IU Law School Clears Bradford Foes Of Wrongdoing

Former IU-Indy law school professor William Bradford had accused two professors of the law school of unfairly blocking him from becoming a tenured professor after just three years at the school because of his pro-military sentiments on the war in Iraq and discriminating against him because he is a native American. A law student blogsite, IndyLaw, posted a statement interim Dean Susannah Mead released to law students clearing Professors Mary Mitchell and Florence Roisman of any wrongdoing. Mead wrote:

[The Adademic Ethics Review Committee] found no evidence of discrimination on the part of Professors Mitchell and Roisman and concluded that they conducted themselves responsibly and honorably. In my view, Professors Mitchell and Roisman have now been fully exonerated by these actions.

Mead noted that charges Mitchell and Roisman had lodged against Bradford were mooted by his abrupt resignation late last year. Mead indicated that the "matter is closed" and asked student to join her "in putting this unfortunate episode behind us and moving forward in an atmosphere of mutual respect and collegiality."

Bradford's cause had initially been taken up by conservatives across the country who believed Bradford was a victim of the liberal academic culture in America. He made an appearance on FOX News' O'Reilly Factory a short time before it was disclosed that he had misrepresented his military record and service honors. The Star's Ruth Holladay uncovered the discrepancies in Bradford's military record after she discovered he had misrepresented a number of facts about his case for tenure at the law school, which she relied upon in writing a column supportive of his position.

Indiana Supremes Declare School Service Fees Unconstitutional

FEES FOR TEXTBOOKS OK
By way of the Indiana Law Blog, we learn that the Indiana Supreme Court released an opinion today for Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh County School Corporation, a case in which the constitutionality of a $20 student services fee charged to all students of a public school system was challenged on both federal and state grounds. In a 4-1 decision, the Court held that the student services fee violates Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution. Unlike the Court of Appeals, however, its ruling did not extend the "free tuition" coverage in the state's constitution to include textbook rental fees.

The provision of the Indiana Constitution in question pertains to a requirement that the "General Assembly . . . provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all." The plaintiffs also challenged the student services fee under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, but the Court did not consider that ground because the decision was decided by the Court of Appeals to be in violation of the state constitution.

The student services fee challenged by parents of the school system was used "to pay for, among other things, a coordinator of student services, nurses, media specialists, alternative education, elementary school counselors, a police liaison program, and activities such as athletics, drama and music." Every student was required to pay the $20 fee, including those who qualified for free or reduced fees for school lunches and textbooks. Parents who failed to pay the fee were taken to court and charged a collection fee of up to $100.

The majority opinion written by Justice Rucker examines the legislative history surrounding this particular provision of the Indiana Constitution. The majority took issue with a sweeping read of the provision by the Court of Appeals which interpreted Article 8, Section 1 "to mean that not only must Indiana public schools not charge for ‘tuition’ in the sense of the services of a teacher or instruction, but also must not charge for those functions and services which are by their very nature essential to teaching or ‘tuition,’" which could include textbook fees as well. Rucker wrote, "We are of the view that that the holding expressed by our colleagues sweeps a little too broadly." He continued, "[U]nlike constitutions in a number of states, the framers of Indiana’s constitution were careful not to provide for a free school system. Rather, at most the framers provided that tuition would be free, or more precisely "tuition shall be without charge."

Rucker's opinion takes a fascinating look at the history surrounding the free common school debate in Indiana in the 1840s. A public referendum on the question in 1848 was approved by just 56% of the state's voters. Strong opposition came from the state's wealthier and poorer residents. Interestingly, some voters feared that a free public school system would endanger religious freedom. One resident said, "The bait is to give our children an education; the chief object is to religiously traditionize them, and then unite Church and state." Perhaps that person perceptively had in mind someone like D.C. Stephenson or Eric Miller. Interpreting the text of the constitution in the context of the history surrounding its passage, Rucker concludes a narrower meaning of "tuition without charge." He writes, "Rather than completely subsidizing education, which would fall within the meaning of a "free school" system, the framers pursued a more modest, and perhaps less controversial, route: a uniform statewide system of public schools that would be supported by taxation. Indeed the term "common school" was widely understood to mean "public school."

The Court then looked at how the Indiana General Assembly had gone about creating a general and uniform system of public schools. Rucker writes:

Where the legislature—or through delegation of its authority the State Board—has identified programs, activities, projects, services or curricula that it either mandates or permits school corporations to undertake, the legislature has made a policy decision regarding exactly what qualifies as a part of a uniform system of public education commanded by Article 8, Section 1 and thus what qualifies for funding at public expense. And of course the legislature has the authority to place appropriate conditions or limitations on any such funding. However, absent specific statutory authority, fees or charges for what are otherwise public education cost items cannot be levied directly or indirectly against students or their parents. Only programs, activities, projects, services or curricula that are outside of or expand upon those identified by the legislature—what we understand to be "extracurricular"—may be considered as not a part of a publicly-funded education. And thus a reasonable fee may be assessed, but only against those students who participate in or take advantage of them.

The Court noted that the items for which the student service fees were charged by the school were all items that had been deemed by the legislature or the State Board of Education to be "part and parcel of a public school education and by extension qualify for public funding." The problem the court found with the fee was that it also included "programs, services or activities that are outside of or expand upon those deemed by the legislature or State Board." Rucker writes, "[T]he mandatory fee [the school] imposed generally on all students, whether the student avails herself of a service or participates in a program or activity or not, becomes a charge for attending a public school and obtaining a public education. Such a charge contravenes the "Common Schools" mandate as the term is used in Article 8, Section 1 and is therefore unconstitutional. Rucker hastens to add though, "The Indiana Constitution does not prohibit [schools] from charging individual students for their participation in such extracurriculars or for their consumption of such services."

Rucker's opinion seems to leave room for the legislature to enact a law which specifically permits schools to levy a student services fee on all students as long as they don't fall within the "extra-curricular" gambit.

Justice Sullivan issued a very short dissenting opinion. He writes, "Because the trial court found that the things for which the fee was imposed were things that, to use the Court’s formulation, were "outside of or expand[ed] upon those identified by the legislature" as part of the constitutionally commanded uniform system of public education, I believe that even under the Court’s construction of Article 8, Section 1, the fee was permissible."

Daniels Tells Indy Bars To Drink Up

In a move that will make him at least momentarily popular with Indianapolis' bar owners, Gov. Mitch Daniels has instructed the state's alcohol and excise police to ignore this weekend's time change to daylight savings time and allow bar owners to stay open an extra hour. Without the change, bar owners would have been required to close an hour earlier as a result of the time change, which requires clocks be moved forward an hour for observance of DST. Because Indianapolis plays host to the NCAA's Final Four men's basketball tournament, bar owners feared the loss of substantial revenues if they had to turn away out-of-town visitors an hour earlier. With this change, bars will now be allowed to serve alcohol until 4:00 a.m.

Scalia To Reporter: Vaffanculo!

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denied making an obscene gesture to a news photographer after departing a Catholic mass this past weekend as first reported by the Boston Herald, but the news photographer says otherwise. “It’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot, writes the Boston Herald. And if that's not enough, the news photographer produced the smoking gun evidence--the picture he took of Scalia making the gesture. The paper writes:

Despite Scalia’s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper “got the story right.” Smith said the jurist “immediately knew he’d made a mistake, and said, ‘You’re not going to print that, are you?’ ” Scalia’s office yesterday referred questions regarding the flap to Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg, who said a letter Scalia sent Tuesday to the Herald defending his gesture at the cathedral “speaks for itself.” “He has no further comment,” Arberg said. Smith was working as a freelance photographer for the Boston archdiocese’s weekly newspaper at a special Mass for lawyers Sunday when a Herald reporter asked the justice how he responds to critics who might question his impartiality as a judge given his public worship. “The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said. The Italian phrase means “(expletive) you.”

You read that right. The term "Vaffanculo" is an Italian cuss word for "fuck you."

Star's Sellout To Realtors?

The Indianapolis Star handed its opinion page over to Indiana's realtors today, allowing a guest column from the sponsor of the "Realtor Protection Law", Rep. Tim Harris, and a "friendly" letter-to-the-editor from the industry's lobbyist to argue that the pro-industry bill is actually pro-consumer. This after the Star allowed one out-of-state consumer advocate to blow the whistle on the consumer wrip-off law, which benefits only greedy realtors. And, for the record, the Star has devoted not one column inch of its news pages to the self-serving law.

In his guest column, Rep. Harris says, "I thought I would set the record straight by giving factual information" in response to the March 19 letter-to-the editor. Here is what Patrick Woodall of the Consumer Federation of Amerca wrote about Harris' legislation:

At the urging of traditional real estate brokers, the Indiana legislature quickly and quietly passed a bill that would make homeownership even more expensive. House Bill 1339 requires all real estate brokers to provide "minimum services." This seemingly innocuous change is an attempt to protect brokers' 6 percent commission from market competition. Unfortunately, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed this anti-consumer bill.

The change will require real estate agents to provide a full set of services -- marketing the home, receiving offers from potential buyers, sales negotiation and handling closing procedures -- even if the homeowner doesn't want or need these advisory services. It is an attempt to prevent consumers from accessing a range of new, lower-cost real estate models.New brokers, for a much lower fee, will market homes in the multiple listing service and provide marketing support but allow the homeowner to handle everything else -- show the house and negotiate the closing -- or hire a different party to provide those services. For example, many homeowners have turned to for-sale-by-owner services, which provide little more than a multiple listing and a yard sign . . .

In other services, new business models using the Internet and technology brought improvements years ago -- such as in securities brokerage and travel -- but the changes are only beginning to affect the real estate industry. Rather than embracing market competition, industry leaders are attempting to use government to preserve the old model and prevent consumers from using less expensive real estate services.

Similar efforts to limit competition from Internet real estate brokers drew a Justice Department antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors. And the same effort is behind the Indiana legislation.

The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, along with consumer groups and many new real estate brokers, opposes the law. Gov. Mitch Daniels did not act in the best interests of consumers and homeowners when he signed this legislation.

Harris argues that Woodall suggested the new law would end the fee-for-service business model. He writes, "The letter implies that HB 1339 will prohibit the discount brokerage business model. This is simply not true. Go to http://www.flatfeemlslisting.com/ and you will see that these firms still operate in states that have passed laws similar to HB 1339. No evidence has been produced showing an adverse impact on the discount brokerages operating in these states."

Rep. Harris is correct that the new law doesn't bar fee-for-service agreements, but he skirts the real issue. The fee-for-service Woodall referred to in his letter was an agreement where the homeseller purchases for a small fee a service which allows the seller to perform seller duties normally performed by the agent, such as meeting with the buyer's agent to negotiate the terms of the sale and preparing counter-offers and otherwise taking actions to bring about the sale of the home. Fee-for-service brokers may still offer services which require them to perform all of these duties for the homeseller, but at a much higher price.

AI explained the new law's impact on fee-for-service provider Home Yeah recently. We wrote:

As much as Slimak is concerned about the impact on his own business, he points out that the big losers are Indiana consumers, who are deprived of real choices in selling their homes because of the protective nature of the new law. When the new law takes effect on July 1, 2006, it will impact HomeYeah's Market + product the greatest according to Slimak. For a flat fee of $499, a homeseller can market their home through HomeYeah, plus have their home listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), which is managed by the local board of realtors. This requires the homeseller to offer the buyer's real estate commission (i.e., 3%-3.5%), while paying HomeYeah only the flat fee of $499. The Market + service represents 62% of HomeYeah's existing business.

As of July 1, 2006, Indiana's "Realtor Protection Law" will bar HomeYeah from offering this service. That's because the new law mandates that a selling agent provide a minimum amount of services in order to accept a fee for their service, such as marketing the home, receiving offers from potential buyers, sales negotiation and handling closing procedures, even if the homeowner doesn't want or need these advisory services. If a homeseller wants to utilize HomeYeah's services, it will now be required to purchase a much costlier service for $1,999, regardless of whether the homeseller wants the additional services.

In the case of Home Yeah, yeah, you can still use their fee-for-service, but the homeseller will have to pay $1,500 more for a service it could have purchased for just $499 prior to the enactment of the new law. According to Home Yeah, up to now, 62% of its customers choose the lower-cost service, many of whom are financially distressed and need to be able to sell their home for the lowest possible cost. Other homesellers choose the service because they are more savvy and don't need the services provided by an agent. The new law does nothing to protect homesellers; it only limits the choices they have in marketing and selling their new home by forcing them to select a more costly service if they choose the fee-for-service route rather than the traditional sales route, which requires them to pay a commission of 6%-7% to the sales agent.

Of course, Rep. Harris clues us in on the fact that he has a vested interest in maintaining a tight relationship with the traditional realtor community. In defending the new law, he writes, "I have been involved in the real estate industry as a title insurance agent for more than a decade and can assure you I would never author legislation that would lessen consumer choices or harm the industry." Thanks Rep. Harris for explaining your selfish desire for screwing Indiana's homesellers.

The Star also gives column space today to the realtor's chief lobbyist, Karl Berron, who sheparded this consumer wrip-off bill through the legislature. He has the audacity to tell Star readers, "Woodall's criticisms are not only inaccurate, they are borderline offensive." The services hard-pressed and consumer-savvy homesellers will no longer be able to purchase in Indiana Berron refers to as "hit and run listings." He explains, "This happens when a firm lists a property for sale, charges an up-front fee and then abandons the project, leaving the consumer with no representation. Consumers often then turn to the agents of potential buyers to help them through the transaction, even though that agent works for the opposing party in the transaction." Berron doesn't have a similar problem with an agent getting to walk away with half of the commission for the transaction for doing nothing but listing the property, which is often the case.

Nice try Karl, but the Justice Department doesn't see it the same way. As AI previously reported, "The Justice Department and the FTC have warned several states in recent months that such laws hamper innovation and competition, and have formally objected to industry-supported proposals in Oklahoma and Texas." Indiana has now made itself a target of anti-trust action by the Justice Department by virtue of enacting this self-serving law to limit competition for Berron's industry.

AI hopes that the advertising the realtors purchase from the Star has not in some way affected its ability to provide unbiased news coverage to its readers. It is remarkable that a law which so dramatically alters the real estate legal landscape in Indiana has so far escaped mention on its news pages.

The Indiana Law Blog has its own take on today's development. Click here to read.

United Aircraft Mechanics Learn The Hard Way: New Book Showcasing Their Plight

AI recently talked about the inability of a rising tide to lift all boats in our current economic climate in terms of what most American workers are able to earn in wages. A new book a by New York Times economics writer Louis Uchitelle underscores the problem. "The Disposable American: Layoffs and Their Consequences," showcases the plight of United Airlines aircraft mechanics in Indianapolis to illustrate the struggle American workers have in finding jobs which pay a decent wage, irrespective of their skills and education.

What is our response to layoffs, particularly high-paid manufacturing/mechanical jobs? Retrainining and more education have been the policy "heralded as a sure path to new and better-paying jobs" Uchitelle writes in his book. There's only one problem: the policy doesn't work. And nobody came to understand that reality better than the nearly 2,000 aircraft mechanics who lost their jobs when United Airlines began laying off and eventually closed its aircraft maintenance facility in Indianapolis.

Uchitelle retraces the beginning of the mechanics' downfall. A hard-line union attitude about work hours and over-time resulted in a deliberate slowdown in worker productivity by the mechanics. United struck back by beginning to outsource work to other non-union contractors in the south, whose wage costs were half those of United mechanics, resulting in layoffs of union mechanics. The union quickly softened its stance and, initially, worked with the company to retrain and educate laid off workers.

The federal government stepped in with federal grants to help with the retraining. The Indianapolis Private Industry Council, Uchitelle explains, acted as a conduit for funneling the federal dollars into retraining efforts. The Council contracted with Goodwill Industries of Central Indiana. Their goal was to get most of the laid off mechanics re-employed at 90% of the previous wage, which in the case of the mechanics was $31/hour. And since the laid off workers were earning only $336/week in unemployment benefits, down from the $1,100 they earned in their previous jobs, the mechanics welcomed the assistance the training program offered. Nonetheless, the efforts failed and failed miserably. Uchitelle writes, "But the employment goals were not met. They could not be met; they were too optimistic, mythically optimistic."

Uchitelle found that the aircraft mechanics didn't need any training or education. As it turns out, they were way over-qualified for the supply of jobs the market offered. Uchitelle explains:

But training for what? The reality, as the aircraft mechanics discovered, is painfully different from the reigning wisdom. Rather than having a shortage of skills, millions of American workers have more skills than their jobs require. That is particularly true of college-educated people, who make up 30 percent of the population today, up from 10 percent in the 1960's. They often find themselves working in sales or as office administrators, or taking jobs in hotels and restaurants, or becoming carpenters, flight attendants and word processors . . .

So the demand for jobs is considerably greater than the supply, and the supply is not what the reigning theory says it is. Most of the unfilled jobs pay low wages and require relatively little skill, often less than the jobholder has. From the spring of 2003 to the spring of 2004, for example, more than 55 percent of the hiring was at wages of $13.25 an hour or less: hotel and restaurant workers, health care mployees, temporary replacements and the like.

The outcome of the retraining and education efforts of the aircraft mechanics who participated in Goodwill's program made Uchitelle's point abundantly clear. Instead of the $31 an hour they were accustomed to earning, more than half of the laid off workers who participated in the program found jobs earning between $14 and $20 an hour, such as HVAC repairmen, auto mechanics, computer maintenance workers or truck drivers. Nearly one-fifth of those workers wound up in jobs which paid less than $13.25 an hour, working in jobs at warehouses, construction, retail and restaurants. Only 15 of the 185 who completed the program found jobs earning at or above their old wage. Of those 15, half of them were re-employed elsewhere as aircraft mechanics, and they were typically younger, lower-paid workers earning close to that of their non-union counterparts. Describing the utter failure of the efforts, Uchitelle writes:

The process was like a funnel: wide at one end, where all the laid-off workers go in, and narrow at the other, where a limited number gradually emerge into retraining and, if they are lucky, new jobs at decent pay. Mark A. Crouch, a professor of labor studies at Indiana University, used another analogy to describe the recycling of laid-off workers. He called it a "burial program."

Uchitelle's book really brings home the point that our current approach is just not working. We need an economy that is producing better paying jobs to match the skills and education of our workforce, not more low-paying jobs that offer no hope of prosperity to job-seekers.

Murphy Accelerates Plan To Dismantle Marion Co. GOP

When the Marion Co. GOP can cause more trouble at home for a patriotic soldier and public servant who's proudly serving his nation in Afghanistan than he's experiencing on the battlefield, you know things have gotten pretty bad. The Star's Matt Tully reminds us of that today in recounting the plight of Indianapolis city-county councilor Lance Langsford (R). As he explains:

If there's even the tiniest chance a situation can be fouled up, count on the dysfunctional Marion County Republican Party to do the job. Consider the case of Lance Langsford, a friendly and hard-working Republican councilman from the city's Eastside. A firefighter in normal times, Langsford and his Indiana National Guard unit were recently activated. So, as the rest of us prepare to soak in the madness of this weekend's Final Four, Langsford is living in a barren camp in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Tully recounts how Langsford intended to resign his seat so his wife could be appointed to fill it until he returned back from his call of duty just like he had done once before when he was called up for duty in Kosovo. The problem is that the Republican committeemen who get to make the appointment are receiving marching orders to appoint someone other than Langsford's wife, Becky. Tully writes, "Langsford angered Republicans last year by backing Mayor Bart Peterson's police merger plan. So, as payback, two police officers are asking party officials to give them Langsford's seat. The party isn't saying no."

Although his story doesn't touch on it, Langsford's vote in support of the HRO, which protected gays, lesbians and transgender persons from discrimination, similarly angered extremist members of the GOP caucus, including Jim Bradford, Ginny Cain and Scott Schneider. Bradford went so far as to demand that both Langsford and HRO sponsor Scott Keller (R) leave the Republican Party over the vote.

Langsford sees hypocrisy in the party's position on filling his vacant Tully reports. He writes:

Langsford pointed to the hypocrisy of "flag-waving Republicans" backstabbing him while he's on active duty. He wants GOP Chairman Mike Murphy to demand the party stand by its man in Afghanistan and let the Langsfords finish this term. Publicly, Murphy half-heartedly agrees. But he has let this issue linger for months. And so Langsford, serving in Kabul, feels like he has enemies right here in Marion County. Interestingly, this embarrassing situation could have boosted the local Republican Party's sagging image, if leaders had rejected politics and vowed to help care for Langsford's district during his stint in Kabul.

Tully left some of the best items from his long-distance interview for his blog. Langsford actually offered to commit not to seek re-election to his council seat in 2007 if the GOP would simply agree to appoint his wife while he is serving in Afghanistan and let him be re-seated when his tour of duty ends. If that doesn't happen? Tully quotes Langsford as saying, "If Becky doesn’t sit in that seat, I’m not resigning. And when I get back I’ll run again and I’ll run hard. I’ll give them a run for their money. And if I’m not slated, I’ll run against the slate.”

Tully also clues us in on what a low opinion Langsford has of Marion Co. GOP chairman Mike Murphy, and he pretty much hits the nail on the head. Langsford tells Tully, "Mike Murphy hasn’t done a good job. I don’t think he’s done a good job at the legislative level. I don’t think he’s done a good job leading the Republican Party. Their focus in life is to make Mayor Peterson look bad. What does that have to do with making good decisions for the community? It’s not logical or rational but that’s their approach. That’s when you start losing me. The Republicans are not offering any options or alternatives other than to make the mayor look bad.”

And on the cold shoulder he's been getting from his fellow GOP councilors, Langsford tells Tully, "I’ve gotten e-mails from Democratic council members, but not one e-mail from anyone on the Republican side. That’s the type of character that those individuals have. That’s fine." Langsford tells Tully he is actually having to rely on a Democratic councilor, Joanne Sanders, to assist him with his constituent matters.

