election for whatever reason, this gentleman would be a good alternative.I interviewed a woman from the Southern Poverty Law Center who had gone undercover at the conference; it unmistakably was about promoting white supremacy, she said. They were selling racist merchandise and t-shirts behind booths that lined the back perimeter of the conference room. I discovered that a minor league affiliate of the Chicago Cubs had actually canceled their hotel reservations after learning the conference would be hosted there, a fact that had first been reported by, of all people, a man who would later emerge as one of Scalise’s staunchest defenders. And then I asked a few people who had worked in state government leadership at the time whether they knew what Scalise meant when he allegedly referred to eliminating “slush funds.” They knew exactly what he was talking about: A proposal to defund community programs, primarily in minority neighborhoods and paid for through a portion of the hotel tax, in order to free up enough cash to lure the Charlotte Hornets basketball team to New Orleans. It was a familiar talking point, and, in 2002, it was the subject of intense public debate. The reference to a “slush fund,” his former colleagues were certain, was not the same thing as the so-called “Housing and Urban Development Fund;” that was likely a reference to a local, ongoing controversy involving the Jefferson Parish Housing Authority. I was satisfied that I’d collected more than enough evidence, but I understood I was taking a calculated risk. I didn’t wait for a comment by Scalise. I knew enough about him to know he would simply issue a denial. I decided to hit publish on the very first story shortly before midnight on December 28th, 2014. **** The next day, as I’d anticipated, Scalise issued a denial in an interview with The Times-Picayune, telling reporter Julia O’Donoghue, “For anyone to suggest that I was involved with a group like that is insulting and ludicrous.” O’Donoghue and others continued to pursue stories attempting to debunk my report about Scalise’s appearance at the EURO conference, relying on, of all people, the treasurer of the organization and a well-known aide to David Duke named Kenny Knight. Knight claimed, ludicrously, that Scalise had actually been at a completely different event at the same hotel, a neighborhood association meeting for a neighborhood located more than five miles away and an association that never actually existed. He told reporters that he personally left with then-state Rep. Scalise before the EURO conference began and that he was not associated with the organization, despite the fact that a picture of Knight at the conference features prominently in the organization’s newsletter and that Knight is listed as a registered agent of the organization in its filings with the Louisiana Secretary of State.



Louisiana’s Fourth Branch of Government, A Banana Republic Open for Business
“It’s something everybody looks for,” state Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R- Bossier City) explained in 2015. “It factors into fundraising when it comes to re-election time.”
Seabaugh wasn’t referring to the number of bills he sponsored or authored. He wasn’t talking about the laws he helped pass or even the amount of money he was able to bring back to his district. He was, instead, openly acknowledging the pecuniary necessity of earning a top score from the most powerful lobbying organization in the state, the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI). In 1999, LABI launched a new initiative, a so-called “legislative scorecard.” The organization would give each and every legislator a grade; if a legislator voted in line with LABI’s recommendations 70% or more of the time (today it’s 80%), they would receive an automatic endorsement from the organization and, in subsequent years, a concomitant campaign contribution from at least one of LABI’s four political action committees. (LABI claims that contributions are given based on a four-year cumulative score, but a comprehensive analysis of campaign finance reports proves otherwise).
In return, LABI has showered Seabaugh’s campaign with nearly $25,000 in donations from all four of its political action committees. During his eight years in office, Seabaugh has received over $136,000 in donations from PACs; if he had accepted any more PAC donations, he would have come awfully close to exceeding the legal limit.
Perhaps the most astonishing thing about Alan Seabaugh’s admission is that it’s taken three years for someone to point out that it was, in fact, an astonishing admission. It may not be against the law or prima facie evidence of political corruption, but at the very least, voters should be rightfully alarmed whenever a lawmaker casually reveals that his voting record is directly informed by the financial benefits of following a special interest group’s scorecard.
Of course, there is nothing exactly unusual or even wrong when an organization contributes to an elected official who supports their agenda, but the way LABI has structured their political lobbying and electioneering strategy- the whole concept of automatic endorsements and campaign contributions, well, that is extraordinarily unusual.
Alan Seabaugh is currently being considered by President Donald Trump for a federal judgeship.
If he’s nominated, he will face questioning on federal laws. He should consider polishing up good answers to a series of questions about quid pro quo contributions, the Hobbs Act, the tension between the Court’s holdings in McCormick and Evans, and the federal funds bribery statue, which is appropriately numbered §666. The federal courts have defined quid pro quo very simply as “something for something.”
****
“When people weren’t paying any taxes and the oil and gas money rolled in, you could run things like a banana republic,” LSU political science professor Wayne Parent explained to The Christian Science Monitor in late October 2002, only a few days after former Gov. Edwin Edwards reported to prison. “Cajun-country era ends, prison term begins,” the headline blared.

… the chief principle of banana-ism is that of kleptocracy, whereby those in positions of influence use their time in office to maximize their own gains, always ensuring that any shortfall is made up by those unfortunates whose daily life involves earning money rather than making it. At all costs, therefore, the one principle that must not operate is the principle of accountability….. In a banana republic, the members of the national legislature will be (a) largely for sale and (b) consulted only for ceremonial and rubber-stamp purposes some time after all the truly important decisions have already been made elsewhere….Believe it or not, Wikipedia has one of the best distillations of Hitchens’ larger economic argument (emphasis added):I was very struck, as the liquefaction of a fantasy-based system proceeded, to read an observation by Professor Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, of the Yale School of Management. Referring to those who had demanded—successfully—to be indemnified by the customers and clients whose trust they had betrayed, the professor phrased it like this:
These are people who want to be rewarded as if they were entrepreneurs. But they aren’t. They didn’t have anything at risk.
That’s almost exactly right, except that they did have something at risk. What they put at risk, though, was other people’s money and other people’s property. How very agreeable it must be to sit at a table in a casino where nobody seems to lose, and to play with a big stack of chips furnished to you by other people, and to have the further assurance that, if anything should ever chance to go wrong, you yourself are guaranteed by the tax dollars of those whose money you are throwing about in the first place!
In economics, a banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, by which the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Such exploitation is effected by collusion between the State and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit derived from the private exploitation of public lands is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury.When Wayne Parent optimistically spoke about the end of Louisiana’s “banana republic” century, he wasn’t really making a declaration; he was saying a prayer for his beloved home state. In the years since, countless articles have been written about how America itself has transformed into a banana republic (none as good as Christopher Hitchens’ essay, though), and perhaps as a consequence, the term has lost much of its meaning and significance. But a banana republic isn’t a dictatorship; it’s not dependent on a charismatic and corruptible leader. Put another way, Huey P. Long didn’t turn Louisiana into a banana republic; Standard Oil did. “Would you go along with this statement?” Gus Weill asked James Carville in 1991. “That there’s something either in our air or our drinking water that attracts kids, boys and girls, to politics?” “Yeah, this is a theory,” Carville said, “and I’ll put it out there. There’s a great oral tradition here. There’s a great lust and love for entertainment. And it’s been said, point and jest, but I guess there’s some grain of truth here- that we expect our politicians to entertain us more than lead us. Unfortunately, we’ve been entertained more than we’ve been led.” The featured image in this article is a satirical press release. Everything else is depressingly true. Read Part One of this series here.