Tennessee politics behind the scenes
The Phil Valentine Show has confirmed it. Stacey, give me a call when you get a chance.D.C.
Rep.Actually just the opposite is true. if these charges are true the laws already on the books worked. These laws obviously didn't stop these, what will new laws do to stop future infractions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
We received word this morning at the Steve Gill and Phil Valentine show that it was, in fact, true. Supposedly it was a federal investigation and TBI is making the arrests. John Ford was among them as well from what we heard...it's about time!!
At 1.09 P. M., the Tennessean article said, "Government is not for sale,” said The Man. "In later versions, we find out that Terrell Harris is "The Man".
It's not for sale. It's for RENT....
Now you're bloggin' baby, now you're bloggin'!Campfield for Governor!
We are following this as well. Tennessee Legislator's ArrestedIt seems that the FBI set up a dummy corp and the current and former legislator's took some bribes to push some bills. This is going to be big and just reinforces the need for legislation like your ethics reform Stacey. Stay on task and thanks for your work.
Racr: You cant stop them but you can have laws that make it more clear when to prosicute or what is wrong.also you can make it so it can be investigated and prosicuted with more ease.
sorry about any typos today, I have been in a rush and just wanted to let you know asap
racr, such regulation is a means of fostering trust in gov't, making it harder to get away with crimes, and "guiding" persons and entities to do what is right. And regarding your pestering on the question on limiting legislators from passing legislation which would benefit them, here's an article, courtesy of Bill Hobbs, that you should read: http://www.publicintegrity.org/oi/report.aspx?aid=377&sid=300
powertee and Rep,I never said it was right for legislators to pass legislation that benifitted them personally. Yuo must have my pesterings (?) confused with someone else. I still say that maybe we need stiffer penalties for violating current laws. I apply the same logic to "ethics" legislation as I do "gun" laws that go after law abiding citizens instead of enforcing laws that are already on the books. I know many legislators and a few lobbyist. The vast majority of them are honest hard working people.
"Mr. racr, Did you know, or have you ever known, John Ford, Kathryn Bowers, Ward Crutchfield, Chris Newton or Roscoe Dixon?"
powertee,Yes. Whats your point?
It's a joke; (see, Joseph McCarthy).But in any event, how do you know they're "honest" and "hard-working"? And why would I be expected to trust your assessment? The problem with Tennessee's "current laws" is they are weak on disclosure (of contributions and of legislators' votes). It is hard enough to ensure honesty in gov't but it is even tougher when they're allowed to virtually "govern" behind closed doors.
powertee,I know my history. I don't need a lecture from you. You will never be satisfied. A crook is a crook. Lobbyist support those who are predisposed to their cause. For example you would not see Emily's List giving to a pro-life candidate or the right to life giving to a pro-choice candidate. I could list many other examples but it would do no good. I know your type, nothing is ever good enough or conservative enough for you.
Racr, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say--that was hardly a "lecture." But my point is that Tenn has insufficient laws on disclosure and lobbying. Almost anything to get all this stuff out into the light is valuable. I think the argument that lobbyists "educate" is rather thin, because Kathryn Bowers isn't interested in any learnin' from TNRTL or the NRA. I don't think there's ever a need to give money, food, travel, gifts-- ANYTHING to a legislator. And it would be very easy to enforce such a regulation. See the other subject regarding legislators and whether they're able to know about the issues without lobbyists filling them in). I even believe that unless you are able to cast a vote (perhaps even if you are able to cast a vote for a particular candidate, but I think that probably infringes on freedom of speech/association), you shouldn't be able to donate money to a campaign (i.e., no corporations). Regarding "my type," I'd posit that you're the gadfly (toward theRep, that is) on this blog, not me. I just think it's important to keep people focused on fact and reason-based discussion on the issues; otherwise, a blog turns into a blov (short for bloviate--I just made that up!).
Now this is what I would call blogging. Most of the entries ie: Doug seem to be from the Reps cheerleading section or someone who has nothing better to do. You and I seem to mainly disagree on methods not on principle.
powertee,Also you should know, it is already against the law for corporations to donate to canidates or elected officials. I would favor no limits on personal contributions and full disclosure. What do you think of that?
Racr, I do agree that individuals should be allowed to give as much money as they want, as long as it is disclosed. To me, it is a matter of freedom. Regarding corporate contributions, I stand corrected then. Of course, it isn't hard to circumvent that if you just give "bonuses" to an employee and have him give the money to a candidate, but again, full disclosure is the most important thing.
Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them. http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1