Leaders of the state’s economic development community want a blanket exception to the state’s ethics laws that allow them to give and receive things of value to and from corporations — solicited tax dollars from state and local government all under a cloak of secrecy.
Not only do they want this indiscriminate sanction for site consultants as is now the case, they also wish to have the same broad exception for those who are tangentially involved in the process.
While there are some merits to the developer’s argument, it is becoming increasingly evident that attaching the name economic development to any given situation stops reason and accountability from entering into the equation.
At issue is whether those involved in economic development activities are subject to the Alabama Ethics Act. Are they, in fact, acting as a lobbyist in some capacity? Should they be required to disclose aspects of their process to lure potential clients to the state, and do they need to reveal the names of the entities they represent?
Because economic development professionals are soliciting taxpayer funds to support the business they represent, there is a question as to if they should be held to the same standard of conduct and reporting as lobbyists and principals under the state’s ethics code.
Last week, Secretary of Commerce Greg Canfield and members of the Economic Development Association of Alabama appeared before the Alabama Code of Ethics Clarification and Reform Commission to plead for these sweeping exclusions.
The commission is a group of appointed individuals who are tasked with rewriting the state’s ethics laws, an undertaking fraught with intrigue and mischief.
“Much of the focus has been limited to the role of site consultants, and while that group of professional economic developers was primary to the language drafted in HB317, there are others who play a vital role in support of job-creating economic development whose activities should be articulated so as not to be defined as lobbying,” Canfield said in prepared remarks before the commission last week.
Under HB317, a controversial piece of legislation passed near the end of the 2018 session site consultants were specifically given an exception to current ethics laws. That bill will sunset in April of this year.
Canfield and the Economic Development Association now wants to include a host of others with immunity to the ethics laws.
Canfield enumerates the others which includes: “1) Chamber of Commerce staff and volunteers, 2) professional service providers (e.g., engineers, accountants, attorneys), 3) individual businesses supporting economic development (e.g., employees of banks, utilities, etc.), 4) employees of prospects, 5) employees of governments supporting economic development, 6) industrial development board employees/board members,” in his words.
During his remarks, Canfield also said the ethics reforms passed in December 2010.
“Provided exceptions to two types of activities and clearly reflected the legislative intent to provide safe harbor for education related activities and economic development activities,” he said.
His assessment about the exception may be correct, but the question now is, are these exception to be codified in such a way that so-called economic developers and their subordinates are unrestricted from the state’s ethics laws in every way and can they vie for state taxpayer’s dollars without even a modicum of oversight?
During the hearing, it was volunteered that part of an economic developers job could involve providing lavish dinners and rounds of golf at exclusive resorts. Does this also mean that Rolex watches and trips to Tahiti can also be part of enticing businesses to Alabama? By granting full exceptions for so many individuals, does this mean that a volunteer from a local chamber of commerce might receive a bag of cash to secure a contract and that’s okay?
The economic development professionals Canfield is talking about are looking to receive tax dollars, not private funds. Anyone who is speculating on projects that require taxpayer’s money should be held to some standard of scrutiny.
The entire process that brought about HB317 was suspect if not underhanded and nefarious.
From conception to its passage, misinformation, deception and outright lies permeated the process that saw HB317 become law. Now, the Economic Development Association wants more from a commission with dubious intent.
It seems odd that Canfield and the Economic Development Association should make their case at the last meeting of the Alabama Code of Ethics Clarification and Reform Commission.
Several members of the body have said privately that the commission is little more than a sham to weaken the current ethics laws.
Near the end of last week’s meeting, Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton, who is also vice chair of the commission said that a draft of the product to be presented to the Legislature is already at Legislative Services.
“While the process has been very difficult, we have made progress,” Albritton said. “Our goal was to deliver something to the legislature. The draft is now with Legislative Services.”
As reported by APR‘s Brandon Moseley, Albritton said that the legislators needed to see the bill before the session begins in March.