Advance Indiana has just one question for Mike Murphy: How much more damage are you planning to inflict on the Marion Co. GOP before you get the hell out of the way? With an enemy like you, the Marion Co. Democrats hardly need friends to solidify their lock on the county for generations to come.

Ellsworth Moves To The Right Of Hostettler On Immigration Reform

In a remarkably stupid poltical move, Eighth District Democratic congressional candidate Brad Ellsworth has decided to outflank Rep. John Hostettler on the extreme fringe of the immigration issue. The Howey Political Report says that Ellsworth is flat out opposed to any amnesty for America's 10-15 million undocumented aliens. Howey writes:

Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth, Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in Indiana’s 8th District, called on the U.S. Senate to pass the House immigration plan and oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. “Giving lawbreakers amnesty is wrong,” Ellsworth said. “We need to crack down on illegal immigrants, not give them an excuse to break the law.” Ellsworth called for Senate passage of a measure sponsored by Republican Representatives James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Peter King of New York that passed the House in December. It is intended to increase security on the nation’s borders and require employers to verify job applicants’ immigration status before hiring them. “For far too long folks in Washington have ignored this problem,” Ellsworth said. “Now, illegal immigrants account for one of every twenty workers, taking jobs from Americans and breaching the security of our homeland.” Ellsworth's opponent, U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, has been a leading advocate of a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Now, we know that Hostettler understands his extremist view, but how familiar is Ellsworth with his? Let's explain this to Sheriff Ellsworth. By saying you are for the Sensenbrenner bill which passed the House last year, you are saying that all undocumented aliens currently living and working in this country will be deemed felons. You are also saying that all the employers who employ undocumented aliens will be charged as criminals. And, all those charities (religious charities included) providing services to undocumented aliens will be criminally charged for aiding and abetting them. As a respected law enforcement officer, can Sheriff Hostettler not imagine the civil war this would set off in our own country if the federal government were to actually be put in the position of having to enforce this "cruel and unusual" punishment?

Let's not forget that we are a nation of immigrants. Many of our ancestors were able to immigrate to this country simply by landing at Ellis Island and remaining here for a certain period of time--no questions asked. Our immigration laws are more restrictive now than they have been at any point in our history. Is it any wonder we have so many undocumented aliens? Did our own government not deliberately make a decision to, in effect, wave them across the border to make sure our employers had an ample supply of cheap labor?

Whether you like the fact that we have so many undocumented aliens or not, the issue has to be dealt with in a humane fashion that is least disruptive to families, our economy and the civil order. Sensenbrenner's legislation doesn't come close to passing that test. As a law enforcement officer, Ellsworth should understand this better than Hostettler. Unfortunately, he does not.

Abdul Hits Kennedy On "Inactive Status"

Melina Kennedy's campaign for Marion Co. Prosecutor took a hit today when WXIN radio talk show host Abdul Hakim-Shabazz raised questions about Kennedy's listed "inactive status" as an attorney admitted to practice law in Indiana for a 9-month period ending last June. Already plagued by critics' charge that she lacks prosecutorial experience, this latest revelation is likely to raise questions about her commitment to the practice of law. As Abdul explains at Indiana Barrister:

The potential problem for Kennedy is that for nearly nine months, September 18, 2004 through June 6, 2005, Kennedy was on the inactive list. She left the Mayor's office in September 2005, created an exploratory committee for prosecutor in October 2005 and officially field for prosecutor on February 1, 2006. Kennedy would not have been able to legally serve as prosecutor one year prior to forming her exploratory committee.

Usually when attorneys go on "inactive" status it is because they leave the state, the profession or have committed some misconduct. Sometimes, like me earlier this year, they forget to pay their registration fee. They send in a check and get back on the list. I sent mine after getting the letter in the mail and am in good standing in the State of Illinois. To the best of my knowledge, none of those circumstances apply to Kennedy, which makes the nine-month absence rather odd. Why would someone who is considering running for Prosecutor, who knows experience will be an issue, take a nearly nine-month absence from the active list? She was still in the Mayor's office while inactive. While she could not practice law, she was still a key aide to Mayor Peterson in the area of economic development.

According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, Kennedy was first admitted to practice law in Indiana on June 14, 1996. The publicly available records reveal a gap in her active status. She has been an active member in good standing since June 6, 2005. Abdul reports that her "inactive status" kicked in on September 18, 2004, although that date isn't currently provided on the Roll of Attorneys' listing for Kennedy. Abdul opines that an attorney goes into "inactive status" when "they leave the state, the profession or having committed some misconduct."

At the purported time of her "inactive status", Kennedy worked in a non-legal policy position for Mayor Bart Peterson's administration. Although she was not actively engaged in the practice of law, Kennedy could have maintained her "in good standing" status to practice law as long as she paid the annual attorney registration fee and performed the minimum amount of continuing legal education hours for the current year and the applicable 3-year cycle. Attorneys who retire, stop practicing in Indiana, or switch to a non-legal job typically elect "inactive status", which they can do by executing an affidavit swearing that they are no longer engaged in the practice of law but wish to maintain inactive status in Indiana.

By adjusting to "inactive status", an attorney is no longer subject to the CLE requirements as long as he/she remains in that status; however, the attorney is not allowed to practice law while on "inactive status." While some states don't require attorneys to take CLE as a continuing requirement to practice law, Indiana does. An attorney who fails to comply with CLE requirements can be suspended and even disbarred in Indiana.

An inactive attorney can return to active status after electing "inactive status" as long as the current CLE requirements are satisfied. In Kennedy's case, because she was in "inactive status" for less than a year, she would have had to have fulfilled any unmet CLE requirements for the period of her inactivity. Abdul notes that Kennedy became a mother during her inactive period, but the Kennedy campaign did not offer that as a reason for her "inactive status" according to Abdul (UPDATE NOTE: per Sheila Kennedy's post below--Melina gave birth to twins during this period and needed the time off for this reason, although her campaign did not mention that according to Abdul's account below). Abdul explains what the campaign told him about Kennedy's "inactive status":

I asked the Kennedy camp about this entire situation this afternoon. The response from campaign manager Andy Miller and spokesman Tim Moriarty was essentially, "It doesn't matter." They maintain that Kennedy's work in the Mayor's office fighting domestic violence and promoting economic development are experience enough. They also point to her work on the State Supreme Court and the fact she is in good standing now. They argue Kennedy's experience speaks for itself and they don't see how not being able to practice law for close to nine months is an issue.

Certainly the fact that an attorney at some point in their career elects "inactive status" does not in any way diminish their competence to practice law. In Kennedy's case, however, the timing of it so close to the time she decided to run for prosecutor makes it a relevant issue. It tells us that she swore in writing to our Supreme Court, for whom she once worked, that she no longer intended to practice law in Indiana for an unspecified period of time. And she took this act a year before she launched her campaign for Marion Co. Prosecutor.

Abdul assures us that Republicans intend to make an issue of her inactive status. He says, "Marion County GOP Chairman Mike Murphy said 'the nine-month lapse reveals Kennedy was not serious about being prosecutor or a lawyer.'" (Update: In light of Sheila Kennedy's comments below about the birth of her twins during this period, the issue could cut both ways). Matt Tully was right. This race is going to be brutal.

Play Poker In The Agora

Blogger Joshua Claybourne introduces Las Vegas-style gambling to his blogsite, In The Agora. The IU law student invites his readers to participate in a little online gambling action, "Love Poker?" Here's Claybourne's offer:

Thanks to a partnership with PartyPoker.com, ITA readers are entitled to a free $25 signup bonus when you deposit a minimum $50 with the site. Just click on the image to the left and use the bonus code "AGORA" when you sign up.

As a frequent poker player myself and a user of the site, I can attest to its superiority over other poker sites. It is, after all, the biggest poker website in the world. So if you like playing and want an additional $25, go here and get started. Remember to use the bonus code "AGORA".

Some of his readers aren't real hip on Claybourne's offer to join the game. Here's a sampling of some of the comments:

I'm kind of surprised about this affiliation myself.

Ethics and morality aside, the legality or illegality of on-line gambling has not been established. I'm a little surprised that ITA would endorse something where legality has not been clearly determined. Further, on-line gambling has been specifically outlawed by some states and some credit card companies won't accept charges because they are unsure whether it is a legal activity. This particular company owns no assets in the U.S. specifically for the purpose of skirting U.S. gambling laws. It is one thing for Josh or any other ITA writer to be involved in gambling as a personal decison. However, though it is their right to use ITA to promote gambling, I'm sorely disappointed that they are doing so. Problem on-line gambling has become a significant crisis for many college kids. I don't see that they need an extra push from Christian leaders.

Lest anyone think this is an easy way to make $25 (as I did, contemplating merely withdrawing my $75 after my initial deposit of $50), the free money comes with some pretty serious strings attached. I can't say that I completely understand the terms, but I can tell that there's a fair amount of risk required before you get your bonus.

. . . So, you have to wager $125 before you'll get your bonus $25.

Many of the chief owners of the outfit have had serious connections to online pornography. I just think people should know the type of people they are affiliating with. I'm still surprised that ITA wants to advance this cause, but it appears I'm not going to get an answer to my concerns, so I'll abandon this post and address it my own post.

Actually, on-line gambling is illegal in Indiana. See:IC 35-45-5-2 Unlawful gambling Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally engages in gambling commits unlawful gambling.(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), unlawful gambling is a Class B misdemeanor.(c) An operator who knowingly or intentionally uses the Internet to engage in unlawful gambling:(1) in Indiana; or(2) with a person located in Indiana;commits a Class D felony.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of online gambling I think you need to be careful running this alongside Adsense. The Adsense policies page states "Site may not include: Gambling or casino-related content." I'd say if nothing else you need to delete this post or ditch Adsense.

Advance Indiana can appreciate In The Agora's desire to make a little bit of money from its site. These blogsites aren't exactly money-makers, unless you are a big-time site like Americablog, Daily Kos or Redstate. For the record, AI has no revenues to date, and no--we don't get paid to blog certain points of view like a lot of other bloggers. But these online gambling sites are bad news all around, not to mention the legality of such operations. They make it just too easy for problem gamblers to feed their addiction, the operators are typically based off-shore and have little, if any oversight, and all that that implies.

Bauer Takes Top Honors On Tully's "Messing Up Indiana" List

Indianapolis Star political columnist Matt Tully recently asked readers to assist him in compiling a list of the top "100 People Who Are Messing Up Indiana." The winner by a long shot was House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer. Tully said, "He nearly doubled his nearest competitor, getting selected, it seemed, by Republicans and Democrats alike. One person called Bauer, 'A do nothing politician at his best and an obstructionist politician at his worst.' That pretty much summed up the view of his detractors."

House Speaker Brian Bosma came in second to Bauer. Tully said, "Many pointed to Bosma’s fight in recent months against a court ruling that restricted certain prayers at the Statehouse." For as much as he's been beaten around in recent months, surprisingly Gov. Daniels placed third behind Bauer and Bosma. Tully writes, "For all the talk about how controversial Daniels is, he came in a relatively distant third. And unlike Bauer and Bosma, many people also came to the governor’s defense. One person wrote that, 'Mitch runs this government like a business, all he knows is stock options and portfolios and the bottom line.' Another, however, said we should all, 'give him and his ideas a chance.'"

Placing fourth on the list was no less than the Grand Dragon of Moral Righteousness Eric Miller. "The conservative troublemaker came in fourth, a significant showing for someone who has been out of the news lately." And rounding out the top five was U.S. Rep. Julia Carson. "By my unofficial count, Carson tied Miller," Tully said.

Earning honorable mentions on the list were: Senate President Pro Tem Robert Garton, Senator Pat Miller, Miles Brand (I guess he's still getting blamed for Bobby Knight's downfall), and Mayor Bart Peterson.

Scalia Gives Reporters The Finger--For Real

Americablog picks up a Boston Herald item about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia flipping the finger at reporters as he departed a Catholic mass he attended yesterday. Scalia apparently wanted to let reporters know how he felt about their questions pertaining to his impartiality when it comes to church-state matters. The Boston newspaper wrote:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics. A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state."You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian." The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper."Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald
said.

Given how highly Scalia is regarded by the Catholic Church, we suspect the photographer won't be giving up his smoking gun evidence. Scalia was already under fire from the left for pre-judging a case before the Court pertaining to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other federal facilities which are housing suspected terrorists. It sounds like Scalia just doesn't give a damn anymore what anyone thinks of him after being passed over for Chief Justice by President Bush. Americablog reports:

This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the special military commissions created by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees violate national and international law, as human rights groups charge. But Justice Antonin Scalia doesn’t have to wait for arguments — his mind is already made up. Newsweek reports that in a controversial unpublicized March 8 speech, Scalia “dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions.”

“War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,” he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK.“Give me a break" - challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don’t have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: “If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy.”

Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

Kennedy Teams Up With Anti-Gay Bigot To Bar Sex Offenders From City Parks

In a move not likely to win her favor with Indianapolis’ GLBT community, Democratic prosecutorial candidate Melina Kennedy joined one of the leading anti-gay bigoted members of the city-county council, Mary Moriarty Adams, at a press conference this morning to support a new ordinance barring registered sex offenders from using the city’s public parks. Adams is one of only two Democratic members of the city-county council to vote twice against the passage of the Human Rights Ordinance barring discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender persons.

The Star’s Brenden O’Shaughnessy reports:

Sex offenders who have committed crimes against children would be banned from public parks and other gathering places under an ordinance that will be introduced in a City-County Council meeting tonight.

The ban would require anyone registered as a sexually violent predator on the Indiana State Sex Offender Registry to stay at least 1,000 feet from a public playground, recreation center, swimming pool, beach or sports facility when children are present. The ordinance adds civil penalty fines of $300, $500 or $2,500 to existing criminal penalties for violations.

Mary Moriarty Adams, a council member, and Melina Kennedy, a candidate for county prosecutor, held a press conference this morning at a Near-Northside playground to announce the proposal. Adams said a constituent had complained about a problem with a registered sex offender living across the street from a Catholic school playground.

Some might view this effort as a little over-kill. Governor Daniels recently signed into law SEA 246, which severely limits registered sex offenders proximity to places like public parks. It prohibits a sexually violent predator from working or volunteering on school property or at a public park or youth program. It further prohibits sex offenders from residing within 1, 000 feet of a school, public park, or youth center, or within a mile of their victim’s home.

While Kennedy may have the best of intentions in her support of the proposal, many in the GLBT community will wonder why she chose such an anti-gay bigot as Adams to team up with on this effort. Adam’s motivation in supporting this proposal is probably different from Kennedy’s.

Her Republican opponent, Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, won applause from the GLBT community last year when he enacted a non-discrimination ordinance for his own office prior to the enactment of the HRO. He was condemned by religious right groups, such as Advance America and the American Family Association for protecting gay employees of his office from discrimination.

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union fought a legal battle for a convicted child molester a couple of years ago, who was barred from entering Lafayette’s public parks. The ICLU argued that the ban violated the man’s First Amendment rights. A divided 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upheld the city’s ban on a vote of 8-3. The Indiana Law Blog also reports that the ICLU is challenging a similar ordinance enacted by Plainfield.

Rising Tide Not Lifting All Boats In Indiana

The Star's business columnist John Ketzenberger takes to task recent comments made by Treasury Secretary John Snow that everyone's doing better in the current economy. Specifically, Ketzenberger uses the following quote Snow gave in a Wall Street Journal report:

"Look at the Harvard economics faculty, look at doctors over here at George Washington University . . . look at baseball players, look at football players," Snow told the Journal. "We've moved into a star system for some reason which is not fully understood."

The market, Snow explained, is rewarding the nation's most productive people with the highest compensation. And the rising tide, he argued, is lifting all boats.

"A rising tide lifts all boats" is an often used quote, most often by Republicans, although it was John F. Kennedy who first used it in a political sense to argue for tax cuts during his presidency. Ketzenberger points out that income figures for Indiana don't bear out Snow's claim. Citing median income figures showing an actual decline for Indiana over the past several years, he writes:

The median income for a Hoosier household fell 5.5 percent from 2000 to 2004, according to Jerry Conover, director of the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University. That means half of Indiana incomes are above that level and half sit below.

And that means a household here is not making as much as it was in 2000. "I don't think Secretary Snow's statement is fully reflective of the marketplace," said Conover. Snow relied on averages to make his case, Conover noted, so significant jumps in income among high-end households will skew those averages.

It almost sounds like Snow is suggesting the solution for Indiana's lagging income is for the Pacers or Eli Lilly and Co. to sign more high-priced free agents.

"It reinforces the notion that the people in charge don't know what the hell's going on," said Willard Witte, an IU economics professor.

It's a long way from Washington to Kokomo, that's for sure.

Ketzenberger's comments highlight just how out of touch someone like Snow is. He is a multi-millionaire former executive of CSX, and he obviously doesn't know what it's like for the average American trying to earn a decent wage.

Just from personal observation, it certainly seems to me that the divide between the haves and have nots in America has changed dramatically in my lifetime. There are so many more super rich in this country than there were when I was growing up. But the vast majority of people are having to work harder and look for income from second jobs just to keep their heads above water. In the case of married couples, it's nearly impossible for one spouse to stay at home if they want any decent standard of living for their family. It wasn't that way when I was growing up.

Marion Co. GOP Gets A Blog

The Marion Co. GOP has decided to enter the blogosphere. Fix Indy Now ("FIN") takes a look at the political world of Indianapolis and what needs to be done to fix our city the site says. The Blogger in charge is "Brody", but that's all the site gives up about "Brody." The site is no doubt a counter to Taking Down Words, which is a mouthpiece of sorts for the Indiana Democratic Party. One of its bloggers, Jennifer Wagner, serves as communications director for the state party. Brody admits to reading TDW. He says, "Everyone needs a little laughter in their lives."

So what's FIN talking about? One of its posts on St. Patrick's Day took aim at Melina Kennedy, who is running against incumbent Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. FIN complains that someone always ruins the fun--in this case it was Melina Kennedy. FIN criticizes Kennedy for distributing campaign literature during the parade against "non-partisan" parade rules, which earned the site a mention in Matt Tully's column in the Star today. Tully calls it "one of the silliest political flaps in memory." For the record, Indiana State Treasurer Tim Berry (R) also handed out frizbies promoting his re-election during the parade, if it even matters.

Kennedy became the target of FIN's most recent post, which informs us that Kennedy held a press conference on Friday, the same day as President Bush's visit, and only one reporter showed up. It doesn't say what the subject of the press conference was. Another post pokes fun at Kennedy for "shopping around in other counties looking to be appointed as a special prosecutor to gain some experience." For the recond, she has no previous prosecutorial experience.

Kennedy is not FIN's only target. Marion Co. Sheriff Frank Anderson is hit for the city's high crime rate. Mayor Peterson takes a hit for the "sucking noise" of the shrinking savings from his law enforcement merger plan. And his plan to plant more trees in Indy was an easy target for FIN as well. FIN writes:

Our fearless leader Bart seems to think that the best way to move our city forward is to spend a bunch of money Indy doesn't have on trees. We will lay off tens of police officers, we will let criminals out of the ever crowded jail, we will turn a blind eye to potholes to make our city look greener.

Advance Indiana welcomes FIN to Indy's growing blogosphere. It's always good to have another perspective, particularly since the Republican perspective has been noticeably under-represented in the local blogosphere.

Bush Desparate To Put Out Anti-Immigration Fire

It has been estimated that there are between 15 and 20 million persons living and working in the United States illegally. Republican-led immigration reform legislation, which has already passed the House, would make all of those persons felons if it becomes law. That is triggering public demonstrations this country hasn't seen since the Vietnam War era. The potential backlash from this issue alone is enough to topple Republicans from control of Congress and state houses across the country. And that has President Bush, Sen. John McCain and many moderate Republicans worried that the flames fueled by GOP-led anti-immigration efforts will consume the party's fading hope of maintaining control of Congress in this year's elections.

Yesterday, an estimated 20,000 demonstrators protested at the offices of Sen. Jon Kyle (R-AZ), a co-sponsor of the anti-immigrant legislation. FOX News reports that it was one of the largest protests in the city's history. Tens of thousands of workers staged a walkout in Georgia on Friday after the Georgia House passed anti-immigrant legislation which would deny government services to persons in the country illegally (similar to GOP-led legislation defeated in the Indiana House earlier this year) and impose a 5 percent surcharge on wire transfers from illegal immigrants FOX also reported. In Los Angeles, students staged walkouts from schools, which caused fighting to break out between Hispanic and black students, and hundreds of thousands gathered for another protest in downtown Los Angeles today.

Bush used his weekly radio address to urge Congress to pass a guest worker visa program to deal with illegal immigration rather than the harsh penalties contained in the GOP legislation. The AP reports:

President Bush, bracing for more street protests and a Senate showdown on immigration reform, called Saturday for legislation that does not force America to choose between being a welcoming society and a lawful one.

"America is a nation of immigrants, and we're also a nation of laws," Bush said in his weekly radio address about the emotional immigration issue that has driven a wedge in his party . . .

Bush wants Congress to create a program to allow foreigners to gain legal status for a set amount of time to do specific jobs. When the time is up, they would be required to return home without an automatic path to citizenship.

"As we debate the immigration issue, we must remember there are hardworking individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do, who are contributing to the economic vitality of our country," he said.

Unfortunately, Bush's unpopularity may make his task of reigning in out-of-control members of his party on this issue a near impossibility. Sen. McCain, anxious to seek the GOP nomination for president in 2008, has to be extremely nervous that the GOP may forfeit any chances of holding the White House if Hispanics voters turn away from the GOP in large numbers. The California Republican Party found itself relegated to near-permanent minority status in the nation's largest state with its large Hispanic population after former Gov. Pete Wilson fought for the enactment of a state law which denied government services to illegal aliens--a law which was later overturned by the federal courts as unconstitutional.

