You are here
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana Undermines His Ethics Reforms
Thursday, March 3rd, 2011
Robert Wechsler
On February 10, 2008, Bobby Jindal, the newly elected governor of
Louisiana, said in a
big speech:
The Times understands the issue, portraying such foundations as "mutually beneficial: companies seeking to influence politicians or curry favor can donate unrestricted amounts of money, while the officials benefit from the good will associated with charitable work financed by businesses."
The founding director of a local environmental group, quoted in the article, also understands the issue: “It may be a good cause, but it creates the appearance he is being bribed. And if you are truly committed to ethical behavior, you just need to stay away from it all together.”
But Jindal's press secretary seemed to try to set back the understanding of government ethics in Louisiana to before Jindal took office. She said that any suggestion that the foundation is a way to lobby the governor or thank him for a past action is ridiculous. “It is a completely nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization created by the first lady, who as an engineer and the mother of three children, has a passion for helping our young people learn science and math. Anything other than this reality has plainly been dreamed up by partisan hacks living in a fantasy land.”
Has Jindal's press secretary ever heard of the term "appearance of impropriety"? People who see this foundation as a way to get around contribution limits and make big players in the state pay to play aren't "partisan hacks." They're ordinary people who have seen charitable organizations used like this by thousands of politicians nationwide.
Jindal does not appear to realize that a leader's role in government ethics is not just tooting his own horn. It is educating government officials, and the public, about how to responsibly handle conflicts, and how not to create appearances of impropriety. An important way to do this is through setting an example. If you create appearances of impropriety and blame them on the opposition party, you undermine everything else you say about government ethics.
Today, Jindal's ethics reforms, not all of which were good to begin with, have effectively collapsed. Government officials throughout the state are winking. They know now, if they didn't already know, that ethics reform was a way for the young governor to look good. This is effectively what he is saying by failing to recognize, or even acknowledge, that the foundation is extremely irresponsible and damaging to government ethics in his state, no matter how good it is for students.
Can Jindal say that no one other than a member of his household could have started this foundation, and that it could not have been a success without taking contributions from companies doing business with the state? If someone else could have done it, she should have. If those contributions were necessary, then there clearly was insufficient support for the idea.
As Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), is quoted as saying, “Foundations tied to politicians see their donations dry up when the politician is no longer in power. That demonstrates the real reason the charities get the donations is their political position, not because of the good works they do.”
I hope Jindal will use this occasion to take responsibility for the serious conflict situation he and his wife created, and truly educate his state in government ethics. If not, it will become clear what ethics reform actually meant to him and how little understanding, or care, he had for what he said he was trying to accomplish.
You can find CREW's investigation report on the Jindal Foundation here.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
-
Today, we take the first step towards building a better Louisiana where
our ethics laws are the gold standard - letting the rest of the world
know that corruption will no longer find a home here. The actions that
we will take over the coming days will have a lasting impact on
generations to come and help erase Louisiana’s image created by
generations past. There is no room for failure. We must be bold.
Instead of incremental change, we must make sweeping change. Instead of
leaving any doubt about our commitment, we must wipe the slate clean.
The Times understands the issue, portraying such foundations as "mutually beneficial: companies seeking to influence politicians or curry favor can donate unrestricted amounts of money, while the officials benefit from the good will associated with charitable work financed by businesses."
The founding director of a local environmental group, quoted in the article, also understands the issue: “It may be a good cause, but it creates the appearance he is being bribed. And if you are truly committed to ethical behavior, you just need to stay away from it all together.”
But Jindal's press secretary seemed to try to set back the understanding of government ethics in Louisiana to before Jindal took office. She said that any suggestion that the foundation is a way to lobby the governor or thank him for a past action is ridiculous. “It is a completely nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization created by the first lady, who as an engineer and the mother of three children, has a passion for helping our young people learn science and math. Anything other than this reality has plainly been dreamed up by partisan hacks living in a fantasy land.”
Has Jindal's press secretary ever heard of the term "appearance of impropriety"? People who see this foundation as a way to get around contribution limits and make big players in the state pay to play aren't "partisan hacks." They're ordinary people who have seen charitable organizations used like this by thousands of politicians nationwide.
Jindal does not appear to realize that a leader's role in government ethics is not just tooting his own horn. It is educating government officials, and the public, about how to responsibly handle conflicts, and how not to create appearances of impropriety. An important way to do this is through setting an example. If you create appearances of impropriety and blame them on the opposition party, you undermine everything else you say about government ethics.
Today, Jindal's ethics reforms, not all of which were good to begin with, have effectively collapsed. Government officials throughout the state are winking. They know now, if they didn't already know, that ethics reform was a way for the young governor to look good. This is effectively what he is saying by failing to recognize, or even acknowledge, that the foundation is extremely irresponsible and damaging to government ethics in his state, no matter how good it is for students.
Can Jindal say that no one other than a member of his household could have started this foundation, and that it could not have been a success without taking contributions from companies doing business with the state? If someone else could have done it, she should have. If those contributions were necessary, then there clearly was insufficient support for the idea.
As Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), is quoted as saying, “Foundations tied to politicians see their donations dry up when the politician is no longer in power. That demonstrates the real reason the charities get the donations is their political position, not because of the good works they do.”
I hope Jindal will use this occasion to take responsibility for the serious conflict situation he and his wife created, and truly educate his state in government ethics. If not, it will become clear what ethics reform actually meant to him and how little understanding, or care, he had for what he said he was trying to accomplish.
You can find CREW's investigation report on the Jindal Foundation here.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