“We would be doing them a great disservice, and all of you a disservice if we did not have that by February, which is tomorrow,” he said. “I expect it will be out in two weeks.”
The commission itself was never designed as a public forum. In fact, the enabling act made it not beholden to the state’s open meetings act. The commission meetings only became public after news organizations complained about the lack of transparency.
Canfield and the Economic Development Association may be sincere in their desire for further clarification, but a more significant issue is now at the forefront of this debate namely should anyone under the mantle of economic development be allowed to bargain for state tax dollars with immunity from the state’s ethics laws?
Opinion | Deception, subtlety and the wholesale destruction of current ethics laws mark proposed rewrite
Legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Ball, R-Madison, would radically alter the existing State Ethics Act rendering it useless as an effective tool to regulate the behavior of public officials, much less prosecute a rouge lawmaker.
Testifying at a pre-trial hearing in the criminal case against then-Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard in April 2015, Ball said the ethics laws needed amending to avoid prosecutions like Hubbard’s in the future.
If HB179 becomes law, Ball will have fulfilled the words he spoke at the Lee County Court House, where Hubbard was tried and convicted.
As House Ethics Committee Chair, Ball has sought to change the State’s Act since Hubbard was indicted.
Ball’s bill is subtly written from an enforcement and trial perspective to neuter the law.
Words are added, deleted, and meanings changed in ways that might look harmless but actually open the door for the kind of corruption Republicans vowed to change in 2010, when they passed the toughness in the nation’s ethics laws.
Beyond changes that would allow for general corruption to go unpunished, Ball’s legislation would strip the Attorney General and district attorneys of their power to prosecute anyone who violates the ethics laws without first securing approval from the State Ethics Commission.
All prosecution of any public official would first have to be approved by the Ethics Commission, a group that has repeatedly shown that it bends its decisions according to the prevailing political winds.
HB179 reads in part, “This bill would prohibit the Attorney General or a district attorney from presenting a suspected ethics violation by an individual subject to the code of ethics, other than a member or employee of the commission, to a grand jury without a referral by the commission.”
In other words, Ball would have a politically-appointed commission decide if law-enforcement agencies can seek indictments against wrongdoers.
Neither the Attorney General or a county district attorney can even impanel a grand jury in an ethics probe without the commission first finding probable cause.
Some of Ball’s alterations come in the form of removing whole sections of the law under the guise of redefining words, like “a thing of value” or “widely attended event.”
An example of how Ball’s legislation plays with the law is under the section of code, which defines a family member of a public official. Currently, a family member is “[t]he spouse, a dependent, an adult child and his or her spouse, a parent, a spouse’s parents, a sibling and his or her spouse, of the public official.” Ball changes it so it only includes a spouse and a dependent. That means that a public official may act to enrich his adult children, a parent, an in-law a brother, or a sister. These small but destructive alterations to the law are at the heart of Ball’s legislation.
Some loopholes are so extensive that a sitting legislator could be paid by a city or county governmental economic development entity and still seat in the Legislature voting on bills that might directly affect his consulting client.
Out-of-state junkets make a comeback as do several other goodies lawmakers have been desiring.
It seems Republicans want to cash in on the rewards of office like Democrats did once upon a time.
One thing is clear, Ball didn’t write the bill, but whoever did knew precisely what they were doing and were probably paid handsomely for their efforts.
There are so many cunningly deceptive changes to the ethics laws in Ball’s bill as to make it impossible to catch them all without days of intense study—and perhaps a team of lawyers.
Ball, one of Hubbard’s most an ardent defenders has said Hubbard’s indictment and conviction was a political witch hunt. He has said he wants to rewrite the ethics laws to save future Hubbards; it now looks as if he has.
Opinion | PCI’s billion dollar plan raises questions
Over the last few months, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians has flooded the state with an advertising campaign touting a billion-dollar package labeled “Winning for Alabama.”