Bush Comes To Town

It’s not every day that you can step outside your home and watch the President of the United States drive by. It happened to me twice today. President Bush dropped by a political fundraising luncheon for U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel at the Murat Center in Indianapolis, which is just a block from my home in the Lockerbie Glove Company.

From my rooftop deck, I could see hundreds of demonstrators gathered along Alabama Street west of the Murat to greet the President. The President never saw them. His motorcade turned onto New Jersey after it made its way down Michigan Avenue, allowing the President to enter the Murat out of the view of the demonstrators. As it turned out, they would have done better standing along Michigan Street in the Lockerbie neighborhood if their point was to let the President see their protest signs, although police ran off at least one demonstrator who tried to position himself on Michigan Street across from my building.

The largest contingent of protestors were demonstrating against pending immigration reform legislation in Congress, which would increase border enforcement and make those who are found to be present in the U.S. without inspection guilty of a Class D felony, thereby making it impossible for undocumented aliens to ever become legal residents of the U.S. Sodrel supported this legislation when it was approved by the House last year. Bush actually opposes this approach and, instead, favors a limited guest worker visa program which would allow undocumented aliens to stay in the U.S. and work legally as long as they are gainfully employed.

When the President departed the Murat, his motorcade reversed its route to east on Michigan and then south on East Street to the onramp for I-70. Several of my neighbors stood at the end of our drive facing East Street and waved at the President as his motorcade proceeded by us. He waved through the tinted glass of his limousine, as did his Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, who accompanied him in another car. I was struck by just how few people stood along the motorcade route to see the President, given we are in the heart of downtown Indianapolis and a view was easy to come by. Few people in my neighborhood bothered to venture the few steps that they were required to take outside their door to catch a glimpse of Bush.

In between his arrival and departure, I was able to view Bush’s remarks to the Sodrel fundraiser live on WRTV-6, the only local TV station to carry the President’s speech live. He opened with the traditional “family guy” plugs. His better half, Laura, couldn’t be there, but Sodrel’s better half, Keta, was present Bush told us. Bush likes Sodrel because he’s a guy “who has his priorities straight” and “family is his top priority.” “In a land of lawyers, it’s good to have an entrepreneur” Bush said of Sodrel.

Bush recognized several other Republican dignitaries. He singled out Gov. Mitch Daniels, who he says he’s not surprised has turned out to be “a fine Governor.” Bush said, “[Daniels] doesn’t need a poll to tell him what he thinks.” He recognized other Indiana Republican members of Indiana’s congressional delegation, including Reps. Steve Buyer and Mike Pence. He mispronounced Buyer’s name as Bullyer.

Bush also recognized the presence of Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter, Secretary of State Todd Rokita and state party chairman, Murray Clark. Steve Goldsmith got a mention as well. Bush described Goldsmith as being on the “leading edge of the compassionate conservative agenda”, which Bush lost sight of after becoming president by using wedge issues, such as gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research and “right to life” to divide our country.

Bush devoted a substantial part of his speech making the case for the war in Iraq. It is the lessons of 9/11 and understanding the stakes in the global war on terrorism that we must not lose sight of according to Bush. What are the lessons of 9/11? Bush says there are three:

• We must defeat the enemy overseas so we don’t have to fight the war on terror at home.


• We must hold those who harbor terrorists accountable—they are equally as guilty as the terrorists.


• When we see a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes and hurts us.

Few people would disagree with Bush’s first lesson, but many would question just how much of a threat Iraq posed to the U.S. Bush insisted that Saddam Hussein was a threat and removing him has made Iraq and the world a safer place. In reality, the country is in the midst of a civil war in which tens of thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost, not to mention the more than 2,000 American soldiers who have died while serving in Iraq. In Hussein’s absence, we’ve seen troubling signs of the growing influence of Islamic extremism. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for example, recently issued a fatwa calling for death to all gay and lesbian Iraqi’s, and it’s been carried out with indifference being shown by the occupying American troops. Bush also said that Afghanistan had been “liberated from the clutches of a barbaric regime." Yet, the Afghani’s still don’t enjoy religious freedom as evidenced by recent news that a Christian who converted from Islam is facing prosecution punishable by death.

Bush insists that we must not lose our will to fight the war in Iraq, or we will lose. He says our objective is to “defeat totalitarian ideology” and replace it with a “philosophy of liberty.” That’s all well, but the early signs in Afghanistan and Iraq point to the establishment of totalitarian Islamic states with no room for tolerance or religious freedom. Bush cited the examples of Europe and Japan as reasons for hope in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the comparison with the events of World War II and today’s war on terrorism is not prescient. We are faced with a growing, radical Muslim influence in the world that is dedicated to the death and destruction of Judaism, Christianity, Israel, the West and its culture and, particularly, America. It is hard to argue that our efforts in either Iraq or Afghanistan have done anything but further foment their hatred of us.

Bush touched a little less on domestic issues. He continued his call for reforming big government entitlement programs, such as social security and Medicare, without acknowledging that he signed into law the largest entitlement benefit since the 1960’s—Medicare prescription drug coverage—without a plan for funding its high price tag. He patted himself on the back for having the courage as a Texan to say “we had an addiction to oil” that we must curtail. Under his administration, oil companies have earned record profits from soaring oil prices, and no long-term solution to ending our dependence on oil has been put forward by him. There’s hardly been any courage on his part—he’s the oil industry’s best friend. He also touched on the importance of helping the farmers of Indiana by making sure there is a market for their products at a fair price. If he really wants to reduce our oil independence and help Indiana farmer’s market their products, he should be doing a lot more to encourage ethanol and bio-diesel alternatives.

Political observers are debating whether today’s presidential visit will benefit the tough re-election race Sodrel faces against the incumbent he unseated in 2004, Baron Hill. Because of the president’s low approval numbers here and elsewhere, conventional wisdom suggests Sodrel should be distancing himself from Bush. One thing is for certain though--his campaign is $500,000 richer as a result of today’s fundraiser, and that cannot hurt. Our guess is that whatever happens in November, it will have nothing to do with what happened today.

Redstate Blogger Seeing Red After Resignation From Post Amid Plagiarism Charges

It's been less than a week since the Washington Post announced that it was hiring Redstate.org blogger, Ben Domenech, to host the Red America blog on its online edition. But today, the Post announced it had accepted his resignation amid charges that he had plagiarized some of his past writings before joining the Post. In accepting his resignation, Executive Editor Jim Brady wrote:

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

No sooner had the Post hired Domenech than the criticism of him and the Post's decision to hire him start coming from the left. Domenech is defending himself in the wake of his abrupt resignation. “While I appreciated the opportunity to go and join the Washington Post,” Domenech said, “if they didn’t expect the leftists were going to come after me with their sharpened knives, then they were fools.” He claims there is an explanation for every example of plagiarism cited by his critics. “I felt like if I didn’t resign, they would have pushed me out—if not today, then Monday,” he said.

Whistleblowers Demand Apology From Souder

Indiana Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ft. Wayne) has earned a reputation as an independent, reform-minded conservative since he's been in Congress. He recently stunned many people with his derisive views toward government whistleblowers. While speaking at a House committee hearing on legislation which would offer whistleblower status to employees of the Department of Homeland Security, Souder said:

"I don't see a bunch of these whistle-blowers out there panning for food because they whistled," Souder said during the meeting. They're celebrities in the media. They sell books and all that. It's a bogus argument for political purposes."

Rep. Souder was speaking in opposition to an amendment offered by Rep. Ed. Markey (D-MA). Markey's amendment would have allowed any Department of Homeland Security employee who faced retaliation for reporting a national or homeland security concern to file a complaint with the Department of Labor. If the department didn't act within six months, the person could sue.

Rep. Souder's press secretary assures us his comments were taken out of context. "In fact he does support protection for whistle-blowers," Martin Green said. "He thinks we have to be very careful with national security whistle-blowers because of the classified nature involved."

But the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, which represents about 85 insiders, said Souder went too far with his criticism. "We read with astonishment, disappointment and a great deal of outrage the comments you made," coalition founder Sibel Edmonds said in a letter to Rep. Souder.

If At First You Don't Succeed . . .

On day four of the mock election testing for the new Statewide Voter Registration System there we no errors to report. WISH-TV has been doing a day-by-day blow of the testing process for SVRS. It reports:

For the first time during mock election testing of the state's new voter registration system, things went smoothly in Marion County.The new $10 million system crashed on the first day, and the second day saw errors and delays. On Day Three, Marion County could not print a poll book for its largest precinct. On Day Four, officials from Quest Information Systems, the company that built the database, were on hand in case there were new problems.

For the record, WISH-TV corrected its report on Day Three concerning the inability of SVRS to print a poll book. As it turned out, the problem was with the browser setting on Marion Co.'s computers. Pop-up blockers on another county's computers contibuted to problems with the system as well. WISH-TV also credits Indiana with being the first state to try a mock election of this size and scope. The biggest complaint remaining is that the system's speed isn't what the counties expect of it.

As a person who has experience managing the development and installation of customized computer systems for government clients, the testing and attendant debugging Quest Information Systems has been performing on SVRS is standard protocol. It is nearly impossible to develop a customized application of this size and scope and expect it to run smoothly and without any errors during its first live demonstration. It's good to see that Quest is getting as many of these issues resolved prior to the May primary as it possibly can. Will there be problems with the system on election day? Most certainly. But you can bet that many of those problems will be caused by user error.

Charity Begins At Home For Bush Family

Last year, former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, joined together and formed the Bush-Clinton Katrina Relief Fund to aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Former First Lady Barbara Bush made an undisclosed, large contribution to the fund. There was only one catch. The money could only be used by school districts to purchase Ignite Learning software, which is produced by a company owned by her son Neil Bush. As we reported previously, this is the company which was financed, in part, by the United Arab Emirates.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the software has been obtained by 8 school districts which took in children of Hurricane Katrina victims. The story reports that the Houston school district began using Ignite Learning in 2004 after Bush solicited over $115,000 in private donations for a charitable fund which benefits the Houston schools with instructions that the money only be spent to purchase Bush's software. The story said, "The deal raised conflict of interest concerns because Neil Bush and company officials helped solicit the donations for the HISD Foundation, a philanthropic group that raises money for the district."

Barbara Bush planned to visit a Houston Independent School District campus using the Ignite program to call on local business leaders to support schools and education. The Houston Chronicle said, "Barbara Bush is expected to observe both teachers and students using the Ignite Learning program while touring classrooms, according to the Ignite press release."

Gee, I wish my mom and dad could create business for me and be charitable at the same time, and I've been a good boy, unlike Neil. Neil Bush has had quite a reputation for being the black sheep in the Bush clan. He got in quite a mess back in the 1980s when a Denver savings & loan where he served as a director went belly up--a billion dollar collapse. Daddy had to bail him out of that one. He and other directors had to pony up $49.5 million to settle a negligence lawsuit, and he narrowly avoided a criminal prosecution. His divorce a couple of years ago was also pretty messy, stirring up allegations of extra-marital daliances with Asian women during business trips and fathering at least one child out of wedock. It's good to see mom and dad are still helping Neil out, even with the embarrassments he's caused the family.

Fancy Ford To Speak At Indiana Democratic Fundraiser

The Indiana Democratic Party announced that U.S. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN), also known as "Fancy Ford", will be the keynote speaker for their annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner on May 13 at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Indianapolis.

Ford is a candidate for the U.S. Senate this year in Tennessee. Republicans have been having a little bit of fun with Ford's lavish spending on himself using his campaign funds, as well as his wild penchant for partying. In fact, they've devoted an entire site to Fancy Ford. He attended the Playboy Superbowl Party in Jacksonville, Florida last year (all the celebrities and playmates were there), and he has hosted fundraisers at New York's exclusive Core Club ($55,000 membership fee, plus $15,000 per year).

Ford charged his campaign $2,549 for an Armani suit to wear to one of his high-roller fundraisers, which he didn't repay. His campaign spent $19,000 on flowers and another $8,900 for expensive Davidoff cigars and other pricey gifts. His campaign picked up a hotel tab of $20,000 for his stays at the Biltmore Hotel in L.A. and another $32,000 at such destinations as the Four Seasons in L.A., Periwinkle in Nantucket and The Essex in New York. He also spent $3,100 dining at the member's official dining room at the Capitol last year.

Now Ford and the Democrats are crying foul. Ford claimed the National Republican Senate Committee unveiled a political web site to smear him. He writes:

The “facts” of the site are the most mundane imaginable. I know they are mundane, because they all come from my own campaign finance disclosures. It turns out that I—just like President Bush, Senator Frist, and Senator Alexander—travel out of state to raise money. When I do so, I–just like they—incur legitimate expenses. I frankly don’t know what their site is trying to say. Many of you have speculated here and elsewhere what the Republican point is.

Other Democrats think the Fancy Ford site borders on racist, judging by some some of the comments posted on the web since Republicans launched the site. For the record, if any Democrat thinks we're being racist by raising this issue, we have just one question: Why do the Indiana Democrats name their largest fundraising event of the year the "Jefferson-Jackson Day" dinner? Weren't both Jefferson and Jackson slave owners? Have they thought about calling it the "Franklin Roosevelt Dinner" or the "John F. Kennedy Dinner", or even the "Martin Luther King, Jr. Dinner?"

Death Squads Carry Out Fatwa Against Gays In Iraq

Last weekend, Advance Indiana reported how the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq had issued a fatwa against gays and lesbians in Iraq, ordering them "killed, in the worst, most severe way of killing." We tipped off our friends at PageOneQ, who put their international reporter, Doug Ireland on the story. PageOne Q is now reporting that Doug Ireland will report in tomorrow's weekly edition of Gay City News that death squads are hunting down and killing gays in Iraq in response to al-Sistani's fatwa. Ireland's report says, in part:

The Badr Corps is committed to the 'sexual cleansing' of Iraq," a 33 year old gay Iraqi exile in London told Ireland. Since the SCIRI's spiritual leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistni -- the highest Shia religious authority -- issued a fatwa ordering gays assassinated in "the worst, most severe way of killing," the Badr Corps in Iraq has begun to use the Internet to hunt down and kill Iraqi gays.

The murdered Iraqi gays "are usually discovered with their hands bound behind their back, blindfolds over their eyes, and bullet wounds to the back of the head," Iraqi exile Ali Hili, coordinator for the London-based Abu Nawas Group, an organization of gay Iraqis in exile -- tells Ireland. In one case, the article explains, a transsexual was beaten and burned to death in an area of Baghdad.

Hili explains that, "intimidation, beatings, kidnappings and murders of gays have become an almost daily occurrence.”

Ireland's interviews include one with Tahseen, an underground activist in Baghdad, who is hiding 5 gays in his home and reports on the disappearance and killings of a number of gay men. PageOneQ is reporting that both Ireland and Ali Hili will appear on radio and TV news broadcast "Democracy Now" Thursday morning from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. EST to discuss this troubling report. For more information on the broadcast, click here.

Hell Yeah There's A Problem With Indiana's Realtor Protection Law

Last weekend, Advance Indiana reported on a new law signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels, which effectively shields Indiana realtors from competition from low-cost homesale agents, such as those offered locally by HomeYeah.com. We wondered just what the extent of the new law's impact would be on low-cost providers like HomeYeah. Today, AI Editor Gary R. Welsh heard from John Slimak, President of HomeYeah.com, who is based in the company's Fishers, Indiana office. Slimak was totally taken back by the sweeping nature of the law, and was unaware the Governor had signed the new law until he read our post.

As much as Slimak is concerned about the impact on his own business, he points out that the big losers are Indiana consumers, who are deprived of real choices in selling their homes because of the protective nature of the new law. When the new law takes effect on July 1, 2006, it will impact HomeYeah's Market + product the greatest according to Slimak. For a flat fee of $499, a homeseller can market their home through HomeYeah, plus have their home listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), which is managed by the local board of realtors. This requires the homeseller to offer the buyer's real estate commission (i.e., 3%-3.5%), while paying HomeYeah only the flat fee of $499. The Market + service represents 62% of HomeYeah's existing business.

As of July 1, 2006, Indiana's "Realtor Protection Law" will bar HomeYeah from offering this service. That's because the new law mandates that a selling agent provide a minimum amount of services in order to accept a fee for their service, such as marketing the home, receiving offers from potential buyers, sales negotiation and handling closing procedures, even if the homeowner doesn't want or need these advisory services. If a homeseller wants to utilize HomeYeah's services, it will now be required to purchase a much costlier service for $1,999, regardless of whether the homeseller wants the additional services.

HomeYeah is the brainchild of Gerry Hays. Before starting up HomeYeah.com, Hays worked as an environmental lobbyist for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. He later sold the company to Help-U-Sell , the leading “fee for service” residential real estate franchising company in North America, after he expanded HomeYeah's services to several other states, including Indiana. Help-U-Sell's parent company is Ampac. With Homeyeah's strong presence here in Indiana and other states, the new law could potentially reduce its bottom line value to the company to the extent the new law cuts into HomeYeah's business in Indiana.

Slimak says that the Market + service is most often utilized by financially stressed homsellers, who have little equity in their homes to give up as commissions to agents in the course of the sale to avoid being upside down. A recent report in the Indianapolis Star recounted the high number of foreclosures in Indiana. The Star reported, "More than 7,000 Indiana homeowners faced foreclosure in the final three months of last year, a record high for a state that has led the nation in foreclosure proceedings since July 2004." The high number of foreclosures in Indiana are driven by factory layoffs, personal bankruptcies, stagnant home prices and aggressive lending according to the Star.

Sadly, Slimak notes that these financially stressed Hoosiers are the people who most need the benefit of the low-cost services companies like HomeYeah offer, and now Indiana's government is telling them that this option will no longer be available to them. A higher priority has been placed on shielding Indiana's traditional real estate agents and brokers from competition than helping our citizens in greatest need of assistance from the benefit of low-cost services.

Slimak says the company isn't taking the new law sitting down. Numerous lawyers are studying the new law and determining appropriate legal steps to fight it. Independent real estate brokers are likely to find a sympathetic ear from the U.S. Justice Department. The Justice Department has already announced it plans to take anti-trust action against the National Association of Realtors, alleging that its policies illegally restrict discounting of sales commissions and put online competitors at a disadvantage. Indiana Law Blog also has a new post today which provides further support for intervention by the Justice Department and the FTC against Indiana's new law.

The Justice Department has also objected to the very types of laws enacted by Indiana, which the realtors have been pushing in other states. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The government is also targeting industry-backed efforts to get state legislatures and real-estate boards, which set licensing standards, to enact regulations that in effect protect full-service real-estate agents and their commissions. Some brokers offer fixed fee-for-service, or menu, pricing that can lower consumers' costs, and others rebate a portion of the commission.

The Justice Department and the FTC have warned several states in recent months that such laws hamper innovation and competition, and have formally objected to industry-supported proposals in Oklahoma and Texas.

The Justice Department last month sued a Kentucky state agency that sought to restrict rebate payments to customers by residential-real-estate agents and brokers. In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Louisville, the U.S. charged that the five-member Kentucky Real Estate Commission illegally conspired to impose and enforce the rebate ban in order to fix commissions and deprive consumers of price competition by brokers.

Slimak could not understand how Gov. Daniels could sign a law that is so harmful to consumers and his industry. Advance Indiana suspects that an early announcement of support by the Indiana Association of Realtors for Gov. Daniels' Major Moves initiative may have shaded his thinking on this legislation just a wee bit.

Illinois GOP Picks Moderate Topinka To Win Back State House

Republicans in Illinois turned to a moderate, State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, as its candidate with the best chance of winning back the governor's office from the Democrats. Topinka garned approximately 38% of the vote in a 4-way race against well-funded opponents, all of whom ran as traditional conservative Republicans.

Republicans held the governor's office continuously from 1977 through 2003 with successive moderates, including James R. Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan. Ryan, in particular, made greater inroads in Chicago than any prior statewide Republican candidate. He fought for death penalty reform and a state civil rights law for gays. Unfortunately, his administration became consumed by political corruption. He is currently awaiting a jury's verdict after a several-month trial in a Chicago federal courtroom.

Topinka was repeatedly lashed by her conservative male Republican opponents for her more liberal views. In particular, she was singled out as a "Pro-Homosexual Activist" because of her pro gay rights views. One conservative site writes about Topinka:

As she seeks to become the next governor of Illinois, it is crucial, now more than ever, that Illinois voters understand that Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka holds extremely liberal values that are contrary to those embraced by the vast majority of Illinois Republicans. In fact, Judy Baar Topinka’s pro-abortion and pro-homosexual positions are in keeping with the Democratic Party Platform—and opposed to the national Republican Party platform to which she would seem to owe allegiance.

Topinka was knocked by conservative Republicans for participating in Chicago's Gay Pride parade and for her assistance in arranging financing for a gay-oriented community center in Chicago's Boys Town. She has also been attacked for being too close to the head of Illinois Equality, a gay rights organization, and its efforts to block attempts to enact a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

Topinka will face off against incumbent Gov. Rod Blagoyevich (D) who defeated reform candidate Ed Eisendrath. Although Eisendrath had little money for his campaign, he still managed to pull down a third of the Democratic primary vote, indicating that a high number of Democrats are unhappy with his performance. Like his predecessor George Ryan, his administration has been plagued by political corruption. It should be an interesting race. And it's good to see the Republicans nominate a person in the true tradition of the Party of Lincoln.

Post Hires Right-Wing Blogger And Angers Left

In apparent attempt to placate conservatives, the Washington Post has hired Ben Domenech of Redstate.org to write a blog for the paper. Judging from the reaction over at AmericaBlog, liberals aren't too happy with the Post over its new hire.

