Saturday, September 15, 2007

Jackson Free Press Covers Haley's "Blind" Trust

The Jackson Free Press:
The nature of a blind trust supposedly allows no insight into how the firm is going about making its profits, and by design, offers the governor no motivation to influence government policy to advocate for the firms endeavors. This does not mean, of course, that Barbour has no contact with his old
lobbying comrades. The blind trust is not a restraining order, and no state law forbids Barbour a phone call to his former partners. “Barbour, Griffith and Rogers has represented, and still represents, big tobacco companies, and if he is still receiving a benefit from that lobbying firm then I think he would have a problem with Section 109 of the Mississippi Constitution,” said Rep. Jamie Franks, D-Mooreville, who is running for lieutenant governor, and who supported state legislation allowing more insight into subsidiary companies and blind trusts in 2007.

Does this mean that there is no penalty if he were to purposefully seek out the contents of the trust? (Please answer in the comments. I don't know the answer)
Former Attorney General Mike Moore said the shadowy nature of the trust is not accidental. “Do you really think Lenny Griffith and Ed Rogers don’t talk to Barbour? For God’s sake, his name’s still on the door up there in Washington,” Moore said.

And, Moore added, lobbying clients clearly know where to go to peddle for influence. “Let’s suppose he’s got $50 million in shares with Lorillard Tobacco Company. A guy from Lorillard comes to see him, and says, ‘I want you to vote against this bill in the Mississippi Legislature that would’ve raised the tobacco tax.’ So what did the blind trust do to help him be more pure? If he knows he’s got $50 million invested in Lorillard, does it prevent him from having a conflict of interest? Of course not. It merely prevents anybody else from knowing that he’s got a conflict of interest ... . He’s hiding his assets and his conflicts of interests from the public.”

Well said Mr. Moore.
The Clarion-Ledger went as far as pooh-poohing concerns about potential continuing ties between the new governor and his former firm, which had been severed, it assured readers in a Jan. 19, 2004, editorial: “He had already sold the firm, including the name, and it’s owned by Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., a publicly traded company. … He has no ownership or stock.

Barbour’s former partners bought the company back from Interpublic in 2004, for about $6 million, according to Bloomberg News Reporter Timothy Burger in reports last month that have placed the governor under a national microscope. Burger reported that Ed Rogers, who co-founded the firm, would not say whether Barbour had participated in the buyback. He did say that Barbour “earns no income” from the lobbying firm.

But Bloomberg reported on Aug. 29 that Barbour does, indeed, still own valuable stock in the company and that it is providing the bulk of his income, even as the firm is lobbying—successfully—for Katrina contracts on behalf of at least one casino.

So again what this means is that either the Clarion Ledger accidentally got it wrong, purposefully got it wrong, or were lied to. I don't think they did so on purpose so that leaves the other two options.
Hood told Barbour that his blind trust does not satisfy income reporting requirements. The attorney general sent a follow-up letter that November, containing an Ethics Commission manual defining a “business” to include a “trust,” but also including a smoldering threat of legal action: “In order for us to quietly avoid civil or criminal litigation, I respectfully urge you to fully comply with the Ethics laws by filing amended statements of economic interest… .”

Brunini responded with a letter to Hood that December, reminding Jim Hood of the media’s “universal approval” of the blind trust, and enclosing the enabling Clarion-Ledger editorial referenced above. Brunini informed Hood that he would request an opinion from the Ethics Commission.

So, Brunini used a editorial that he must have known was wrong to defend Barbour before the ethics commission. My excerpts can't really explain anything, but I do encourage you to read the whole article which is more easily understood together at The Jackson Free Press

No comments:

Post a Comment