How the plan benefits Alabama is a fuzzy moving target, but there are many advantages for the tribe.
Beyond giving PCI a monopoly over Las Vegas-style gaming, it also cements PCI’s tribal status.
Since 2009, PCI and other tribes federally recognized after 1934, have lobbied Congress for a “Carcieri fix,” to guarantee they are safe from losing federal recognition and with it the right to operate tribal gaming.
In Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the phrase of tribes “now under Federal jurisdiction” in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, referred only to those tribes that were federally recognized when the act was passed. PCI wasn’t recognized until 1984.
A compact with the state would end the threat that hangs over PCI and its billion-dollar casino empire in Alabama.
Over the past several years, U.S. Congressman Bradley Byrne—who is now running for Senate—has pushed legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to protect the tribe from any challenges under the Carcieri ruling. Byrne’s efforts have been unsuccessful due to resistance from Alabama’s senior U.S. Senator Richard Shelby.
Byrne saw his 2018 legislation falter when Shelby made it known the bill would not get a hearing in the Senate.
At the time, APR contacted Shelby’s office for comment, “Senator Shelby does not support the bill and has no plans to do so in the future,” wrote Shelby’s communications director, Blair Taylor. Likewise, APR reached out to Gov. Kay Ivey’s office where then-spokesperson, Daniel Sparkman, told APR, “Governor Ivey has no plans to write such a letter,” encouraging Senator Shelby to support a Land Reaffirmation Act.
A compact with the state would likely end any further concerns over a Carcieri fix.
While PCI is courting voters and lawmakers, ultimately, it is Gov. Ivey, who has the authority to negotiate a compact with the tribe. At this juncture, Ivey’s thinking isn’t known, but given her history, she will look hard and long at any gaming plan that requires her signature to enter into a compact with PCI.
PCI’s proposal raises several questions, not the least of which are “can the state give the tribe a monopoly over table gaming, and how much money will the state actually receive from PCI’s plan?”
The proposal is vague in specifics and the math is hazy at best, but according to PCI’s website and promotional materials, the plan includes: “$725 Million in combined license and compact fees from existing properties and two new locations, PLUS $350 Million in projected tax revenue and revenue share from gaming, including sportsbook and table games, PLUS.”
For the one-time payment and projected future tax revenue, PCI wants the state to enter into a compact with the tribe and also give them exclusive rights over table gaming throughout the state. That is giving a lot for little return when in fact a state lottery with all the bells and whistles could produce around $400 million in tax revenue for the state without giving anyone a monopoly.
All tribal gaming falls under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which lists the different categories of gambling permitted by tribal entities.
Currently, PCI operates class II gaming in Alabama.
Class II gaming, according to IGRA, are:
“Bingo, pull-tabs and other similar games, including non-banking card games not prohibited by state law.”
IGRA states that PCI can only offer games that are “not prohibited by state law.”
The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that electronic bingo machines are illegal. However, PCI offers electronic bingo at its facilities in Atmore, Montgomery and Wetumpka.
IGRA also states, “Expressly excluded from Class II gaming are banking card games, such as blackjack or slot machines of any kind.”
To offer blackjack, roulette, or other table games, PCI would need a compact with the state, which must be negotiated by the state’s governor, which presently is Ivey.
Class III games are according to IGRA: “All forms of gaming that are not included under Class I or Class II, such as blackjack and slot machines.”
Other provisions of Class III conclude that “the games are located in a state that permits gaming for any purpose by any person.”
This section of IGRA would seem to prevent the state from granting PCI exclusivity over Class III Las Vegas-style gaming, but this is a question that will be answered by attorneys.
PCI has done very well since it became a de facto gaming monopoly in the state as a result of then-Gov. Bob Riley’s bingo wars.
Year after year, PCI and its Republican allies in the state Legislature have killed any lottery or gaming plans that threatened the tribe’s monopoly.