Editor & Publisher indicates that news of the hire didn't fare well when the Post's political reporter, Tom Edsall, attempted to do his online chat today. Edsall responded online unsympathetically to the new hire today:

The hiring of Ben Domenench of RedState has provoked a firestorm, if the volume of questions this morning is any measure. One theory in the newsroom is that he was hired at the behest of Dana Milbank. More seriously, I am told that this is part of the Post's web operation's efforts to provide diverse views. These decisions are, unfortunately, above my paygrade, much as I would love to have the power to hire and fire . . . In fairness to the many inquiries about the Red State blogger, the questions you raise go to some basic issues of journalism that deserve much more expansive treatment and should get answers defining the principles guiding the Post as it engages with web. I could shoot my mouth off on these questions, but they should be answered by those with the power to set policy.

Editor & Publisher thinks the decision to hire Domenench may be to counter the Post's liberal blogger Dan Froomkin, who has recently stirred up quite a controversy with some of his opinions. The bottom line is that even the leading newspaper's in the country are coming to accept the valuable role bloggers now play in shaping American journalism and public opinion.

Rockford Newspaper Tells Illinois Voters To Stay Home

While it is custom for a newspaper to editorialize about the importance of exercising one's voting franchise by participating in all elections, it is not often you find a newspaper urging voters to stay home. That's exactly what the Rockford Register told Illinois voters to do in today's statewide primary election if they haven't bothered to educate themselves about the candidates and issues. The newspaper's editors write:

By all means, do not go to the polls today if you can’t identify at least one significant difference between your favorite Republican candidate and the four others who are running in the gubernatorial primary.

Likewise, if you haven’t paid enough attention during Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration to spell and pronounce his name, take a pass.

And please, stay home if you don’t know the reason behind the referendum that would increase the sales tax in Rockford by 1 cent. If you insist on voting, you should know that the 1-cent tax would fund street repairs, end the need for vehicle stickers and reduce future property taxes. The sales tax also would put some of the burden for street repairs on people who use the roads but don’t pay city property taxes or buy vehicle stickers. You may be for or against the proposed sales tax, but please, don’t vote unless you know why.

One commenter at a blog site in Illinois suggested that the lowly regarded newspaper may have been adopting a new tact since so few of its readers ever follows its advice and vote for the candidates it endorses in Illinois elections. Then again, the newspaper may have had something else in mind.

The editorial reminded AI Editor Gary R. Welsh of Illinois' notorious 1986 Democratic primary election. Democrats had slated Adlai Stevenson III to run for the second time against Gov. James R. Thompson (R). He had lost by just a few hundred votes to Thompson in 1982 after a rancorous recount of the election results. The Democrats also slated several other candidates to run on a statewide ticket with Stevenson, who provided ethnic diversity. The voters selected two complete unknowns with Anglo-Saxon sounding names in the Democratic primary in the races for Lt. Governor and Secretary of State, who so happened to be followers of Lyndon LaRouche.

Stunning Illinois Democrats, Mark Fairchild defeated George Sangmeister for Lt. Governor, and Janice Hart defeated Aurelia Pucinski for Secretary of State. Stevenson was compelled to leave the Democratic ticket and run as a third party candidate, along with his fellow slated candidates to disassociate himself from the two extremists. The damage had already been done. Stevenson lost his rematch against Thompson by a much bigger margin, even though Thompson's popularity had eroded considerably.

Thinking back on 1986, the Rockford Register's suggestion to uneducated voters to stay home may not be such a bad idea sometimes. Much is at stake in this election. The unpopular incumbent Governor Rod Blagoyevich (D) is facing off against a liberal Chicago reformer, Ed Eisendrath (D). Four Republicans are vying to take on the winner of that race in the fall. There are also several hotly contested congressional races in the Chicago area which are getting a lot of national attention, along with other statewide and local races. With today's bad weather in Illinois, voter turnout will be considerably suppressed based on early reports. We can assume that only the more educated voters will brave the weather and exercise their voting right.

Pence Digs Into Campaign Fund For Personal Expenses

Rep. Mike Pence (R) has been a leading advocate for lobbying reform in Washington, but his practice of using his campaign funds for personal expenditures has caught the eye of the Washington Post notes the Indiana Daily Insight. Rep. Pence earns $165,000 a year from his congressional salary, but Pence, like many other members of Congress, reaches into his campaign coffers, which are enriched by contributions from lobbyists, to pay bills which you and I must dig into our own pockets to pay for.

Last year, Pence spent $348,255 from his campaign committee, plus $25,472 from his PAC, even though it was a non-election year. The Post writes:

Pence sought reimbursement for 293 meals in 2005, for a total of $9,806. Most were at fast-food or family-style restaurants, including Wendy's, Arby's, Ruby Tuesday, and various pancake houses and pizza parlors, as well as convenience stores and airport concessions based in Anderson, Ind. Ninety-four of the charges totaled $10 or less. He also paid $4,082 for a 1998 Oldsmobile minivan that he drove throughout his east-central Indiana district.

Pence even sought reimbursement from his campaign for a $1 meal from a local gas station, which his staff believes was for a bottle of water, according to the Post. Pence's staff defended the expenses this way:

When Mike Pence campaigns, he campaigns as if he's in a tight race," said William A. Smith, Pence's chief of staff. He said that his boss prefers one-on-one meetings to big groups, which explains the numerous small charges, and that items are often billed to the campaign, as opposed to the official account, to avoid potential ethics questions. "If he's doing political work, that's going to be part of his campaign budget," Smith said.

The FEC rules give lawmakers broad discretion on how they spend their campaign funds. Some items are specifically banned, the story notes, including home mortgages, clothing, personal automobile expenses, country club and health club memberships, vacations, household food, nonpolitical admissions to concerts and sporting events, and tuition. However, lawmakers are allowed to accept free travel paid by lobbyists, which often amounts to a free vacation to exotic destinations.

Kiser Claims D.C. Residence While Campaigning For Congress In Indianapolis

Seventh District Democratic Congressional candidate Kris Kiser is running for office in Indianapolis, where he claims he has been a resident for the past year according to an interview he gave to Indianapolis' GLBT newspaper, The Word. Property tax records for the District of Columbia, however, where he formerly worked as a lobbyist, show that he is claiming a homestead deduction on two condominiums he owns there.

According to publicly accessible property tax records for the District of Columbia, Kiser owns two condominiums at 1307 T Street, NW (Unit 4) and 1309 T Street, NW (Unit 2). They are currently valued at $745,790 and $764,460, respectively. The Homestead Status indicates that both properties are receiving the Homestead Deduction, which reduces the real property's assessed value by $60,000.

The homestead deduction in D.C. is limited to residential property. In order to qualify, the property must be occupied by the owner and contain no more than 5 dwelling units (including the unit occupied by the owner), and the property must be the principal residence of the owner. According to a statement from the D.C. Taxpayer Service Center, "If you are not domiciled in the District or the property is not your principal residence, you are obligated to inform the Office of Tax and Revenue."

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove found himself in a similar controversy last year when the Washington Post disclosed that he was claiming a homestead deduction on both his home in D.C. and a home in Texas where he is registered to vote. The D.C. government demanded that Rove repay the taxes he avoided paying by falsely claiming the homestead deduction. Rove agreed to repay the D.C. government $3,400 for the taxes he saved by claiming the credit.

Presumably, Kris Kiser has registered to vote in Indianapolis and is claiming his home here as his principal residence in order to qualify as a candidate for Congress in Indiana, in which case he is not eligible to claim the homestead deduction on his valuable residential property in D.C. It is unclear why he is able to claim the homestead deduction on two separate residential properties in D.C on T Street--perhaps they've been combined into a single unit.

Curiously, we reported last week that a person approached Kiser and his partner, Daryl Johnson, in a local gay bar, and the two told the person they were from Louisville. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive.

Hat tip to the anonymous tipster for this note-worthy item.

And They Said The Taliban Were Bad

ABC News reports that an Afghani faces the death penalty for the unthinkable crime of converting from Islam to Christianity. The man was found with a Bible. But there's hope for the guy according to the judge--he could be found insane and be spared the death penalty. "We want to know that the doctors have given him a green light on his mental state, because he is not normal when he talks," says the judge. ABC News reports:

Abdul Rahman, who is in his 40s, says he converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Relatives denounced him as a convert during a custody battle over his children, and he was arrested last month. The prosecutor says Rahman was found with a Bible.

Our State Department is watching the case closely according to ABC News and considers it "a barometer of how well democracy is developing in Afghanistan." "Our view … is that tolerance, freedom of worship is an important element of any democracy," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "And these are issues as Afghan democracy matures that they are going to have to deal with increasingly."

So what's wrong here? You all thought that Afghanistan had just adopted a new constitution which ensures basic freedoms, including the freedom to worship the religion of your choosing, and that it had just conducted democratic elections. That's true, but there's a hitch--a big hitch. Islam is the recognized religion of Afghanistan, and Islamic law trumps the civil laws, making the individual rights provided under the constitution meaningless. In other words, true religious freedom, or any First Amendment rights we enjoy in this country, are non-existent in Afghanistan.

So what the hell are our soldiers fighting and dying for in Afghanistan and Iraq? It sure isn't the freedom and democracy we understand and appreciate.

Feingold Wants To Help Welsh Unseat Pence

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), a potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, plans to target 10 Democratic congressional hopefuls for extra help in this year's election. According to Sherri Welsh, wife of 6th District congressional candidate Barry Welsh (D) (no relation to AI Editor Gary R. Welsh), her husband is one of the candidates Feingold wants to help.

Sherri Welsh posts on an Illinois blog, SoapBlox, that her husband recently received a phone call from Sen. Feingold's staff. She writes, "Barry explained that Senator Feingold had a goal of helping 10 well qualified congressional candidates by recognizing them on his website and thru communications that one would eventually get picked to reward, WOW – I was tempted to say, are you SURE that it was Russ Feingold – THE Senator?? But I knew better than that." There's more about her hitting a deer, but we'll omit that part of her post.

While Welsh may be getting support from Feingold, he isn't expecting much from the Indiana Democratic Party according to his wife. Welsh writes, "The state party is underfunded as we all are, but they are not shuting (sic) us out. There are more districts than employees at state party headquarters. They will do what they can, but there won't be financial help." She adds, "There is a strong statewide Indiana Progressive PAC, which includes all state PAC's but they can't legally help Barry much because of FEC laws."

His wife indicates that her husband's expectations of unseating the popular incumbent, Pence, are realistic. She said, "I asked Barry this morning if he was going to win this thing. He said he would be crazy to say we were going to win, but we can win! He's right. We are on the way to winning, but there is still much work to do."

Mayor Peterson Has Some Explaining To Do

Mayor Bart Peterson (D) assured Indianapolis residents that they would realize an annual savings of $9 million if the city-county council adopted his plan to merge the Indianapois Police Department and the Marion Co. Sheriff's Department. It seems that Mayor Peterson based his projected savings on sheriff's department employees being able to opt out of social security as IPD employees have been able to do since it's own pension system was established under an older law. There's just one small problem, you can't do it now.

The Star's Brendan O'Shaughnessy tells readers today that this blunder on Peterson's part will result in a loss of nearly $4 million instead of a projected savings of $1.3 million as forecast by Peterson's administration. The result means that even more law enforcement officers will have to be laid off, or taxes will have to be increased.

The Indiana Public Employees Retirement Fund has requested an advisory opinion from the Social Security Administration to determine if the sheriff's department employees can opt out. However, the Star reports that a similar request by Louisville officials was met with a denial several years ago. O'Shaughnessy wrote, "In Louisville, which merged city and county government in 2003, federal officials said public employees in Social Security could not opt out of the program, according to Mark Miller, a Louisville police union attorney. Miller said he saw no reason why Indiana would be treated any differently."

Indianapolis relied heavily on the experience of Louisville in pushing the merger plan. How could this major detail have been overlooked by the Peterson administration? We're all for the merger, but you have to be straight with folks about these things. This raises the question of whether Peterson intentionally inflated the numbers to make the merger plan look more attractive to council members? Can you imagine Democrats' reaction if we learned at some point in the near future that the State was only getting $1.7 billion from the lease of the toll road instead of the $3.4 billion promised?

Doolittle And Earn Big Bucks

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) appears to be the next congressman in line to earn an indictment for political corruption according to TPM Muckracker. Rep. John Doolittle's wife, Julie, shows us all how to "doolittle" and earn big bucks.

The congressman had his wife to set up a phony fundraising consulting firm, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions. Of course, two of her clients were her husband's own political action committees. Ms. Doolittle earned a 15% commission for every dollar raised by her husband's political action committees, even if he made the fundraising calls himself, as long as she furnished him with the list of names to call. Since 2001, Ms. Doolittle has made $180,000 in commissions.

According to TPM Muckraker, Rep. Doolittle insists that he is not his wife's major client. He will not, however, identity who her other clients are. TPM Muckraker has been able to identify some of her clients, and they are the usual suspects. A restaurant and charity owned by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff are a couple of her clients. Another client is a business connected to Ed Buckham, another D.C. lobbyist who is also in hot water for questionable lobbying activities, and who is tied to Abramoff and Rep. Tom DeLay.

So now we have another suggestion for congressional lobbying reform:

All immediate family members of a Member of Congress shall be barred from accepting compensation in any form for services performed for any of the following: the member's campaign committee; any political action committee established by the member; any nonprofit organization established by the member; any business in which a controlling interest is owned by a person registered to lobby Congress; or any nonprofit organization in which a person registered to lobby Congress serves as an officer or key employee.

As for the new lobbying reforms already under consideration by Congress, lobbyists tell the Washington Post they don't pose a problem. The Post writes today, "Some of Washington's top lobbyists say that they expect to find ways around congressional efforts to impose new restrictions on lobbyists' dealings with lawmakers in the wake of the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, and that any limits will barely put a dent in the billions of dollars spent to influence legislation." Isn't that comforting?

Realtors Lobby Screws Indiana Homesellers

The Indiana Law Blog picks up on a letter to the editor in today's Star, which discloses how the Indiana realtors lobby has screwed Indiana homesellers big time through a new law which quietly made its way through the Indiana General Assembly and was recently signed into law by Gov. Daniels. The bill, HB 1339, will effectively shield traditional real estate agents from competition they are now getting from low-cost agents.

Patrick Woodall, a senior researcher with the Consumer Federation of America, clues us in on how the new law screws Indiana's homesellers:

At the urging of traditional real estate brokers, the Indiana legislature quickly and quietly passed a bill that would make homeownership even more expensive. House Bill 1339 requires all real estate brokers to provide "minimum services." This seemingly innocuous change is an attempt to protect brokers' 6 percent commission from market competition. Unfortunately, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed this anti-consumer bill.

The change will require real estate agents to provide a full set of services -- marketing the home, receiving offers from potential buyers, sales negotiation and handling closing procedures -- even if the homeowner doesn't want or need these advisory services. It is an attempt to prevent consumers from accessing a range of new, lower-cost real estate models.

New brokers, for a much lower fee, will market homes in the multiple listing service and provide marketing support but allow the homeowner to handle everything else -- show the house and negotiate the closing -- or hire a different party to provide those services. For example, many homeowners have turned to for-sale-by-owner services, which provide little more than a multiple listing and a yard sign . . .

In other services, new business models using the Internet and technology brought improvements years ago -- such as in securities brokerage and travel -- but the changes are only beginning to affect the real estate industry. Rather than embracing market competition, industry leaders are attempting to use government to preserve the old model and prevent consumers from using less expensive real estate services. Similar efforts to limit competition from Internet real estate brokers drew a Justice Department antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors. And the same effort is behind the Indiana legislation.

The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, along with consumer groups and many new real estate brokers, opposes the law. Gov. Mitch Daniels did not act in the best interests of consumers and homeowners when he signed this legislation.

HB 1339 was sponsored by Rep. Tim Harris (R-Anderson) and Sen. James Merritt (R-Indianapolis). It passed the House on a 56-38 bipartisan vote, and it passed the Senate unanimously. Even some traditionally pro-consumer legislators in the House sold out to the realtors lobby, including Rep. Bill Crawford (D-Indianapolis), Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington), Rep. Clyde Kersey (D-Terre Haute) and Rep. Peggy Welch (D-Elletsville).

The Indiana Law Blog notes the irony of the legislation. In a March 6, 2006 entry, the blog had an entry discussing how real estate agents were becoming an endangered species, quoting from an NPR Morning Edition report. That report talked about the pressure Internet-based services were placing on traditional real estate agents and how they might be going the same way as travel agents and stock brokers. The blog now writes that "real estate agents have now become 'a protected species' in Indiana."

Advance Indiana wonders just what impact this new law will have on Indianapolis-based Homeyeah.com. Their fees are 40%-90% less than the traditional real estate brokers' fees. As it describes its services, "Our proprietary business model and technology allows buyers and sellers to take more control of their transaction without sacrificing necessary information and licensed professional guidance at critical points during the transaction process."

Al-Sistani Issues Death Order For Iraqi Gays

In the U.S., the Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas has been leading controversial demonstrations at the funerals of fallen American soldiers from the war in Iraq, including several right here in Indiana. Phelps believes that the soldiers deserved to die because America accepts homosexuality and their death is a punishment from God. In a strange paradox, a Muslim cleric who American troops have enabled to become the most powerful religious leader in Iraq, has issued his own death order against gays and lesbians in Iraq.

Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has been a critical ally of American coalition forces in bringing about a so-called "democratically-elected" government in Iraq. The huge turnout in Iraq's recent elections is largely attributed to al-Sistani, who issued a decree that it was a religious obligation of Shiite Muslims to vote. After playing second fiddle to Iraq's Sunni Muslim population under Hussein, the Shiite majority now has the opportunity to call the shots in Iraq thanks to the sacrifices of American and coalition soldiers in the effort to liberate Iraq from Hussein's dictatorial rule.

With Iraq's new constitution recognizing Islamic law as superior to the civil law, Iraq will now enjoy a de facto dictatorship by al-Sistani. Exercising his new-found power, al-Sistani has issued a fatwa against gays and lesbians. The Advocate reports on the fatwa:

Written in Arabic, the fatwa comes from a press conference with the powerful religious cleric, where he was asked about the judgment on sodomy and lesbianism. “Forbidden,” Sistani answered, according to OutRage, “Punished, in fact, killed. The people involved should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”

Considering Sistani's stature and influence within the Iraqi Shiite majority, OutRage member Ali Hili declared the cleric's statements extremely dangerous.

“Sistani's murderous homophobic incitement has given a green light to Shia Muslims to hunt and kill lesbians and gay men,” said Hili. “We hold Sistani personally responsible for the murder of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Iraqis. He gives the killers theological sanction and encouragement.”

If Rev. Fred Phelps' controversial funeral protests are not finding a sympathetic ear here in America, they certainly are in Iraq, and with the full blessing of Allah no less. Perhaps Rev. Phelps should be thanking these fallen soldiers for giving voice and power to an anti-gay bigot whose words are backed up with real violence against gays and lesbians. Somehow, we doubt this was an outcome our fallen soldiers in Iraq envisioned.

Sorry Indiana Democrats, SVRS Works

Forget that yesterday's first day of testing for Indiana's new Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) was just that--a test designed to fine tune the program. Forget that the only problem which surfaced was related to the new hardware just installed the night before to run the software. Forget that there are several more days of testing to work out any other potential problems. And forget that elections in Indiana can be conducted with or without SVRS just as they have for every election in the history of the state. The only point Democrats want you to believe is that SVRS is a major bust and a failure, and it's all Secretary of State Todd Rokita's and the Republicans' fault.

Reacting to the glitch in the new hardware and Democratic cries of doom and gloom, Rokita told WTHR that it was "a tempest in a teapot." He's right. Once the problem with the new hardware was detected, the state's computer consultant on the project, Quest Information Systems had the system up and running within two hours. And it ran smoothly. As Rokita observed, "No Hoosier, if this was election day, would have expected to loose their vote. We have backups in laws and technology." Even with the delay, election workers were able to check more than twice the number of voter registrations during the testing as had originally been played. More days of testing are being conducted next week.

Democrats, who have been quick to criticize Gov. Daniels for using out-of-state vendors for state work, could care less that this major contract is being undertaken by an up-and-coming Indianapolis-based IT company. The bottom line as far as they are concerned is that SVRS must fail. It must fail so Rokita looks bad and they have an issue that might defeat him, because that's the only way they may be able to win back the Secretary of State's office. It must fail because the elimination of duplicative voter registrations--about a quarter of a million so far--means less voter fraud, which might mean fewer votes for Democratic candidates.

Marion Co. Democratic election board member, Joel Miller, has served as the Democrats' designated hit man for the effort. He called the testing "a mess, a terrible mess." Even though Marion Co. election officials readily admit they can conduct an election without SVRS just like they have in every election before now, Miller couldn't help but fan the flames. Miller told WTHR, "One of the reasons for the mock election was to give those of us using the system confidence that it would work election day. If that was the goal it failed miserably."

Sorry to inform Indiana Democrats, but SVRS is here and it's staying. It works, and it's going to be much more difficult for election day workers of either party to engage in election day chicanery. That's good news for our electoral process. And that' s good news for Indiana.

Bush Under Attack From Right For Allowing HIV+ Attend Gay Games

The Bush administration has granted special permission for overseas attendees of the Gay Games in Chicago this summer who are HIV+ to enter the country, and right-wing bigots in Illinois are none too happy. The Chicago Sun-Times reports, "A 'pro-family' group wants the Bush administration to revoke its decision to allow HIV-positive foreigners to enter the country for the Gay Games in Chicago this summer."

