So what else is new?
Spies, chairman of The Fund for Louisiana’s Future (FLF), the Super Pac created earlier this year, says Louisiana should voluntarily remove the $100,000 limit on contributions to political action committees.
As if it weren’t difficult enough already for the average voter to make his voice heard in our legislative halls.
Spies, it should be noted, also served as chairman for the Restore Our Future PAC for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its 2010 Citizens United decision that third-party groups may spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, Louisiana still has a maximum cap on individual contributions to PACs of $100,000 per election cycle.
Spies, with an eye to bankrolling the 2015 governor’s race on behalf of an as-yet unnamed candidate (but most probably U.S. Sen. David Vitter), has written a letter to the Louisiana Board of Ethics asking the state to conform with what he calls “clear constitutional precedent.”
To quote our friend and Livingston Parish Poet Laureate Billy Wayne Shakespeare, “A skunk by any other name stinks just as bad.”
What Spies and all those PACs that have proliferated since the 2010 Citizens United decision really want is the unfettered ability to buy future elections in Louisiana on a scale unprecedented in the state’s history. That would include not only the governor’s election but in all likelihood other statewide races and key legislative contests as well.
In his letter to the ethics board, Spies said that such limits on political committees that make independent expenditures run afoul of the First Amendment “are unconstitutional on their face and should no longer be enforced by the board.”
He said FLF could suffer “irreparable harm” if the issue is litigated and courts subsequently find that the limits infringe on constitutional rights. He said FLF and others’ political speech is being “burdened and chilled.”
What he doesn’t seem to realize is that in Louisiana, raising the limit isn’t really necessary: Louisiana politicians have historically sold out on the cheap.
In his otherwise persuasive argument (lawyers love to wax eloquent and I like saying that), Spies conveniently ignored how ordinary citizens have their political speech “burdened and chilled” by the ability of super PACs to drown out the voices of the electorate.
A person who gives his hard-earned $50 contribution to a candidate should be heard just as easily as the big donor after the election. But when that person’s interests clash with those of a super PAC that poured $100,000 into the candidate’s campaign, who do you think will get the ear of that elected official?
It’s not as if the $100,000 cap is really enforced in Louisiana. Nor for that matter is the $5,000 on individual contributions particularly sacred. Take Lee Mallett of Iowa, Louisiana, for example. Mallett, a member of the LSU Board of Stuporvisors, has contributed nearly $160,000 to Gov. Bobby Jindal through personal contributions and those of seven of his corporations. And both he and his son each have made four contributions between them, each for the maximum allowable amount of $30,800 to the Republican National Committee. Other LSU board members contribute personally and through spouses, children and their companies to easily circumvent the $5,000 contribution limit.
FLF has already raised more than $700,000, thanks in large part to separate $100,000 contributions by the Chouest family-owned Galliano Marine Services and the Van Meter family-controlled GMAA, LLC. Both families were major contributors to Jindal campaigns.
Here are a few examples of contributions to Gov. Bobby Jindal by the Chouest family and corporations of Galliano since 2003:
- Chouest Offshore: $5,000;
- Carol Chouest: $5,000;
- Damon Chouest: $5,000;
- Ross Chouest: $7,500;
- Andrea Chouest: $5,000;
- Casey Chouest: $5,000;
- Dionne Chouest: $5,000;
- Dino Chouest: $5,000;
- Joan Chouest: $5,000;
- Carolyn Chouest: $5,000;
- Gary Chouest: $5,000;
- Chouest Offshore Services: $5,000;
- Gary Chouest: $5,000;
- C-Port: $5,000;
- C-Port 2: $5,000;
- Offshore Support Services: $5,000;
- Martin Holdings: $5,000;
- Martin Energy Offshore: $5,000;
- Galliano Marine Services: $5,000;
- Alpha Marine Service: $5,000;
- Beta Marine Services: $5,000;
- Vessel Management: $10,000.
Grand total: $117,500.
Things were only slightly less obscene for the Bollinger family of Lockport and its corporations:
- Chris Bollinger: $5,000;
- Bollinger Algiers: $10,000;
- Bollinger Gretna: $5,000;
- Bollinger Shipyards: $9,850;
- Bollinger Calcasieu: $5,000;
- Charlotte Bollinger: $12,000;
- Bollinger Fourchon: $5,000;
- Bollinger LaRose: $6,000;
- Bollinger Morgan City: $6,000;
- Donald Bollinger: $1,500;
- Andrea Bollinger: $1,500;
- Southern Selections: $1,000;
- Gulf Crane Services: $4,000;
- Ocean Marine Contractors: $500.
Grand total: $73,350.
And that doesn’t even include money contributed to Jindal’s wife’s foundation, the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children or to Jindal’s Believe in Louisiana nonprofit organization which in reality is a PAC that exists solely for political fundraising.
Nor does it include any other candidates, legislative or congressional, to whom these families—the Malletts, the Chouests and the Bollingers—and their corporate entities may have contributed.
What does all this mean to the average voter?
Quite simply, it means he cannot compete with that kind of money. Period. He does not enjoy the luxury of voting for the candidate of his choice—because he doesn’t have a choice. He really never did.
It is the rare candidate today who can eschew PAC money and win.
The glut of money being poured into PACs is used to buy slick mailers and expensive TV time which tend to drown out the voices of the lesser-financed candidates. Catch the disclaimer at the end of those TV ads or read those mailers closely to see pays for them. The billionaire Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, for example, pays for all those Mary Landrieu-bashing ads you see on TV these days. Landrieu’s performance, good or bad, is not really the issue; it’s repetition of negativity that counts and only money can buy that.
Even though you may think you are an informed voter, you are so inundated with propaganda from PAC money that your will to resist political rhetoric is beaten down and you end up believing in their candidate because you saw more TV ads saying he was the one who is best qualified to lead the state or nation.
The PAC money drowns out the other candidate who may have great ideas for solving political problems but who can never be heard above the white noise enabled by Citizens United because his campaign war chest is dwarfed by that of the Super PAC.
But it doesn’t matter if he is the better candidate because the money says it doesn’t. PACs long ago purchased the candidates and have since purchased Congress and now Spies and his ilk want to purchase Louisiana (and yes, we know that may be redundant).
To put it in simple mathematical terms that are easy to comprehend, let us say a Super PAC dumps $100,000 into to a candidate’s campaign on behalf of say, the credit card special interests. You happen to like that same candidate so you stretch your financial resources to give him $50.
Long after the election and well after the congressman is ensconced in office, a bill comes up that prohibits credit card companies from charging monthly fees on gift cards, thereby diminishing the value of the cards. As it happens, you received a $100 gift card for your birthday but didn’t get around to using it for a few months. Remember your surprise when you learned it no longer had a value of $100 because of the monthly fees you were charged unbeknownst to you?
Irate, you write your congressman, urging him to support the bill that favors consumers. You may even remind him of your $50 contribution.
But congressmen are busy people. Under the present system, they’re already running for re-election the moment they begin their terms. That Super PAC, remember, gave him $100,000 on behalf of the credit card company. Who do you think gets his ear on this? In this case, the odds are 2,000-1 in favor of Visa.
And that’s the goal of Charlie Spies and The Fund for Louisiana’s Future.
by Tom Aswell, publisher of the Louisiana Voice
DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE COLUMN? TELL US BELOW