The billion-dollar plan is seen as tempting to some lawmakers, but its success or failure rests with Gov. Ivey, who is responsible if a compact with the tribe is to be negotiated.
Many unanswered questions must be considered before the state should entertain PCI’s billion-dollar plan; perhaps most importantly, how does Carcieri v. Salazar affect the tribe’s federal standing and what are the benefits for the state?
Opinion | PCI supported President Trump’s rivals but want state Republican to do their bidding
In 2016, Alabamians overwhelmingly supported Donald J. Trump for president. The Poarch Band of Creek Indians, however, put the majority of their money behind his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
PCI gave Clinton $150,000 in 2016, but only $25,000 to Trump. Likewise, in 2012, PCI contributed $135,000 to Barack Obama. In both elections, the Poarch Creeks sided with Trump’s nemeses.
Even after Clinton’s loss, PCI donated $203,400 to the DNC Services Corp./Dem. National Committee.
In fact, of the 13 most substantial contributions made by the tribe in federal elections over the last several years, eleven donations went to Democrat candidates or organizations while only two went to Republican causes.
If money is the mother’s milk of politics, then PCI’s top donations are nourishing Democrats nationally and starving Republicans.
In a pro-Trump state, the Poarch Creeks —who backed Hillary for president—are asking Republican lawmakers to give them a state-sanctioned monopoly over gaming.
Principled Republicans might see a problem with giving so much power to a group whose money goes to candidates with values so diametrically opposed to their own.
Currently, PCI gives generously to Alabama Republicans, but once those conservative lawmakers turn over gambling in the state to the tribe, is it not possible that they will then switch back to their political roots and support Clinton-type Democrats for state offices?
PCI stokes Alabama Republicans for now, but what happens when they no longer need them to do their bidding?
Just last year, PCI contributed to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Money from PCI to the DSCC will go to giving Chuck Schumer control over the U.S. Senate while their support for DCCC will increase Democrats in the House.
“DCCC is the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way,” according to the group’s website.
Do Alabama Republicans not realize that PCI is supporting the very group that elected candidates they claim to despise like AOC and the squad?
In 2018, DCCC’s campaign contributions flipped the U.S. House of Representatives, giving control of the chamber to Nancy Pelosi. In return, Pelosi led House Democrats to impeach President Trump.
Isn’t it hypocritical to loathe Democrats on the one hand while accepting donations from their patrons with the other?
Of PCI’s largest contributions, only two went to Republicans, one was in 2014, to the Congressional Leadership Fund and the other was to John Boehner for Speaker in 2015.
State Republicans howl against Anti-Trump and Pro Socialist Democrats but line-up to support PCI which has given maximum donations to Nancy Pelosi.
Perhaps PCI gave Trump chump change because, as a businessman casino owner, he dared point out the unfair advantages tribal gaming has over private operators. But maybe they are afraid the Trump administration will enforce the law which says PCI can’t operate any games that are illegal in the state.
Obama didn’t enforce the law and Clinton surely would not have. Maybe Trump will.
PCI, for now, is cozy with state Republicans, but their national support for Democrats should serve as a warning that things can change.
Opinion | MLK Day: A time for change
Today, as the nation celebrates MLK Day, Alabama still tacks Robert E. Lee onto its observances. But it’s time to end that practice as a new generation deserves to see a better Alabama.
Alabama Code, Title 1. General Provisions § 1-3-8 enumerates the state’s legal public holidays, which lists the third Monday in January as an observance for Martin Luther King Jr., and also Robert E. Lee.
How long will our state’s leaders cling to the past? Isn’t it time to put away the false equivalency between King and Lee?
Both men were flawed, but while Lee’s reputation has diminished with time, King’s has grown.
Lee may have once represented a proud South, but today he is seen as a symbol of bloody slavery.
Over time, King’s legacy has flourished and now stands as a beacon of hope to millions, not just in the United States, but around the world.