Under a 1993 provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, people infected with HIV and other highly infectious diseases that are considered public health risks are not allowed visas unless special waivers are granted. A blanket waiver for attendees of the Gay Games was granted by the Bush administration, similar to a waiver granted to attendees of the 1994 Gay Games in New York.

Right-wing bigots claim that the Bush administration's decision to grant the waiver will pave the way for the spread of HIV in this country. "The people of Chicago should know we have a ban on HIV travelers, it's there to protect citizens, and it's not a wise move to remove the ban," Peter LaBarbera of the Illinois Family Institute said. "People on the pro-family side are not too pleased with it, and we're putting pressure on to reinstate the ban," he said. A spokesman for the Gay Games called the groups efforts to block the waiver as "abhorrent and irresponsible . . . fear mongering."

The Sun-Times reports that "the eight-day Gay Games are expected to draw 12,000 athletes from 100 countries competing in 30 sports ranging from softball to swimming." The opening ceremonies are set for July 15 at Soldier Field.

LaBarbera focused on a sponsorship of the event by a gay bathhouse as justification for his position. The Sun-Times says that he "argues that the Gay Games bathhouse sponsor and other 'extracurricular' activities show the event is about promoting a lifestyle more than athletics." "These bathhouses can be very dangerous when you invite HIV in with an exception. The doors are closed, and you don't know what's going on inside," LaBarbera said. "That shows there's much more going on than just playing softball. . . . They're celebrating homosexuality and the more unseemly aspects of it."

It sounds like LaBarbera's been spending a little bit too much time in the gay bathhouses himself. A spokesman for the Gay Games calls it a "tired right-wing strategy" that no longer works.

Cincy Handily Approves Gay Rights Ordinance

The Cincinnati City Council took a step closer to closing the wounds ripped open 13 years ago when right-wing bigots succeeded in passing a public referendum outlawing gay civil rights. By an 8-1 vote, the council approved an ordinance which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, quite similar to the ordinance approved by the Indianapolis City-County Council last year.

Last night's action by the council was made possible after voters approved a repeal of Cincinnati's ban on gay civil rights in 2004, reversing the action of the city's voters in 1993. The prior ban was the only one in the nation after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar state law approved by Colorado voters in Romer v. Evans.

Leading the opposition to the ordinance was Phil Burress, the leader of Citizens for Community Values, who successfully led the movement to pass the ban in 1993, and who worked for passage of Ohio's constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages in 2004. Comments Burress made to the Associated Press echoed comments made by Eric Miller, Micah Clark and other anti-gay bigots from the religious right in opposing Indy's HRO. "We have a city that is spinning out of control with crime and other problems, and this council wants to pass laws banning hypothetical situations," said Phil Burress. He continued, "There are no cases of this type of discrimination, so why pass a law based on sexual orientation?"

Last night's action by the council may not be the last we hear from Burress and his bigoted friends. Burress, who also leads a group called Equal Rights, Not Special Rights, (where have you heard that before?) thinks the passage of the ordinance is a stepping stone towards the legalization of gay marriages, even though Ohio's constitution makes that a legal impossibility, thanks to Burress. He might just try taking the issue back to the voters again.

Advance Indiana is anxious to see other Indiana communities follow suit. South Bend appears to be the city most likely to enact a change perhaps as soon as this year. We know the folks in Carmel pride themselves in being the crem-dala-crem when it comes to being "cultured" shall we say. The city got quite a black eye a few years back though when it was forced to settle a class action lawsuit over its city police department's policy of stopping motorists "while driving black." Gay rights advocates may have to enlist Carmel-native Ted Allen of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" fame to assist in convincing his hometown it really needs a non-discrimination ordinance if it wants to be viewed the way it perceives itself in the places that count.

More Miller Self-Dealing To Report

Another session of the Indiana General Assembly may have just come to a close, but our scrutiny of a State House fixture for the past quarter century will continue on. The Grand Dragon of Moral Righteousness Eric Miller has filed Advance America’s Form 990 tax return (finally) for the 2004 calendar year, albeit somewhat late (filed on November 11, 2005—nearly 6 months after it was due on May 15, 2005). And boy is it loaded with more evidence of self-dealing, deception and obfuscation by the man who makes it his business to regulate everything that goes on in your bedroom and then some.

Remember that 2004 was the year that the twice married and childless Miller challenged Mitch Daniels for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. Miller devoted the first part of the year through the May primary election criss-crossing the state in that shiny new RV manufactured by Newmar, which is owned by Miller’s largest campaign contributor, Mahlon Miller. You have to figure then that Miller was too busy running for Governor to continue working for the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization he founded, which is barred under federal tax laws from engaging in partisan political activities. If that is what you thought, you guessed wrong. Miller pulled down close to the same salary in 2004 from Advance America as the organization reported paying him in 2003, and he continues to engage in blatant acts of self-dealing as we have previously reported on.

Advance America’s Form 990 filed with the IRS shows that Miller was paid $87,779 in compensation, and it contributed $16,000 to his employee benefit plan, for a total package worth $103,779. That compares to his 2003 reported salary of $93,070, plus $14,000 the organization kicked into his employee benefit plan or a total package worth $107,070. That’s a difference of just $3,291 in a year when Miller was occupied full-time with his gubernatorial race for nearly five months of the calendar year. Prior to 2003, Miller was consistently paid a salary in excess of $100,000 annually. The organization reduced his salary in 2003, but instituted a generous employee benefit package to offset the reduction in his salary.

Miller, who has traditionally served as the group’s executive director, stepped down from that position in 2003 as he began spending more time running for governor. He brought on Dwight Williams, a retired insurance lobbyist, to take over as executive director and Miller assumed the esteemed title of “Founder.” Although Williams’ position had been a highly-paid position when Miller occupied it, Williams was paid a mere $24,000 for his services in 2004. So why is the “Founder” making so much more than the “Executive Director” who is presumably in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the organization?

Miller also paid his own law firm, Miller Waters Martin & Hall, a legal consulting contract worth $114,000, a practice he has engaged in since 1998. As we reported previously, Miller told an Indianapolis Star reporter last summer, who was looking into the questions we raised here about Miller’s self-dealing, that the legal consulting contract was not for his own work; rather, it was to compensate other members of his firm for work they did in support of Advance America’s legislative efforts. However, Miller’s firm and the other attorneys did not register to lobby on behalf of the organization, and the organization did not attribute the payments to the law firm on either its tax returns or its lobbying activity reports, which it filed with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission.

When you combine Miller’s salary, his employee benefits package and the payments made to Miller’s law firm, the organization paid a total of $217,779 to Miller and his law firm. That amount represents 30% of the nonprofit organization’s expenditures for 2004. And that amount doesn’t include the $14,140 Advance America paid for auto expenses, or the $10,031 it paid for employee parking, both of which Miller personally benefited from.

Another very troubling practice of self-dealing is Miller’s use of his sharing of the nonprofit organization’s business office at 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite #660, which is prime office space just one block from the State House, with his law firm. This is how the organization’s tax returns explain the practice to the IRS:

Office space and expenses are shared by the law firm of Miller, Waters, Martin & Hall. Employee services are also sometimes shared. The law office reimburses Advance America for office expenses and the use of employee services. The office space is leased by the law firm of Miller, Waters, Martin & Hall. Advance America pays rent to the law firm for use of the office space.

According to the tax return, the organization spent $50,000 in 2004 on the rental of its office space. Miller’s law firm is comprised of just a handful of attorneys, including him. Persons who have been inside the organization’s office tell Advance Indiana that you cannot distinguish Miller’s law firm space from the space occupied by the nonprofit organization. The two also share a phone system. If all that isn’t troubling enough, the organization’s tax returns disclose no reimbursed expenses, even though the organization tells the IRS that the law firm reimburses it for office expenses and the use of employee services. It’s pretty obvious the money is flowing in one direction and that direction is benefiting Miller and his law firm.

Another continuing problem with Advance America’s tax reporting and its lobbying reporting in Indiana is it gross under-reporting of its actual lobbying expenditures. The 2004 reporting period was no different. According to its 2004 tax return, lobbying for federal tax purposes comprised just $17,033 of its overall expenditures for the year, or just 2.3%. Of that amount, only $3,236, or less than 1% is claimed by the group to be for direct lobbying expenditures, which is what it reports to the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission. The balance, or $13,797, was spent on grassroots lobbying to influence public opinion.

When you consider the organization’s omnipresence at the State House during each legislative session, these reported lobbying expenditures are just not credible. We have raised this issue in past reporting. As we noted then, Miller sent e-mail alerts to the group's supporters throughout this year's legislative session in which he requested contributions to support the group's lobbying efforts. In an e-mail dated January 20, 2006, Miller told supporter that "[Advance America's] legislative expenses will exceed $160,000". Even by Miller's own account the group is under-reporting its lobbying expenditures.

Miller and his organization are constantly preaching fiscal restraint and consistently oppose higher taxes, arguing that government should live within its existing means. But when it comes to its own fiscal affairs, Miller could use some fiscal discipline of his own. In 2004, the group’s expenditures exceeded its revenues for the year by 15%, or $93,951.

But Miller has some deep pockets to reach into every time he finds himself in a financial squeeze. According to the group’s tax returns, a single contributor donated $150,000 to Advance America in 2004, which is nearly a quarter of the $634,000 the group raised in contributions and other sources. Who is this contributor? Could it be Mahlon Miller, the multi-millionaire RV mogul. He gave Miller over a half million for his gubernatorial race, which represented 63% of all his campaign contributions. As we previously reported, Miller lobbied for passage of a sales tax break this year on behalf of Advance America, which benefited the RV industry.

Two other contributors kicked in $50,000 and $40,000, respectively, which means the organization received 38% of its revenues from just three sources. Its top 10 contributors represented just over half of the group’s total revenues for 2004. The group’s tax return doesn’t tell us whether these contributions were made by individuals, businesses or even churches. What is clear is that contributions to the group are tax-deductible because it is a qualified 501(c)(3) organization.

For Miller, there is little oversight within his organization. Its board of directors consists of the same eight men he has appointed year after year, in addition to himself and Williams. They are ministers and theologians concerned more about the group's "moral agenda" rather than the nuances of the business and legal requirements for running a nonprofit.

The evidence of Miller’s blatant misuse of a nonprofit entity for his own self-serving ends, and to advance his own partisan political agenda in violation of IRS rules is overwhelming. It is time for someone in the mainstream media to report on Miller’s breach of the public trust. We thought we could count on the state’s newspaper of record, the Indianapolis Star, but we were apparently mistaken. Because Advance America’s activities are subsidized by taxpayers, there needs to be a full accounting of this group’s and its leader’s activities. Someone at the IRS, the U.S. attorney’s office or the Marion Co. Prosecutor’s office has to investigate this man and his organization. Or does the refrain attributed to the infamous KKK Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson while he was still riding high--“I am the law in Indiana”--belong to Miller now?

Tully: Prosecutor's Race To Be Brutal

Star political writer Matt Tully opines today that the Marion Co. Prosecutor's race between the incumbent Carl Brizzi (R) and his Democratic opponent Melina Kennedy is going to be "a nasty, mudslinging battle." It begins, according to Tully, to Democrats' response to Brizzi's handling of the Harry Gonso and David Thomas matters concerning alleged job offers they made for political favors. Democrats it seem think Brizzi is whitewashing both matters. Tully writes:

The Marion County Democratic Party tossed the first grenade this morning, calling a press conference to address Brizzi's relationship with Gov. Mitch Daniels' administration.

"Invite Reveals Daniels Helped Raise $350,000 for Brizzi, then seven days later Brizzi said he wouldn’t investigate Daniels' top aide,” a release about the press conference reads. Party chief Ed Treacy is leading the 10:30 a.m. press conference, so it is certain to be filled with heightened rhetoric and verbal lashings.

Here's the back story: As has been reported, Daniels appeared at a fundraiser for Brizzi at St. Elmo Steak House two weeks ago. Separately, word leaked out days later that Daniels' chief of staff, Harry Gonso, had offered jobs to two House Democrats.

The accustation from some Democrats is that Gonso was trying to coax the lawmakers out of their legislative seats, knowing that their retirements would help the GOP retain control of the House. The lawmakers turned down the job offers.

Brizzi did investigate a similar alleged job offer made by Daniels' inspector general, but has declined to investigate Gonso. For the record, no one directly involved in this issue has accused Gonso of wrongdoing.
No matter. Democrats see an opening, a chance to tie Brizzi to a governor who is struggling in the polls. With the county becoming more Democratic every day, Treacy and Kennedy don't want anyone to forget that Brizzi is a Republican.

So there it is. The race for prosecutor is on. The mudslinging has begun. Get ready for a hard-fought campaign.

If Tully thinks the negative attacks by Kennedy just started today, then he hasn't been reading what our Democratic friends at Taking Down Words and other surrogates have been writing about Brizzi for months now. TDW has been conducting aerial strikes on Brizzi on a weekly basis, although the issues TDW raises are typically fair game in any political race.

TDW also takes on Brizzi in reaction to a Star report today that his office has cleared Daniels' Inspector General David Thomas of any wrongdoing in connection with allegations he offered a position on the Indiana Parole Board to a Clay County Sheriff's candidate if he would drop his bid to win that office. TDW says, "It's a new whitewashing world record! Carl Brizzi's investigation of Dave Thomas lasted almost as long as Dave Thomas's investigation of the Guv's use of RV-1."

In light of the fact that Steve Bell, the Clay County Sheriff candidate, told a completely different story to Brizzi's investigators than he did to the Star, insisting that Thomas never made him a job offer, there seems little more Brizzi's office can do in regards to prosecuting the case. Absent an allegation from the man who originally made the accusation or other evidence that Bell was pressured by Thomas or others to lie to the investigators, where's the crime?

If Democrats think Brizzi is going soft on Repubican friends, at least one Republican must be thinking otherwise. That would be former lobbyist and GOP political consultant, Brad Hiller, who Brizzi's office prosecuted for theft of funds he oversaw while working for the Indiana Senate Republican Campaign Committee. The Star announced today that Brizzi plans to file new charges against Hiller, just as he is completing a 6-month sentence for his earlier crime, for money he stole from one of his clients at Bose Treacy Associates, the Indiana Soft Drink Association. If he is found guilty of these new charges, he could face several more years in prison. Speaking on his decision to file new charges against Hiller, Brizzi said, "It shows your economic station doesn't matter. If you're going to steal, you're going to steal. He continued, "And it's easier to steal with a briefcase than it is with a gun."

Ironically, Hiller's former boss is none other than Ed Treacy, the Marion Co. Democratic chairman who was conducting a press conference this morning to complain that Brizzi was whitewashing the Thomas investigation. Advance Indiana is curious if Treacy and other Democrats think Brizzi is falling down on his job for not launching an investigation into ghost payrolling/bribery in connection with the damning IU internal audit released just this week about the questionable employment of two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. John Aguilera and former Rep. Ron Liggett.

Major Moves A Done Deal

The House tonight passed Gov. Mitch Daniels' historic Major Moves initiative contained in HB 1008 by a vote of 51-48 with only one Republican, Rep. David Wolkins (D) voting against the proposal to privatize the Indiana Toll Road. The bill has already been assured of easy passage in the Republican-controlled Senate.

In a last ditch effort to throw water on the idea, House Democrats sunk to new lows. Rep. Craig Fry (D-Mishawaka) lived up to his reputation. He tried to raise fears by pointing out that nuclear waste and materials are transported across country via the Indiana Toll Road, and now we're going to let it be "controlled by a bunch of foreigners." The "foreigners" in this case happen to be investors from two strong American allies, Australia and Spain. This xenophobic comment comment comes just a day after Japanese-based Toyota announced it was adding more than a 1,000 new jobs at its assembly plant in Lafayatte and just days after another foreign company announced it would build a bio-diesel plant in Kosciusko County, which will make Indiana the leading bio-diesel producing state in the country.

Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington), who was unwilling to come to the table and play with the Republicans, complained that the deal will make the new I-69 highway a toll road for the folks in his district, while the folks to the north in Martinsville will get a free ride on I-69 to Indianapolis. Pierce said, "It's undemocratic." Sorry, Rep. Pierce, it's called politics. You see, Martinsville's legislators, Rep. Ralph Foley (R) and Sen. Richard Bray (R) took a seat at the table and played the game. They got the best deal for their constituents. You decided to walk away from the table and do everything you could to shut the game down. You took a gamble with your constituents' interests, and you and your constituents both lost because you made a bad gamble. That's how representative government works.

Rep. Randy Borror (R-Ft. Wayne), the bill's chief sponsor, got it right. We need to let the folks in California and New York know that there is something in between, and that something is Indiana. The people of Indiana will benefit for many years to come because a majority in this legislature rose above the demagoguery of the nay sayers and did what was right in passing Major Moves, even when it was not a politically popular decision to make.

Molly Ivans No Fan of Hillary Clinton

It's quite entertaining watching one liberal Democrat after another line up to take shots at the likely 2008 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). The latest is none other than Molly Ivans. She wants it to be known that she thinks Hillary is just another "D.C. Democrat" and much worse:

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

So who does Molly think would make a good president? Her answer: "I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight."

Knowing Hillary Clinton, she's probably jumping up and down with joy being attacked from the left by folks like Molly Ivans because it makes her appear to be a middle-of-the-roader who is more electable. Hell, she probably paid Molly to write the damn column.

Bloggers Sign On With Howey

Two well-known area bloggers with differing political views have been enlisted by The Howey Political Report as contributing columnists. Democrat Jennifer Wagner of Taking Down Words and Republican Joshua Claybourne of Indiana Barrister and In The Agora are both featured at the Howey Politcal Report Online.

Both take aim at Gov. Mitch Daniels. Wagner debuts with a story entitled "Mitch's Bullying Government." She opens with: Wilson Mizner once said, “The worst-tempered people I've ever met were the people who knew they were wrong.”Mizner died more than a decade before Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was born, but the screenwriter’s reflection applies perfectly to Indiana’s current commander-in-chief." You can pretty much figure out where this one heads.

Claybourne, an Evansville native, takes on Gov. Daniels in a story entitled "A Slight To Southwest Indiana."Here's Claybourne's beef with the Governor: "When Gov. Mitch Daniels went to Washington earlier this month to hype Indiana's progress in producing bio-based fuels such as ethanol, he pointed to plans to build bio-fuel facilities in 15 Indiana counties, including what will be the world's largest such facility in Kosciusko County. But none of these plants will be built in Southwestern Indiana, because decades of neglect have left that region without the transportation infrastructure necessary to attract investment."

Wagner and Claybourne are both students at IU School of Law-Indy. Wagner is also the communications director for the Indiana Democratic Party. Wagner's blog site, TDW, hasn't been afraid to take Howey to task in the past. In a recent post, TDW wrote about Howey speaking at a Lake County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner: "We know Brian's committed to writing about politics from a nonpartisan standpoint, which makes this appearance a little strange. To be fair, we don't know from the story whether this was a speech about covering politics or a speech about being a Republican and winning big in oh-six. It just struck us as odd."

More On IU Jobs Program For Legislators

The Gary Post-Tribune picks up on the AP report on a recently released internal audit concerning the troubling circumstances surrounding the hiring of two Democratic lawmakers by IU. The Star first ran the story in its online edition yesterday. However, the story first ran in the Bloomington Herald-Times as a story written by Steve Hinnefield, who the AP did not credit for the story. Because it is a subscriber only-paper, we cannot offer a link to the Herald-Times story.

The Post-Tribune's Sharlonda Waterhouse openly questions in her story "whether [Rep. John Aguilera's] former employment with Indiana University Labor Studies division included lobbying favors." While Aguilera declined to offer Waterhouse a comment for the story, she writes that the comments we quoted in our report yesterday from IU's Charles Davis "suggests favors were expected". Quoting in full Davis' comment, Waterhouse says:

The university audit quotes ex-division head Charles Davis telling staff about why he hired Aguilera and State Rep. Ron Liggett, paying them each over $65,000 in 2004 to snag state grants through the Incumbent Workers Training Fund.

“When you look at the cost benefit analysis of this kind of work and the political nature and the potential risk we face at the next budgetary session of the legislature it benefits us to have people who are close to us, and friends of ours in the legislature ... we may have lost sixty some thousand, but that is better than losing $358,000 in a line item. (Aguilera) sits on the Ways and Means Committee ... It still might not be the right decision ... It is very complex ... You have to consider other factors as well ... If it is the fiscally prudent thing to do.”

The Post-Tribune obtained copies of Aguilera's W-2 forms showing that IU paid Aguilera a total of $88,061, including $22,228 in 2003 and $65,833 in 2004. "In addition to their work pay, each also got 25 hours of paid vacation time," Waterhouse says. She also reports on other irregularities uncovered by the audit. One of the legislators charged the university $3,000 for 15 months of cell phone use. Also, one of the legislators may have received $1,268 in "unallowable travel expenses."

The circumtances surrounding the two lawmakers' initial hiring is also brought to light in the Post-Tribune story. According to the audit report, IU's Davis "felt caught between 'a rock and a hard place' because he was asked to hire the legislators by a top union leader: 'When the President of the (union name removed in transcript) comes to me and says we’d like you to do this and here are a couple of people I’d like you to consider to hire, I have to take that very seriously.' When Davis' comments found their way into the audit report, Davis took issue with the report's characterization of his comments. In a rebuttal he insisted they were "taken out of context", but the audit still concluded his comments gave the hirings "the appearance of impropriety."

Frequent readers of Advance Indiana know that we have been highly critical of Ivy Tech's hiring of four legislators. Not surprisingly, Davis relied on Ivy Tech's practices in defense of his hiring of Aguilera and Liggett. He told the staff he based the lawmakers' salary on what other legislators were paid by Ivy Tech. The Post-Tribune added about the Ivy Tech hirings:

It is not unusual for universities to employ legislators. Ivy Tech and Indiana University both employ four. The Ivy Tech positions held by Sen. Bob Garton and state Reps. Pat Bauer, Craig Fry and Bill Crawford are all administrative, salaried positions and not part-time hourly as were the positions of Liggett and Aguilera.

