The Intent of Blind Trusts

Bobby Harrison tackles the issue of Barbour's "blind" trust in the Daily Journal:

It is easy to get lost in the many complexities surrounding Gov. Haley Barbour's blind trust.

But at the heart of the manner is one simple question:

Does the governor still own an interest in the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, which he formed back in the 1990s and which has made more than $2 million from cigarette makers during his term as governor?

That is the simple question that so far the governor has refused to answer.

Sid Salter and other Barbour shills have said that his previous job as a lobbyist is old news and shouldn't be an issue. If he still has a substantial stake in the prominent lobbying firm bearing his name and continues to receive payments (according to his lawyer) from that same company I think it is clear that it is and should be an issue.

What we do know is that during his term as governor Barbour has used his considerable political skills to block and to veto legislation to raise Mississippi's cigarette tax, which is the third lowest in the nation, and to dismantle the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi, which was established to try to curtail smoking.

All that is true.

But regardless, the public has the right to know whether as the governor aggressively pursues policies that protect cigarette companies he is part-owner of a company that is making hundreds of thousands each year from those cigarette makers.

The public might know that and say, well, he has still been a good governor and deserves our support this November. But the public should be able to make that decision - knowing all the facts.

Who can argue with that?

"Who can argue with that?" Short Answer? Sid Salter and others blinded by "Holy" Haley Barbour.

During the 2007 session, efforts were made to address blind trust in state law. Perhaps, the governor had good reason for disagreeing with the bill as it was written.

But instead of working to craft good legislation that put blind trusts in state law so that there would be some governance of them, Barbour and his legislative allies worked successfully to kill the bill.

The result is that legitimate questions are going unanswered.

Donna Ladd ended her post on this with the following line and I will too.

The intent of blind trusts is supposed to be to protect the public from possible conflict of interest - not to hide what may be relevant information from the public.

True.

The Daily Journal Article