In her 2019 Inaugural Address, Gov. Kay Ivey acknowledged, “Thankfully, the Alabama we live in today – the Alabama we love – has changed with the times and, in most instances, this change has been for the better.
But we would be less than honest with each other if we did not acknowledge that change has not always come easily. Standing here on Dexter Avenue, we are reminded of two different chapters in Alabama history: a time when the Civil War raged and 90 years later when the Civil Rights movement was inspired.
It is important for all of us to acknowledge our past; after all, it was at a pulpit just down the street that Doctor Martin Luther King Junior so powerfully taught us how to confront struggles with honesty, courage, and love.
Having learned from the past, let’s now turn our focus to the future, which is filled with so much hope and opportunity.”
Sadly, some in our state can’t admit Alabama’s past, much less let go of the legacies that still haunt the state.
That Lee shares the day with King is a relic from our not so honorable history.
Almost immediately after King’s assassination in 1968, there were calls for a holiday commemorating his January 15 birthday, a struggle that would be fraught with conflict for 15 years.
President Ronald Reagan signed the bill making MLK Day a national holiday on November 2, 1983, but even he wasn’t convinced that it was best for the nation as he said a King holiday was “based on an image, not reality,” according to a letter he wrote to former Gov. Meldrim Thomson Jr. of New Hampshire.
After Reagan’s remarks were made public, he called King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, to apologize for any misunderstanding about his comment, according to a 1983 report by the New York Times.
Up until the passage of MLK Day legislation, North Carolina U.S. Senator Jesse Helms railed against the measure, accusing King of being a Communist sympathizer. Helms threatened to filibuster, tried to open King’s sealed FBI files and estimated that the cost of a new national holiday would be $12 billion in lost productivity.
Still, today, even in the halls of the Alabama State House, Helms’ argument is still being made.
Efforts to erect a monument to King on Dexter avenue are fought with the same rhetoric and passion that fueled Helms, except today, they are mostly in whispers-tones and code-speaks.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and a host of the founding generation’s notables were slave owners and men with questionable private lives. Still, nevertheless, they are celebrated for their accomplishments, not chased for their failings.
Turbulent water running under the bridge that divides our nation along racial lines is stirred by those who would convince us that they are deep, but they are not deep only muddy making us fear to cross.
King’s legacy is the embodiment of nonviolent activism for civil rights, which has been replicated on nearly every continent around the globe.
After the King Holiday Bill was signed, Coretta Scott King said, “This is not a black holiday; it is a people’s holiday.”
It is time to change because MLK Day cannot be a people’s holiday in Alabama, as long as it’s a Lee holiday, too.
Doug Jones praises end of state Democratic Party lawsuit
ACLU of Alabama condemns bill banning transgender treatment for minors
11th-hour smear campaign against Byrne linked to opponent Tuberville, sources say
Ivey announces support for criminal justice legislation
Alabama House passes bail reform bill named for Aniah Blanchard
McCutcheon endorses Chris Lewis for Congress
Litaker challenges opponent to pledge to not run for another office in 2022
Bill to change the process to implement occupational tax advances in the Senate
Marsh holds meeting with gaming interests day after Ivey calls for the Legislature to stand down on gaming
Private prison company eyes Elmore County land for one of state’s new prisons
Opinion | Deception, subtlety and the wholesale destruction of current ethics laws mark proposed rewrite
Developer Tim James proposes privately-funded toll road as “catalyst for economic growth”
How Alabama’s government stays broken
Lawmaker files bill to ban treatments for transgender kids
Alabama Democratic Conference endorses Michael Bloomberg for president
New marshal installed at Alabama Supreme Court
Education4 days ago
House passes Tier III retirement for education employees
National3 days ago
Doug Jones: Anniston could still be called upon to treat coronavirus patients
Legislature4 days ago
Bill unlocks the “revolving door” for public employees
Crime3 days ago
‘He was a human being’ Family hopes son’s death at Holman prison not in vain