Ivy Tech was quick to defend their hiring of four lawmakers:

Jeff Terp, director of external affairs for Ivy Tech, said their legislator-employees “take official leaves of absence during the legislative session. They are not compensated nor do they receive any benefits. It’s a complete separation, complete hands-off relationship.

“There’s no comparison (to the IUPUI matter). These legislators provide a very valuable service. They have job descriptions and have been under scrutiny. They are not hired to influence the legislative process or budget process on behalf of Ivy Tech. Never. To draw any comparison is erroneous ... false and misleading,” Terp said, adding that they are the lowest funded college system in the state.

Adding to the absurdity of Aguilera's and Liggett's hiring, IU was unable to provide job descriptions for the two lawmakers, even though the two's employment ended in November, 2004, and their hirings have been the subject of an extensive internal investigation. It's also curious that IU described the two's jobs as "part-time hourly positions." It is hard to argue to the average Hoosier that a job that pays $65,000 a year is a part-time position.

The audit report contained even more damaging conclusions. "We are uncertain that the legislators worked all of the hours for which they were paid,” the report states. The possibility of ghost payrolling could not be ruled out by the audit.

So when does the criminal investigation begin?

GLAAD About AP's New Stylebook Entries For GLBT

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is applauding the Associated Press for updating its stylebook entries to reflect accurate and contemporary usage for gay, lesbian, transgender and sexual orientation references.

"For the AP Stylebook to update these entries is a significant milestone," said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano, who praised the AP's decisions to, among other things, encourage use of the term "transgender," restrict usage of the word "homosexual" and prohibit use of the term "sexual preference." "Given the fundamental inaccuracy of terms like 'sexual preference' and the pejorative connotations of words like 'homosexual,' the AP's style guidelines have been updated to reflect contemporary usage that's more fair, more accurate and more inclusive," Giuliano added.

According to the updated usage for the word "gay", the stylebook says it should be "used to describe men and women attracted to the same sex, though lesbian is the more common term for women. The term "gay" is "preferred over homosexual except in clinical contexts or references to sexual activity" according to the stylebook. Also, "sexual orientation" should only be used when it is pertinent to a story, and references to "sexual preference" or to a gay or alternative "lifestyle" should be avoided.

The word "transgender" is now preferred when discussing sex changes or transsexuals. The term "transgender" should be used as "the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth" according to the stylebook. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly advises the stylebook.

Finally, stop using the term "lesbianism", which has "taken on pejorative connotations" according to the stylebook.

Now IU's Buying Legislators With Jobs

Not to be outdone by Ivy Tech, it turns out that our esteemed Indiana University is also buying legislative favors from state lawmakers with job offers, in an even more blatant manner than Ivy Tech. The Associated Press reveals an internal audit that discovered that two Democratic House members were paid $65,800 per year to help obtain training grants throught a state program for which the lawmakers appropriated the funds.

IU's Division of Labor Studies hired Rep. John Aguilera (D) and former Rep. Ron Liggett (D) to "help labor studies keep its state budget appropriation." The AP reports, "In a Sept. 24, 2004, faculty meeting, Davis said paying the lawmakers was 'better than losing $358,000 in a line item' and noted that Aguilera was on the budget-writing House Ways and Means Committee. The story doesn't mention this, but Liggett's son, Troy, served as then-House Speaker Pat Bauer's chief of staff. Bauer served as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for many years before becoming Speaker and continued to play a big role in the appropriations process as Speaker.

The audit found that one of the legislators had been successful in obtaining $487,978 for four training grants, while the other lawmaker had a grant approval pending before his job was eliminated. The article doesn't disclose which of the two lawmakers out-performed the other.

IU's Charles Davis, who served as the Division's director and who made the decision to give the jobs to Aguilera and Liggett, resigned after the audit was concluded. He is, however, still employed at the university as a full-time tenured professor. According to the audit, Davis made payments to the lawmakers for their work even though they didn't submit the required time sheets. Each should have turned in 34 time sheets; one reported 2 time sheets while the other turned in 20 time sheets.

Not surpringly, both lawmakers defended their work. "I know we were giving it 110 percent, and the results showed that," said Liggett, a Redkey Democrat who lost his House seat in 2004. He said he often worked more than 40 hours a week calling on businesses and unions around the state for the program.Aguilera, D-East Chicago, issued a statement through his attorney saying he wasn't aware of the audit until it was completed. Aguilera said he met with IU President Adam Herbert about the matter and provided information to IU rebutting the audit findings the AP reported.

Our question is: why hasn't there been a criminal investigation? Was this work not a quid pro quo? Or did Davis mean something else when he said it made more sense to hire the two lawmakers than to lose IU's line item appropriation? If the recent, alleged job-selling case involving the state's inspector general David Thomas warranted an investigation by Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, this case screams for an investigation.

We've been critical of Ivy Tech in the past for giving four state lawmakers, including Senate President Pro Tem Bob Garton, House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer, Rep. Craig Fry and Rep. Bill Crawford, high-paying jobs. We think the men are being paid to ensure that Ivy Tech's budget is appropriately funded by lawmakers--the appearance is undeniable, but at least they have been given jobs with duties not necessarily tied to the school's appropriations. In the case of IU's jobs for Aguilera and Liggett, there is no separation--the linkage between a state appropriation and the lawmakers' jobs is quite apparent.

Today's disclosure may help explain why Democrats have not protested too much about either the Thomas affair or the earlier job offers Daniels' chief of staff Harry Gonso admitting he had offered to Rep. Vern Tincher (D) and Rep. Bob Bischoff (D) as an added incentive for their early retirement. Democrats may have been aware that this extremely damaging audit report was about to be made public. Had they yelled too loudly about Daniels' men and then tried to dismiss this audit report, well, that would have certainly struck some as being a little hypocritical.

Major Deal On Major Moves

Legislative leaders appear to have reached an agreement which might pave the way for passage of Gov. Daniels' Major Moves initiative. The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette's Niki Kelly details key provisions of the agreement which include:

• Additional money from the deal is being offered as an incentive to the toll road counties (e.g., Steuben and LaGrange counties would each receive $40 million up front).
• A trust fund for future road projects is increased to $500 million.
• The state will have to shell out $278 million over the next 10 years to act as a quasi-toll freeze for toll road commuters.
• I-69 will be built as a toll road, but the toll road will only extend from Evansville to Martinsville, unless future legislative approval is provided extending the toll road to Indianapolis.
• The I-69 route cannot be built through Perry Township without future legislative approval.

With these changes, opponents will pretty much be reduced to arguing that the leasing of the toll road is wrong because 75 years is too long, and the lessee is a foreign-owned company. At least for the next 10 years, local commuters aren't going to be hit with huge toll increases. Instead, the state is giving up money it would have otherwise had for other projects if we're understanding this compromise correctly.

Marion County legislators who oppose running I-69 cutting through Perry Township can vote for the bill's passage knowing that a final decision on the road's exact route has been deferred for another day. The same is true for legislators in neighboring counties to the south who opposed I-69 being made a toll road for their constituents commuting back and forth to Indianapolis.

The pot for the local Toll Road counties just keeps getting bigger and bigger. That's going to increase the pressure on local lawmakers from their local government constituents to sign on to the deal.

Admittedly, though, this deal is not going to turn public opinion around overnight. Legislators are going to have to take a gamble that their constituents' opposition will fade as they get used to the idea that the private management of the toll road isn't going to be such a bad thing afterall, particularly when they see all the benefits coming to their communities. The question is whether that will happen before this fall's election. That may be too big of a gamble for some legislators.

The deal should stop the loss of Republican support for the deal, and if Sen. Earline Rogers' (D-Gary) recently announced support for Major Moves is any indication, there may be some real hope of picking up some more Democrat support to make up for any Republican losses.

Washington Post: Gay Parenting A Done Deal

The Indiana Law Blog catches an insightful opinion piece from the Washington Post written by Dahlia Lithwick explaining why gay parenting is a done deal to those committed to blocking gays from legally recognized marriages. Lithwick writes:

A heads-up to those of you still fretting about the alleged evils of gay marriage: The parade has moved on. Try as you may to vote, or legislate your way out of a country that solemnizes such relationships, committed gay couples are already giving birth to, adopting and fostering children. Whether or not same-sex marriage becomes widely legal in America, same-sex parenting is a done deal.

Lithwick's article recounts how courts across the country are increasingly recognizing "more generous notions of what 'parenting' and 'family' mean." While conservative critics attack judges for recognizing parenting rights of gay couples as being judicial activists, Lithwick argues that judges are simply adhering to a bedrock principle of family law"--the best interests of the child.

Most states now approve of gay adoptions Lithwick observes. Only Florida statutorily prohibits gay adoptions, while Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and North Dakota do so as a matter of practice. The Christian right is pursuing constitutional bans on gay adoptions in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Missouri. Arkansas, Nebraska and Utah prohibit gays from serving as foster parents.

Indiana courts currently allow single and two-parent gay adoptions, and gays are allowed to serve as foster parents. These rights are not granted by statute specifically; rather, the courts have deemed such parenting acceptable when it is in the "best interests of the child." In a case currently pending before the Indiana Court of Appeals, however, Indiana's Attorney General has asked the Court of Appeals to overturn previous decisions upholding two-parent gay adoptions. The natural parents of children cannot be denied custodial rights of their children simply because they are gay Indiana courts have consistently held; there must be evidence that the parent's sexual orientation is having an adverse impact on a child to deny a gay parent custodial rights.

Every major child welfare entity, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League and the American Psychological Association all agree that gay parents are no worse than heterosexual parents Lithwick contends. In cases where one parent comes out as being gay after children are born of a marriage, the result is that efforts will be made to deny the gay parent equal parenting rights with the heterosexual parent. Lithwick says:

The majority of states, by denying gay partners the right to "second-parent" adoptions or joint custody with a gay partner, effectively enshrine a legal regime in which millions of children have one legal parent and one legal stranger. That means that millions of children lack the security of two parents for purposes of health insurance, life insurance, inheritance, child support payments, emergency medical authorizations or parental leave, particularly in the event that their parents separate or their primary parent dies.

In order to defend the current adoption and custody regimes, therefore, you need to subordinate the practical and emotional interests of children to the moral preferences of lawmakers. That is precisely what family law prohibits.

The arguments for locking gay parents out of formal parenting arrangements include the familiar litany of complaints about health, morals and the sanctity of traditional marriage. But when real family court judges face real children in real family relationships, those arguments are quickly blunted by real concerns.

Lithwick's entire point boils down to the fact that courts must face the reality of looking at the paramount issue in these cases, which is the best interests of the child. She opines, "Rules rooted in sweeping moral judgments don't generally work in family law for the same reason they don't work for families: Kids love and need the parents they have, not necessarily the parents we love."

GOP & Abortion: Be Careful What You Wish For

For the past quarter century, the Republican Party nationally has embraced the belief that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was wrongly decided, and that abortions should be outlawed, except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. The so-called pro life voters who are drawn to the party because of its firm stance against abortion are very energized and turn out to vote in close elections to the advantage of the party. This has been true, not because pro life voters outnumber pro choice voters, but because pro life voters have been more motivated to take action than pro choice voters.

As long as Roe v. Wade remains intact, the election of pro life candidates has had little impact on a woman's right to choose. The pro lifers have been successful in several attempts to impose mostly symbolic restrictions on the procedure, but the fundamental right has remained intact as the Supreme Court has time after time turned back attempts to overturn the 1973 decision. With the replacement of a pro choice justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, with a pro life justice, Samuel Alito, and the appointment of John Roberts as Chief Justice, who is also pro life, the long-standing validity of Roe v. Wade has never seemed more uncertain.

The pro life movement clearly believes it now has a majority of justices on the court to overturn the decision. If that happens, each state legislature will become a battleground between pro life and pro choice forces to determine the fate of each state's law on abortion. States like South Dakota are already jumping the gun, having enacted this year a law which would outlaw all abortions, including rape and incest. Mississippi's legislature is moving a similar bill which Gov. Haley Barbour says he'll sign.

Indiana's pro life forces probably have the votes to pass a similar ban here, although the legislature passed on a legislative attempt by Rep. Troy Woodruff (R-Vincennes) to outlaw abortions. Instead, the legislature has been tinkering with efforts to further regulate abortion clinics and require additional disclosures to women seeking an abortion, such as when life begins and how the fetus may feel pain as a result of the procedure.

So this is what the Republican Party has been wishing for all these years. Or is it? A report by Newsweek suggests party leaders are realing concerned now that the pro life movement is on a roll. After South Dakota enacted its ban, Newsweek contacted GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman to get his reaction. He told the magazine he had nothing to say about it, and that he did not intend to make any statement on it during his speech at a big Republican gathering in Memphis, Tennessee. Newsweek describes the new-found Republican dilemma:

Why such reticence to embrace glad tidings? After all, the abortion issue has been good to the Republican Party. It has energized Roman Catholic and evangelical grass-roots activists and allowed the GOP to paint pro-choice Democrats as cultural extremists, out of step with Main Street and the heartland. But a recent flurry of activity on abortion is making Republican politicians nervous. With states moving to restrict abortion and the Supreme Court drawing closer to the day when it might actually reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion, GOP leaders see big political risks.

They may be in the awkward position of getting more than they asked for. The South Dakota law, for instance, would allow abortions only to save the life of the mother, not in cases of rape or incest. That is further than most Americans want to go. By a roughly two-to-one margin, polls show, people want to uphold the basic abortion right enshrined in Roe v. Wade, even if they approve of some restrictions, like parental notification. "I'm pro-life, but you can't wear the thing out," says Clarke Reed, the legendary architect of the GOP in Mississippi. "I'm worried about it." With reason: his own state legislature is moving in a direction similar to South Dakota's.

Interestingly, Newsweek reports that some of the party's most conservative members are not embracing the recent pro life efforts. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) warns, "It could backfire." Sen. George Allen (R-VA), who is running for president, said he wouldn't have signed a bill like South Dakota's had it arrived on his desk when he was governor of Virginia. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) initially let it be known that he would have signed the South Dakota law, but in Memphis this weekend he was "uncharacteristically muted" when he was asked if the South Dakota action might cause problems for the party in this year's election.

The truth is, if this issue has to be fought state by state, it will prove disastrous for the Republican Party. As the reality that the right to an abortion may no longer remain inviolate begins to sink in, the pro choice voters will become increasingly activated to take action the same way pro life voters have been for the past quarter century. That will become the decisive issue in many close elections. If the polls are correct in the view that Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade by a 2-1 margin, the GOP had better hope that the Supreme Court leaves the decision alone. Otherwise, it might just get what it has wished for all these years.

Cleaning Up Indiana's Voter Registration Lists

While the Indiana statewide voter registration system (SVRS), which is being developed by Indiana-based Quest Information Systems, took quite a beating during a series of investigative reports about the system by WISH-TV, Indiana Legislative Insight paints a much rosier picture.

WISH-TV reported problems with the system, which might result in a state-wide shutdown of the system during an election, or which might make registered voters vulnerable to identity theft. WISH-TV also reported that Secretary of State Todd Rokita may have played favoritism when he chose Quest over more qualified competitors.

There are many positive things to report on SVRS, notwithstanding WISH-TV's unflattering portrayal. According to Indiana Legislative Insight, there were more than 4.3 million voter records in SVRS as of late February. If you're concerned about honest elections, you will be pleased to learn that SVRS has identified 290,522 possible duplicate registrations. That's almost 7% of all registered voters! After SVRS linked to the Department of Health in February, 28,845 potential matches for deceased voters were identified. And a link to the Department of Corrections identified another 5,435 incarcerated voters who are ineligible to vote.

Adding new voters to the database was also enabled in February when SVRS was linked to the BMV, allowing 24,000 voter registrations to be added electronically. Indiana Legislative Insight points out that the BMV link will save county election administrators countless hours of sifting through paper voter cards.

The real test of SVRS' value will come in this May's statewide primary election. A mock election is being planned in mid-March to test "the overall readiness of the counties and the application to execute the primary election in May" according to the Indiana Legislative Insight. At least 79 counties plan to participate in the mock election.

"I'm From Louisville"

A good friend and avid reader of Advance Indiana informs us of an encounter he had tonight with 7th District Democratic congressional candidate Kris Kiser and his partner, Daryl Johnson, in Greg's Our Place, a popular gay bar in Indianapolis. When he handed Kris and Daryl a handbill in the bar for the Pride of Indy Band & Color Guard concert scheduled this Sunday, March 12, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. at the Broadway United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, the two responded, "We're from Louisville."

Of course, our good friend already knew who they were when he approached them and couldn't help but think, "Why would an openly gay candidate for Congress in Indianapolis tell him he was from Louisville?" Wouldn't it have made more sense for the man to have said, "Hi, my name is Kris Kiser, and I'm running for Congress against Julia Carson?" Well, then again, nothing makes much sense about his campaign, so we guess it should come as no surprise.

Top Bush Aide Busted For Theft

NOMINEE FOR U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Until a few weeks ago, Claude Alexander Allen worked as a domestic policy adviser to President Bush. Prior to that, he served as the number two person at the Department of Health and Human Services and was twice nominated by President Bush as judge of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yesterday, he was charged with stealing more than $5,000 worth of merchandise from a Target store by claiming phony refunds according to ABC News:

Allen has been under investigation since at least January for the alleged thefts on 25 different occasions at Target and Hecht's stores, a police spokesman, Lt. Eric Burnett, said. Police reviewed his credit card records to track his purchase.

Police believe Allen would buy items, take them to his car, then return to the store with his receipt. He would select the same items, then take them to the store return desk and show the receipt from the first purchase. Using that method, he would receive credit for the second items on his credit cards, Burnett said.

Allen was allegedly seen Jan. 2 at a Target in Gaithersburg taking items off the shelf that he then took the return desk. He had a receipt for the merchandise, was given a refund and left. The items he allegedly received fraudulent refunds for include clothing, a Bose theater system and stereo equipment. Some purchases were as little as $2.50.

Before joining the Bush Administration, Allen served as the head of Virginia's Health & Human Resources department, and he once served as a press aide to former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC). During confirmation hearings for his nomination to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, ABC reported that "Allen was questioned about his use of the word "queer" when he was a press aide to Sen. Jesse Helms in 1984. Allen said he didn't intend it as a slur against gay people."

Allen abruptly resigned his job at the White House on February 9 saying that he wanted to spend more time with his family according to the administration. Slate.com notes that a Washington Times story "speculated that the 45-year-old aide, a noted social conservative, might have quit to protest a new Pentagon policy about military chaplains."

According to the ABC News report, he has been under investigation by police since early January. It just goes to show that the people you least suspect of stealing are sometimes the worst offenders. This guy could do some time in prison for his crime and lose his license to practice law if convicted.

Daniels' Reaction to Thomas Affair Disappointing

Gov. Daniels took office promising to clean up corruption in state government and to adhere to the highest of ethical standards. Now that his chief of staff and his inspector general have both been accused of selling state jobs for political favors, we would expect him to take appropriate action to show us just how serious he is about his commitment to clean and honest government. Reading what Jim Shella had to say about the Governor's reaction to these matters at this week's press briefing, there is no reason to believe he meant what he said. Shella writes:

Mitch Daniels became animated during his weekly media availability today when asked about the fading controversy involving Inspector General Dave Thomas and a reported job offer to a candidate for sheriff in Clay County. Daniels called it a "non-issue" and said Thomas is owed "more apologies." Critics, he said, should focus on "real ethical questions." As to whether Thomas should be having job discussions of any kind, Daniels said simply that Thomas is "utterly innocent."

Thomas is owed more apologies? You've got to be kidding Governor. Thomas, who is suppose to be your top ethics officer and not a patronage hack, had no business discussing state job offers with anyone. Even your own office said Thomas had no authority to discuss the job with Steve Bell.

Curiously, Bell modified his original account as first reported in the Star after he was approached by investigators from Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi's office. Bell is now saying that he apparently misunderstood Thomas' discussion with him about an opening on the Parole Board as a job offer--one that would require him to drop his bid for Clay County Sheriff as a Democrat if he accepted the offer. Thomas told the Star, "I apparently heard what I wanted to hear." Both Bell and Thomas, however, acknowledge having a discussion about the open slot on the Parole Board. Thomas insists that he just told Bell to contact the Governor's office if he was interested in the position, and that he never tied the job to his campaign for sheriff.

The Star's Matt Tully adds another interesting aspect to this story. Both Bell and Thomas attend the same church in Brazil. Tully spoke to Bell shortly after Brizzi's investigators interviewed him about the alleged job offer. Tully writes, "In addition to the investigators, Bell said he received another interesting call – from Thomas’ wife, who called Bell to complain about his accusations." Hmmm. Gee, you don't think Thomas' wife may have leaned on Bell to offer Brizzi's investigators a more favorable account of his conversation with her husband do you? Did she make the phone call at her husband's request? As a former prosecutor, Thomas should know better than to do that because it might be interpreted as witness tampering.

This whole matter stinks. Thomas has zero credibility as an inspector general after this matter whether he commited a crime or not. But come to think of it, his own boss now lacks any credibility on matters of ethics in light of his stubborn refusal to see wrong-doing by either Thomas or Gonso. Don't preach to us anymore about ethics in state government Gov. Daniels. Because we know now that it really just doesn't matter.

Kiser's Campaign Manager Departs

Kris Kiser's campaign manager has departed his campaign according to Indiana Legislative Insight. We first reported on February 28 that Kris Kiser's campaign manager for his 7th District congressional primary race against Rep. Julia Carson (D) was not held in high favor with other Democratic leaders. We wrote then, "Advance Indiana has also learned from a reliable source that the person Kiser has chosen to manage his campaign is not held in high favor with many Democratic leaders because of his past involvement in other campaigns, notably a congressional campaign in northern Indiana."

A post from an anonymous person confirmed what we wrote about Kiser's campaign manager and further asserted that he had left Kiser's campaign under a cloud, among other less than flattering assertions about the man Kiser has chosen to run his campaign. And now the highly respected Indiana Legislative Insight confirms the campaign manager's departure when it writes in its March 13 edition, "As we understand it, former Rep. Mike Marshall (D)--who raised a lot of eyebrows when he ran the 2004 CD 02 campaign of Joe Donnelly (D)--is no longer a member of the CD 07 campaign management team for challenger Kris Kizer (D)."

Kizer's campaign now appears to be running on fumes in the aftermath of The Word's endorsement of his candidacy and the backlash it caused in the GLBT community. Some observers are beginning to speculate that Kiser will drop his campaign altogether in advance of May's primary rather than endure the drubbing he is likely to take at the polls against Carson.

Chicago's Gay Games Draws Out The Bigots

The 7th Annual Gay Games comes to Chicago this summer from July 15-22, and it is expected to draw 12,000 participants from 70 countries from around the world. Four months ahead of the event it is already drawing out the bigots who want to keep gays out of their community.

Organizers of the event have scheduled most of the events in the City of Chicago, but other events are being scheduled throughout the Chicagoland area. One such event is the rowing event, which organizers plan to hold in Crystal Lake, a northwestern suburb. But anti-gay bigots showed up in mass at a local park board meeting to block the event from being held in their community.

Local residents packed a board meeting in an ugly, public display of bigotry to speak out against the event and to complain that hosting it was "against our traditional values", would bring a "group with a high risk of AIDS" into our community and "expose our children to the homosexual lifestyle." The park's manager said he received hundreds of hateful e-mails. Last week, the board voted the gay games event down on a 2-2 tie vote, allowing the bigots to win.

According to the event organizers, the rowing event is a relatively small event. There will be about 75 participants and no more than a couple hundred spectators at the event. To listen to the television reports from the area, including a report by WMAQ-TV, you would have thought the whole town was about to be overrun by gays.

Board president Jerry Sullivan was on vacation in Mexico when the initial vote was taken last week and reacted with anger and embarrassment upon his return. He insisted upon another vote at last night's board meeting. Proponents pointed out that to deny the group the right to hold the event in Crystal Lake simply because they were gay violated Illiniois' new civil rights law protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination, which took effect earlier this year. After a several-hour, heated meeting, the Board approved hosting the rowing event on a 3-2 vote.

The Gay Games was started back in the 1980s as a way of promoting acceptance of gays and lesbians and to bring together people from around the world. Let's hope the event will teach the folks in Crystal Lake a little something about tolerance and acceptance. They could sure use it.

Bye Bye Dubai

DP World, the UAE company which would have taken over management of key U.S. ports in a buyout of P&O, a British company, announced today it would accomodate U.S. objections and sell off the American component of the purchase. The Washington Post reports that the announcement came just hours after GOP congressional leaders notified President Bush that Congress would pass legislation to block the deal.

This comes just a day after the Dubai emirate theatened to retaliate against U.S. interests economically if the deal was not approved. Today, Dubai was singing a different tune. "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve this relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Ports North America, Inc. to a United States entity," Edward H. Bilkey, chief operating officer for Dubai Ports World, said in a statement released this afternoon. "This decision is based on an understanding that DP World will have time to effect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

The devil will be in the details though. Will the American company just be a front company for DP? The announcement did not indicate how the divestiture would be accomplished or what American company would acquire the interest. The Post indicated that remains a concern of congressional opposition to the original deal. "Rep. Peter King (R-NY) . . . said he wants to see the sale unfold. 'It would have to be an American company with no links to DP World,' he said."

The blogosphere should be credited with its role in stopping this deal. Little attention to the deal had been given in the mainstream media until blogers from across the entire political spectrum began questioning whether the deal was in America's best interests. The MSM quickly followed suit as opposition from all corners mounted.

Dubai's Emir Resorts To Blackmail To Win Port Deal Approval

The Hill reports that Dubai's royal family is not too happy about congressional opposition to the sale of Britain's P&O to DP World, a port management company owned by the United Arab Emirates. The deal would give the government-owned company control of most major U.S. ports. If it is not approved, the Dubai emirate is planning to retaliate against U.S. interests.

The Hill said, "Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). That deal is a $9.7 billion dollar deal Boeing has with Dubai for the sale of 42 Boeing 777 aircraft. It's already working because Boeing's lobbyist are now springing into action to help save the deal. And Boeing is headquarted in House Speaker Dennis Hastert's homestate of Illinois.

And all those U.S. military ships and planes, which are allowed docking and landing rights in the UAE, might just see those privileges withdrawn if the Dubai emirate doesn't get its way.

Have things gotten so pathetic for the U.S. that a tiny oil sheikdom can dictate to us their control over our ports? Let's just hand the terrorists the keys they need to smuggle their nuclear weapons into our country and finish us all off for good.

Controversial Abortion Language Defining When Life Begins Back

House Republican conferee Rep. Tim Harris (R-Marion) has added back controversial language to HB 1172 which requires physicians performing abortions to instruct a woman that human life begins at conception, and that the fetus may feel pain during the procedure the Star reports. HB 1172 passed the House with the language, but the Senate removed it in committee.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana opposes the bill. No medical science supporting the language of the bill has been presented at any of the hearings on the bill. "To suggest to a woman where no science is evident that it is possible to feel pain before 20 weeks is nothing short of harassment," Michael McKillip, director of legislative affairs for the abortion-rights group told the Star.

Sen. Mike Delph (R-Carmel) sees it differently. He told the Star, "To me, this issue is the human-rights issue of our day. I feel very strongly about this, that we have the duty to protect the least among us and the innocent."

USA Today: Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

USA Today editorializes in support of repealing the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which allows the military to discharge soldiers who openly admit to being gay. Commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down earlier this week, which upholds another federal law barring law schools from denying the military on-campus recruiting if they want to receive federal funds, the paper wrote:

The law schools happen to be right about the absurdity of "don't ask, don't tell," but, as the liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court agreed, they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on . . . Even so, the schools have every right to vigorously protest the ban on gays — and they should. There's opportunity in their defeat at the Supreme Court to raise awareness about the costs of "don't ask, don't tell" and intensify efforts to overturn this wrongheaded law.

In support of the repeal, the USA Today observes that nearly 10,000 soldiers have been discharged for being gay since President Clinton signed the anti-gay measure into law in 1993. At the same time, the military is spending hundreds of millions to recruit and retain soldiers to replace those being forced out because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The paper concludes, "The U.S. ban on openly gay servicemembers is an archaic and hurtful assault on people who want only to serve their country. The Supreme Court did what it had to do. Now, it's Congress' turn to do what it ought to do and repeal the ban."

Brizzi Launches Investigation of Daniels' Inspector General For Allegation of Selling A State Job

After a report in this morning’s edition of the Star hit the streets alleging that Gov. Daniels' Inspector General David Thomas had offered an appointment to the Indiana Parole Board to a sheriff’s candidate in Clay County if he dropped his candidacy, Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi quickly announced he is launching an investigation. The Star reports:

Prosecutor Carl Bizzi cautioned that he was conducting a preliminary review "to see if it rises to the level of criminal conduct." Brizzi said he will send a letter to Indiana's Inspector General David Thomas asking for pertinent e-mails and documents. A story in The Indianapolis Star today reported that Demoract Steve Bell said Thomas offered him a post on the Indiana Parole Board if he ended his campaign for Clay County sheriff. Brizzi said he decided to review the allegations after reading the story. Such a job offer could be a violation of official misconduct or bribery laws, Brizzi told reporters today. Offering a state post in exchange for a candidate quitting his run for office "creates an appearance" that needs to be investigated, said Brizzi, a
Republican.

We totally agree with Brizzi’s decision to look into the matter, but it raises the question of why allegations that Daniels’ chief of staff Harry Gonso offered similar state jobs to two Democratic House members in the middle of the session while both members were pondering retirement, and while the Governor was actively pursuing their votes for his Major Moves initiative, is not also being investigated?

Thomas has denied he made the offer as alleged, but he admits he spoke to Democrat Steve Bell about the job at the request of Eric Holcomb, a close aide to Gov. Daniels. As the state’s chief officer in charge of regulating ethics in state government, it is simply inexcusable that Thomas would compromise his own integrity by involving himself in any state hiring matter which is clearly not within the scope of his employment as noted by the Governor’s office. Thomas is a former Republican prosecutor in Clay County--hence his continuing to dabble in local political matters there.

Making matters worse in the Gonso job offer matter, the Indiana Republican Party is now running radio attack ads against Rep. Vern Tincher (D-Terre Haute) and Rep. Bob Bischoff (D-Greendale), the two lawmakers offered jobs by Gonso, for refusing to support Gov. Daniels’ Major Moves Initiative. Gonso had told the Star earlier that he offered each of the legislators state jobs because they were highly qualified candidates for the job. To accept the jobs, the Democrats would have had to give up their jobs as state lawmakers, thereby enhancing Republican efforts to maintain control of the House by putting their seats in play.

This all looks very bad folks, and the timing of this news could not come at a worse time for the administration. Gov. Daniels promised us a state government with the highest of ethical standards. So far, it is those persons closest to the Governor, including his own man in charge of ethics, who have failed to live up to those high standards. Gov. Daniels needs to deal directly with both of these individuals as quickly as possible if he is truly serious about cleaning up state government.

Brokeback Marriages

The New York Times features an interesting piece on so-called "Brokeback Marriages"--women married to men who have had sex with other men. According to the story, there are an estimated 1.7 million to 3.4 million American women who once were or are now married to men who have had sex with other men in the last five years--that's about 4% of men who are or have been married. Online support groups are flooded with inquiries from married women in their 20s and 30s married to men who have had sex with other men, suggesting it is not an "artifact" of the past. The Times writes:

Such marriages are not just artifacts of the closeted 1950's. In the 16th century, Queen Anne of Denmark had eight children with King James I of England, known not only for the King James Bible, but also for his devotion to male favorites, one of whom he called "my sweet child and wife."

Other women include Constance Wilde, Phyllis Gates, Linda Porter, Renata Blauel and Dina Matos McGreevey, wed respectively to Oscar Wilde, Rock Hudson, Cole Porter, Elton John and James E. McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey . . .

On the whole these are not marriages of convenience or cynical efforts to create cover. Gay and bisexual men continue to marry for complex reasons, many impelled not only by discrimination, but also by wishful thinking, the layered ambiguities of sexual love and authentic affection.

One wife's account in the article seems to be a common reaction. "I had no suspicions whatsoever. He's very masculine looking. It's not like he had Barbra Streisand or show tunes on." At least one expert doesn't think a woman marries a gay man by accident. "Straight people rarely marry gay people accidentally. Some women . . . find gay men less judgmental and more flexible, while others unconsciously seek partnerships that are not sexually passionate."

Weinzapfel To Democrats: Evansville Must Have I-69

The Howey Political Report has the scoop on Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel's plea to Democrats to deliver the I-69 project this year. Howey reports, "Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel made his strongest statement seeking the I-69 extension, part of Gov. Mitch Daniels' Major Moves legislation."

Mayor Weinzapefel's plea came in his annual state of the city address. The former House member told his city:

And speaking of decisions, there is one coming from the legislature or, at least, I hope it’s coming – that has a heavy bearing on Evansville’s future. In my vision, our future Evansville is connected to the rest of the state by I-69. I don’t need to tell anyone here how important this highway is for southwestern Indiana. Right now, Evansville is so disconnected from the rest of the state – and Indianapolis in particular – that the folks up north often call us an extension of Kentucky. And, while they may be joking when they say that, I don’t find it funny when they make laws and divvy out funding as if we were, in fact, on the other side of the river." Weinzapfel continued, "That is just one of the many reasons we need I-69. We need easier access to Indianapolis and the rest of the state. It will help us attract new businesses and help existing businesses expand. And frankly, it will be a heck of a lot more convenient. This is a project long overdue … yet still, as I stand here speaking to you, politicians are dragging their feet up in Indianapolis, arguing about funding. It’s time for them to stop fighting. I don’t care if it is a Democratic plan or a Republican plan; I don’t care if it comes from the governor, the legislature, or even my fairy godmother.

Gov. Daniels and Republican legislators are listening to Mayor Weinzapfel. Are the House Democrats? Or are they more concerned about denying Gov. Daniels' a major political success? If Major Moves fails, the I-69 project will revert to the 20-year schedule--the same one announced four decades ago. That's obviously what has Weinzapfel so concerned.

New Jersey Legislation Would Outlaw Anonymous Posts

A bill pending in the New Jersey legislature would make it unlawful to allow anonymous posts on a "public forum website." The bill provides:

The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate . . .

Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to [the pending legislation] and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider.

While we would prefer that all of our posters identify themselves, many would probably choose not to if they could not post anonymously. On the other hand, those who post anonymously tend to write the most offensively. Some bloggers don't allow anonymous posts for that very reason.

South Dakota's Anti-Abortion Law

Hypnocrites has its take on South Dakota's new anti-abortion law its governor signed into law yesterday. The new law outlaws all cases of abortion, except when the life of the mother is in danger. No exceptions are allowed for rape or incest.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Governor Rounds said in a statement.

Right to lifers pushed the new law convinced that the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will tip the Court's balance and pave the way for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Under the new law, doctors could get five years in prison for performing an abortion.

Indiana right to lifers want to enact a similar law in Indiana. Rep. Troy Woodruff (R-Vincennes) introduced a bill similar to South Dakota's new law, but it stalled in the House. A majority of Hoosiers oppose such a ban according to a recent Star poll, which found 51% of Hoosier oppose a ban on abortions, while 39% support a ban on abortions. That poll, however, will not deter legislative efforts here.

The Star reported, "The debate is more than academic. State Sen. Jeff Drozda, R-Westfield, said he expected the Indiana General Assembly to vote next year on whether the state should outlaw most abortions. 'I strongly support legislation that would allow hearings and debate on this issue. What we're seeing is a national trend,' said Drozda, a former executive vice president of Indiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion group."

According to Redstate.org, at least three likely Republican presidential candidates in 2008 would have signed a law similar to South Dakota's. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and Gov. Mitch Romney (R-MA) all said they would have signed the South Dakota bill into law.

Texas A&M Hoopster Goes Brokeback

This is a little off topic, but Aggie forward Chris Walker's lip-syncing performance of Total Eclipse of The Heart with the help of his roomies is quite entertaining and view-worthy. His interpretation of Love Lift Us Up Where We Belong is equally as eye pleasing. The Aggies' official website has a memorable quote about Walker from Coach Billy Gillispie, which is both funny and perceptive:

Chris is probably the worst player who is the most important ingredient on a team, and that’s not being disrespectful. He was the toughest guy in the league last year. His ability is a little short, but his leadership, toughness, courage and passion are unsurpassed. Those are the greatest things anybody could have as far as helping a team win.

Hat tip to Bentblog for this catch.

Supreme Court Rules Law Schools Can't Block Military Recruiters

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that law schools cannot deny military recruiters the opportunity to participate in on-campus recruiting opportunities because of the U.S. military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy against gays and lesbians. The Court held that the so-called Solomon Amendment, which bars federal funding to schools which deny military recruiters access to their schools, did not violate law schools’ free speech rights because it regulated conduct and not speech.

The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) is an association of laws schools whose mission is to promote academic freedom, support educational institutions in opposing discrimination and vindicate the rights of higher education institutions. FAIR favors restricting military recruiting on their campuses because of their discriminatory policy towards gays and lesbians. FAIR initially sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment because it forced them to choose between exercising their free speech right and receiving federal funding. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court ruling against FAIR, holding that the law schools free speech rights were violated by the Solomon Amendment.

As the Court describes the Solomon Amendment requirements, “law schools must ensure that their recruiting policy operates in such a way that military recruiters are given access to students at least equal to that “provided to any other employer.” The Court said:

The Solomon Amend­ment gives universities a choice: Either allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forgo certain federal funds. Congress’ decision to proceed indirectly does not reduce the deference given to Congress in the area of military affairs. Congress’choice to promote its goal by creating a funding condition deserves at least as deferential treatment as if Congress had imposed a mandate on universities . . . Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds. The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything.

It is important to recognize what the Rumsfeld v. FAIR decision does not say as much as what it does say. The constitutionality of the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which Congress and former President Bill Clinton enacted into law in 1993, was not considered by the Court in this case. In light of more recent decision of the high court in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down anti-sodomy law) and Romer v. Evans (striking down prohibition on local laws protecting gays and lesbians against discrimination), a challenge to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law is ripe for challenge.

Star's Matt Tully Gets A Blog

Star political reporter Matt Tully now has his own blog, and he already has some interesting posts.

On the popularity ratings of Sen. Evan Bayh and Sen. Richard Lugar, Tully observes that Bayh has a slight advantage over Lugar with female voters, which he thinks has nothing to do with "his dreamy looks."

Tully has his own list and thoughts on potential Democrat opponents for Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) in 2008. Here they are:

Mr. Obvious: Indy Mayor Bart Peterson is the Democrats’ great hope. “I have no intention of running for governor in 2008,” he said Friday. That, for the record is much different than, “I will not run for governor in 2008.”

The Senator: Sen. Vi Simpson, Bloomington, developed a nice grassroots base during her brief run in 2004.

Mr. D.C.: Former U.S. Rep. Tim Roemer has seen his profile rise in recent years, serving as a 9/11 commissioner and being touted last year as a potential U.S. Senate candidate. He would seemingly be a serious contender, though he is now working in D.C. as president of the Center for National Policy.

The Comeback: Think about this name: Joe Kernan. Ousted in 2004 by Mitch Daniels, Kernan is now back in South Bend, where the Toll Road deal has made Daniels Public Enemy Number One. Every day, Kernan is undoubtedly hearing from angry South Bend folks — “You should be the governor.” Known as an intensely competitive guy who hates to lose, Kernan at some point will have to answer the question of a rematch.

The others: Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel and Fort Wayne Mayor Graham Richard are lesser-known stars in the party. State Rep. Win Moses, Fort Wayne, is liked by just about everyone.

Hat tip to TDW for noticing the new blog.

Drudge Comparison Of BAA Indianapolis And Dubai Ports Misplaced

Internet blog king Matt Drudge weighed into the Dubai Port controversy by raising the issue of the management of Indianapolis’ international airport by BAA, a British-owned company which manages seven airports in the U.K. What Drudge overlooks is that BAA also has management contracts with Pittsburg, Boston-Logan and Baltimore airports as well. Drudge attempts to make a deal out of the fact that BAA’s contractual duties include law enforcement. Drudge writes:

Move over PortGate...Indianapolis International Airport, a facility that serves more than 8 million passengers every year, is operated by a foreign-owned company.And the company has stated contractual obligations at the airport -- which include law enforcement! . . . BAA Indianapolis LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of BAA plc, a private company which owns and operates seven airports in the United Kingdom including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports serving London. Indianapolis International is now the largest privately managed airport in the United States. Developing . . .

Drudge’s comparison of the Indianapolis BAA deal to the Dubai Port deal is totally misplaced. Here are just a few of the distinctions we would raise:

• BAA is a private company in a democratic country; Dubai Ports is a state-owned company in a nation (United Arab Emirates) ruled undemocratically by a collection of emirs.
• BAA operates under the laws and regulations of a country that has a long history of cooperation and allied support with the U.S. across the board in matters of foreign affairs; the UAE has a history of funding Muslim terrorists, including al Quaeda, and has been used as a home base for launching terrorist strikes against the U.S (2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and wire transfers were made from UAE banks to 9/11 hijackers).
• The British people’s constitution secures religious freedom and other fundamental
  rights people from democratic countries cherish; the UAE imposes Islamic law and
  outlaws the open practice of other religions, including Christianity and Judaism.
• The British government opposes an Arab-led boycott of Israel driven by anti-Semitism, while the UAE embraces and enforces a boycott of Israel. It is against American law to support trade relations with countries which participate in the boycott.
• The British people overwhelmingly oppose acts of terrorism and generally have positive views of Americans, while the masses of Middle Eastern Arab countries, including the UAE, overwhelmingly support acts of terrorism against Americans, who they view as infidels.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it is true that the UAE has been cooperating with U.S. and other allied forces in combating terrorism. But that may have more to do with the desire of the ruling emirs to continue in power courtesy of their American and western sponsors than ending terrorism; without the support of western governments, the emirs would likely be turned out of power as a result of a fundamentalist-inspired revolution like what occurred in Iran in the 1970s and what is happening in Iraq right now to prevent the installation of a democratically-elected government.

Beyond that, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), informs the public that the UAE has a long record of assisting the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons. In making his point that the deal must be killed, a report said of Hunter’s position:

In 2003, Hunter said that United Arab Emirates allowed 66 American-made high speed electrical switches which can be used to trigger nuclear weapons to be sent to a Pakistani business despite U.S. protests.There have been several other transhipments of materials used in the construction of nuclear bombs through Dubai such as centrifuge parts and a liquid used in nuclear reactors, he said."They have a record of turning a blind eye to U.S. interests," Hunter said.While he does not contest the administration's arguments that Dubai has allowed the U.S. military overflight authorization and basing of troops in that country, he said it has also made similar accommodations to countries at odds with America."They have also been allowing the bad guys to use their ports for transshipments," he said. "They have a record of turning a blind eye."

It is precisely these types of concerns that are of utmost importance in considering whether the UAE-owned firm is trustworthy when it comes to managing our nation’s ports. It has nothing to do with hatred of Arabs or Muslims as have been suggested by others.

Indianapolis radio talk show host and blogger, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, lumps everyone who oppose the Dubai Port Deal and the Major Moves initiative into the same camp—xenophobes—persons who are unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples. Our fear of the UAE has nothing to do with it being a foreign country; it has everything to do with what it and its people have represented in the contemporary world in which we live.

In the U.S. we are allowed to practice the religion of our choice without any fear of retribution. It’s against the law in the UAE to practice any religion but Islam. That is not something we’re making up. The UAE is ruled by Islamic law, which trumps any secular laws. Surveys of Middle-Eastern Muslim countries have shown that a majority of the people support suicide-terrorist attacks and have a favorable opinion of Osama bin Laden. As Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."

Do we fear Dubai Ports running our U.S. ports? Absolutely. But it is has nothing to do with it being a foreign company; it has everything to do with what the company and the people who run it represent as conclusively demonstrated by their past and current actions. It is simply wrong to confuse xenophobia with the valid national security concerns that the Dubai Ports deal raises.

Star Hand Slaps Gonso For Selling State Jobs

The Star editorialized today about the job offers Gov. Daniels' chief of staff Harry Gonso made to two Democratic House members who were pondering retirement. The paper carried a story on the job offers late last week on the back page of the Metro/State section. The Star's position on the job offers: "Offering jobs to lawmakers in the middle of a legislative session poses a possible conflict of interest." The Star's editors write:

It wasn't illegal for the governor's office to make an unsolicited offer to hire two legislators for state jobs during a legislative session. But it sure has the appearance of impropriety, especially for a governor who campaigned for office vowing to implement "ethical standards befitting of a great state."

Harry Gonso, the governor's chief of staff, says he never considered that offering jobs to lawmakers during the middle of the session might raise questions of ethics. He should have . . .

Yet House Minority Leader Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, who says the job offers "certainly raise a lot of questions," doesn't have room to complain. He is one of four lawmakers employed by Ivy Tech, whose budget the General Assembly controls.

Daniels, who has rightly complained about that practice, should refrain from approaching lawmakers for jobs until well after they have left office, and continue pushing for "simple and complete" ethical reform to bar similar practices.

The Star's reaction is little more than a small hand slap for what we consider a serious breach of public trust, if not criminal bribery. But the Star has already concluded it "wasn't illegal" so that should end the matter we guess. And the slap at Bauer seems to be subtle suggestion to Democrats that they shouldn't try making hay out of the issue if they know what's best for themselves.

Brokeback Mountain Collects Three Oscars

The highly acclaimed gay romance movie, Brokeback Mountain, collected three Oscars tonight, but lost out the coveted Best Picture award to Crash. Brokeback director, Ang Lee, received Best Director honors. The movie was also recognized for Best Original Score and Best Screenplay Adaption. The movie was nominated for eight categories, but it lost out in every actor category, including best lead actor, best supporting actor and best supporting actress.

The low-budget movie continues to enjoy tremendous box office success. As of this weekend, the movie grossed almost $79 million domestically and almost $130 million when international receipts are added. It ranks among the top 5 grossing movies of all time in gay/lesbian and western genres. It is also among the top 10 grossing romantic drama movies of all time.

GLBT Community Takes On Hillary

Many gay Democrats are starting to speak out against Hillary Clinton’s duplicity when it comes to gay civil rights. Washington Blade editor Chris Crain is the latest to take on Clinton. Crain recounts how New York’s leading gay rights lobbyist, Alan Van Capelle, sent an e-mail to board members of his organization calling Hillary “a huge disappointment” and vowed never “to lend [his] name and sell tickets” to her fundraisers.

The biggest beef gay activists have with Clinton is her stubborn belief that gays are not entitled to marriage. Crain, says that Hillary, like her husband, has perfected a “minuet: dance with the gays, take their money, their votes and their praise, but cut in with the next available dancer whenever the moves look too risky.” Crain has some biting words for her opposition to gay marriage:

Clinton's haughtiness on marriage is particularly galling given her own rocky experience with the institution. She did vote against an unprecedented amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gays from marrying, but to do otherwise would have been unthinkable for her politically.

In her speech on the Senate floor, she said, "I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Another reality check: She's known for decades that in her own case the institution was never so limited and in fact was a not-so-sacred bond between a man and several women, including his wife and untold Gennifers, Monicas and others.

Hillary opposes allowing gays to marry in New York, and she backed the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by philandering Bill, which not only deprives married gay couples of federal legal recognition, it allows states to ignore marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Massachusetts or elsewhere. With that kind of track record, Van Capelle rightly argued that there's no good reason for New York gays to throw good money after bad support.

A particularly damning observation by Van Capelle is the fact that she stands alone among the Empire State's statewide Democrats running this year in opposing gay marriage. Crain sums up his feelings on Clinton:

Let's get this straight. Hillary Rodham Clinton can't support gay marriage because she's running for president. Because we all know Hillary Rodham Clinton has a great shot being elected president so long as she doesn't back gay marriage . . . So let's take a cue from Van Capelle and save our “Equality Awards” and “Courage Awards,” not to mention our fund-raisers and campaign mailers, for those candidates who support our full equality and are willing to say why.

Knowing what the Clintons are all about, Crain’s criticism of Hillary is probably music to her ears because it makes her appear “less liberal” to “mainstream voters.”

Bosma Hires Out-Of-State Firm To Defend Prayer Case

The Star’s “Behind Closed Doors” reports that House Speaker Brian Bosma has hired an out-of-state law firm to defend him in the lawsuit which seeks to prevent him from allowing Christian only prayers in the House of Representatives. Bosma’s office had earlier defended the cost of defending the suit, arguing that attorneys from the Attorney General’s office would be used. Now comes news that he has hired the Chicago-based firm of Winston & Strawn. The column writes:

House Republicans said they would vigorously defend a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana that led to a federal court's decision to ban official prayers containing the name Jesus.

Vigorously now means it's time to hire help from an 875-attorney firm.

House Republicans, under Speaker Brian C. Bosma's leadership, had pledged that their defense of the lawsuit wouldn't cost taxpayers because they are using lawyers
from the attorney general's office.

But four attorneys from the firm Winston & Strawn, which has offices in Washington and Chicago, have filed appearances, according to the federal docket.

Bosma’s Chief of Staff Leslie Hiner defended the hiring of an out-of-state firm saying “they needed [religious and First Amendment] expertise.” Advance Indiana wonders how that makes Jim Bopp feel. He is a noted conservative Republican attorney and first amendment expert who has argued cases before the U.S Supreme Court from Terre Haute. He is also the state party’s general counsel.

Winston & Strawn is currently defending former Illinois Republican Governor George Ryan, who is on trial for corruption and tax evasion charges. The firm has reportedly donated up to $10 million in pro bono services to Ryan after he initially paid the firm about $2 million for their services. The firm is managed by another former Illinois Governor, James R. Thompson.

Advance Indiana doubts the firm will be as generous with the taxpayers of Indiana as it has been with Gov. Ryan.

It's Bedtime For Gonso

REPOST FROM 3-2-06

Gov. Daniels' chief of staff, Harry Gonso, confirmed to the Star's State House reporter, Mary Beth Schneider, that he had offered state jobs to two Democratic House members, Rep. Robert Bischoff (D-Greendale) and Rep. Vern Tincher (D-Riley).

Both House members are from marginal districts, and the offer came as the Governor was lobbying the legislature hard for support of his Major Moves' initiative. At the time, both members were widely rumored to have been considering retirement in order to take advantage of the health insurance for life perk House Speaker Bosma is ending after this year. If they had accepted the jobs, Republican hopes of maintaining control of the House would have improved with these two seats in play.

Rep. Bischoff was offered a $60,000 position on the state's Workers Compensation Board and Rep. Tincher was offered a $55,000 position on the Indiana Parole Board. According to the report, "Gonso said his focus was finding qualified people for the jobs, which remain unfilled and which, by law, must be filled by Democrats to preserve political balance." "Governor Daniels thinks highly of both of these representatives," Gonso said. "It's nothing more than that."

Baloney. If Gonso had truly been seeking qualified Democrats to serve in these critical positions, he wouldn't have had to look far to find persons more qualified than Bischoff or Tincher, who are among the dimmer bulbs in the House. While Advance Indiana has been a strong advocate of most of Gov. Daniels' policies, we are appalled by this revelation. Gov. Daniels promised he would find the best and brightest people to serve in state government. Neither Bischoff nor Tincher come close to meeting his high standard for service in state government. He also pledged the highest of ethical standards in the conduct of state government.

The motivation behind Gonso's job offers to the two legislators is quite transparent. It's called bribery. We send people to jail for committing these types of public crimes. Unfortunately, prosecutors rarely prosecute these types of cases because of the difficulty in proving the quid pro quo. Former Gov. Evan Bayh's legislative director, Ann Delaney, got caught offering jobs to three Republican lawmakers during the 1990 legislative while she was lobbying to get legislative support for Gov. Bayh's plan to use lottery proceeds for economic development and highway projects. A criminal investigation by then-Marion Co. Prosecutor Steve Goldsmith ended with no indictments. Delaney did, however, make a quick exit from the Bayh administration in the fallout of the investigation. And so should Gonso.

If Gov. Daniels does not immediately fire Gonso for this serious breach of the public trust, then he is telling us that he really isn't serious about cleaning up corruption in state government. The high ethical standards he has set for state employees should extend to everyone, including the people who work in his office.

Alito Letter To Dobson Raises Questions About His Impartiality

REPOST FROM 3-2-06

Progress Now reports on a radio broadcast today during which Focus on The Family's Dr. James Dobson disclosed a personal letter he had received from newly-appointed Justice Samuel Alito. The letter, which was written on his official stationary, raises serious questions as to whether Justice Alito can be expected to be impartial on critical issues pending before the Supreme Court.

Dr. Dobson introduced the letter to listeners against the backdrop of expressing his concern for how the Court will decide issues important to Focus on the Family, including abortion, the definition of marriage and freedom of religion. Dobson noted the group's strong support for both Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito. He then read Alito's letter to his listeners as a form of comfort that the Court will do the right thing. The letter reads:

Dear Dr. Dobson,

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months.

I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me they were praying for me and for my family during this period.

As I said when I spoke at my formal vestiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force.As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.

I hope we'll have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future. In the meantime, my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how much we appreciate all that you have done.

Sincerely Yours,
Samuel Alito

While it is completely understandable that Justice Alito would want to thank those who supported him during the confirmation process, he demonstrates a complete lack of sensitivity to the appearance such a letter would give in showing favoritism towards a controversial special interest group which publicly advocates positions in cases pending before the Court.

Kudos To Indiana Law Blog

Many thanks to The Indiana Law Blog's Marcia Oddi for providing us the text of the posts which were surrepticiously deleted from Advance Indiana last night after a person gained unauthorized access to the site. We are very grateful to her for her service to the Indiana legal community.

Frank And Baldwin Re-Affirm Support For Carson

REPOST FROM 3-1-06

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) re-affirmed their support for the re-election of 7th District Congresswoman Julia Carson (D) tonight. According to a front-page story in the March edition of The Word, Carson's Democratic opponent, Kris Kiser, met and consulted with both Frank and Baldwin, two openly gay members of Congress, before launching his bid for Congress. The story read:

Kiser noted that he'd done a great deal of consulting before making his nnouncement for the 7th District seat, including meeting and consulting with the two out gay members of congress: Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, both of whom he noted had good ideas and were a pleasure to spend time with.

The comment could easily leave readers with the impression that Frank and Baldwin encouraged Kiser's candidacy against Carson by virtue of the fact that Kiser met to discuss his challenge to Carson with Frank and Baldwin.

In a telephone conversation this evening, Frank spokesperson Steve Adamske told Advance Indiana editor Gary R. Welsh that Frank "unequivocally supports the re-election of Rep. Carson." In an e-mail communication to Welsh, Baldwin spokesperson Jerilyn Goodman adds, "Congressman Tammy Baldwin is not endorsing Mr. Kiser's candidacy. She is a strong supporter of Rep. Carson who is a champion of the LGBT community." Adamske and Goodman neither confirmed nor denied that the two congresspersons had met with Kiser to discuss his candidacy as he indicated in The Word.

As we reported yesterday, in addition to the front-page story in The Word, Indianapolis' largest GLBT newspaper also endorsed Kiser's candidacy over Carson. The reaction within the GLBT community to the endorsement has been largely negative. Civil rights activist Sheila Kennedy, who contributes monthly columns to The Word, posted a critical rebuke of the endorsement at Bilerico, accusing The Word's editor, Ted Fleischaker, of endorsing Kiser simply because he was gay. Kennedy wrote, in part:

As many readers of this blog know, I write a monthly column for the Word, a midwestern gay newspaper. I really like the editor, although I often find myself in disagreement with positions he takes, and/or with his reasons for taking those positions. This is emphatically such a time, and while my next column will set out the reasons for my dissent, it won't appear until March. So with your indulgence, I'm using this post to explain my concerns . . . When we engage in "identity politics"--supporting people because they are members of our "tribes"--we are perpetuating the attitudes that support inequality. If gays don't support their friends, they deserve their enemies.

In a posted comment to our earlier report, Fleischaker reacted sharply to our report in defending The Word's actions. He wrote:

Sorry, Gary and the other nay-sayers but my phone's been ringing off the hook with people saying "it's about time" Julia had an openly gay challenger and she was retired by the voters.The callers (and those who stopped me when I was delivering yesterday to discuss Kris) are also thanking The Word and I for an early endorsement. I might be deluding myself as usual, but I do think our backing will sway some votes or at the very least get people to consider asking some hard questions. This is, afterall, what we are supposed to do as a newspaper for the community isn't it? We also welcome letters to the editor on our editorial, and will publish what's received---good or bad.

Fleischaker took strong exception to Advance Indiana's inference that the Kiser campaign's decision to purchase full-page ads in The Word had in any way influenced the paper's editorial decision to endorse Kiser over Carson. He said:

Another point--- the editorial was mostly written and the story interview 100% done before we heard anything from anyone at the Kiser campaign about an ad (they called us, we did not ask them), so the snide and quite uncalled-for comment that the endorsement was in any way because they bought ad space is just more pettiness on your part and is quite sad. We have had politicians in the past we've endorsed with not a penny spent here, and others we have not endorsed who did buy ads from us (despite a lot of hullabaloo from Marla Stevens when we declined endorsing one whose ads she paid for some years back!).

With that said, Advance Indiana apologizes to Fleischaker for questioning the motivation behind the newspaper's editorial decision to endorse Kiser. We would note, however, that virtually every edition of The Word is peppered with what many would consider "snide and uncalled-for" comments about various members of the GLBT community. As an example, an item in this month's edition of The Word derogatorily refers to former IE Region 8 Chairman Bil Browning as a "one of the town's civil rights spokesmen (even if mostly self appointed)", in addition to other personal information we choose not to write in this space. We hope Fleischaker accepts our apology and takes into consideration the feelings of other persons in the community in the future when he puts his thoughts to pen.

Bosma Loses Another Round In Court Fight Over Sectarian Prayers In The House

REPOST FROM 2-28-06

House Speaker Brian Bosma was dealt a defeat today in the first round of his appeal of Judge David Hamilton's order earlier this year prohibiting the Indiana House of Representatives from allowing Christian only prayers as part of the chamber's official proceedings. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to turn down Bosma's request that the order be stayed until the panel has heard arguments and ruled in the case. While the underlying merits of the appeal must still be decided, the majority's opinion gives us a strong hint of how the court will ultimately rule.

The standard Bosma was unable to demonstrate on behalf of the House according to a majority of the three-judge panel was that "a stay pending appeal . . . has a significant probability of success on the merits; that it will face irreparable harm absent a stay; and that a stay will not injure the opposing party and will be in the public interest."

The majority opinion was written by a Reagan appointee, Kenneth Ripple of South Bend, and a Clinton appointee, Diane Wood of Chicago. As to the likelihood of success on the merits of the case, on the issue of the taxpayers' standing in this case to bring the suit, the majority opinion spoke dismissively of Bosma's argument that no standing existed:

If we were to accept the Speaker’s argument as presented at this stage of the litigation, any time an unconstitutional practice could be replaced at no cost with a constitutional one, those asserting taxpayer standing would be powerless to challenge it. The Speaker has yet to respond persuasively to the district court’s criticism that acceptance of such a rule would mean that taxpayers are without standing to challenge the erection of a large stone cross on public land if it theoretically could be replaced with a secular monument of the same price. Such a theory misapprehends the purpose of taxpayer standing: The true injury is whether the plaintiff’s tax dollars are being spent in an illegal manner.

The principle argument on appeal is whether the issues falls within the reach of the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion found Judge Hamilton's interpretation of the only U.S. Supreme Court decision on the question of sectarian prayers in state legislative bodies consistent with interpretations provided in other circuit courts and state legislative courts and offered little hope that they would agree with Bosma on this point:

In our initial reading of the case law, we find little to encourage the Speaker’s reading of the law. It appears that such an approach would render nugatory critical facts and limitations expressed by the Supreme Court in Marsh, even though the Court itself and many other lower federal courts have found those points dispositive. In pointing to congressional practices that have been sustained, but without reference to the prayers’ contents, he asks that we read into those cases issues that simply were not addressed by the courts.

The Speaker advances several other arguments that require now, and on plenary review, our respectful attention. He suggests that prohibiting clerics from invoking Christ would violate the Free Exercise or Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. These issues, while new to this circuit’s jurisprudence, have been addressed by other courts and have been rejected. The same fate has met the argument that deciding which prayers are sectarian is an inappropriate role for judges.

The majority was most critical of Bosma on the issue of whether he had demonstrated that the House would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not lifted. Reacting negatively to Bosma's decision to cut off all prayers in the House, the court said:

In reply to the injunction, the Speaker chose to cut off all prayer and, it would appear, has sacrificed the core aspect of the tradition--beginning the session with an invocation for divine guidance--in order to continue a deviation from the House’s articulated desire that the prayer not be identified with any particular denomination . . . Although this claim certainly is deserving of more plenary and respectful study on the merits review, we cannot say that requiring the legislature to perform a task undertaken by countless other public bodies that begin their proceedings with a prayer is an irreparable harm--especially when the legislature itself has articulated such a goal.

Judge Michael Kanne, a Reagan appointee from Lafayette, Indiana, offered some solace to Bosma in supporting his request for a stay. But Kanne made clear that this in not a case about free speech as so many of Bosma's supporters have suggested; rather, it is an Establishment Clause case. Kanne said, "At the outset, it should be noted that the harm to the plaintiffs is not that their speech is being restricted. Thus, this is not a case where absent immediate relief speech will be diluted or lost." He added, "This is also not a case where the state is interfering with the plaintiffs’ ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs. The potential harm in this case, assuming that the legislative prayer at issue is unconstitutional, is a harm to the public in general: the erosion of religious liberty and freedom that may arise due to a state’s impermissible affiliation with religion." The legislature's long-stading 188-year history of prayers seemed to tilt Kanne in the direction of supporting the stay. He explained:

Deference is certainly due here. The Indiana General Assembly, democratically elected by the citizens of the State of Indiana, has been opening its sessions with a prayer or invocation, frequently delivered by a religious cleric, for the last 188 years. If for those past 188 years the legislative prayer at issue here has occurred on the wrong side of what is at best a murky constitutional line, then we can at least provide the clarity of our opinion before placing a state legislative body under federal supervision.

It cannot clearly be concluded from Kanne's dissenting opinion that he will support Bosma when the case is finally decided as he saw little harm to the plaintiffs at this point in lifting the stay. He said, "While I see strong legal arguments for both parties as to the merits, my real disagreement with the majority centers on the balancing of the equities. At the outset, it should be noted that the harm to the plaintiffs is not that their speech is being restricted. Thus, this is not a case where absent immediate relief speech will be diluted or lost."

Hat tip to the Indiana Law Blog for the case reference and to this point the court made, which further evidenced its thinking on the future of the case:

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we deny the stay. Because this matter involves the internal proceedings of a state legislative body and therefore raises important federalism concerns, we have departed from our usual practice of deciding preliminary matters such as this one by a short order and have elected to set forth our views in more plenary fashion. We hope that, by proceeding in this manner, the tentative nature of our analysis at this very early point in the litigation will be plain to all.

The handwriting is on the wall Mr. Speaker. End this foolish waste of taxpayers money. But reading his reaction to the court's decision, that's not going to happen because he plans to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Bosma told the AP, “Of course we’re disappointed that the 7th Circuit did not grant our request for stay, but we aren’t shocked by it . . . I still firmly believe our ultimate relief will be at the United States Supreme Court level.” Bosma also continues to shamelessly misrepresent the issue in the case. “We will continue to work for free speech in the government process,” he said. As an attorney, it is simply inexcusable for him to to continue making a free speech argument when he knows this case is about the Establishment Clause.

Dubai Ports Back Boycott of Israel

REPOST FROM 2-28-06

The state-run United Arab Emirates company, Dubai Ports, which the Bush administration has approved to purchased P&O, a British owned company which runs 21 U.S. ports (not 6 as earlier reported), supports an Arab-sponsored boycott of Israel. U.S. law specifically prohibits attempts by Arab countries to boycott Israel.

According to the Associated Press, the Anti-Defamation League is demanding the American administration prevent a Dubai-owned corporation from operating seaports in the United States until the United Arab Emirates issues an official statement indicating it has abandoned the boycott of Israel.

Dubai continues to be an active partner in the economic boycott of Israel," ADL Director Abraham Foxman told Haaretz on Tuesday. "This fact alone is reason enough to suspend or even cancel the implementation of the contract [for the operation of the seaports]," Foxman said. In a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, Foxman wrote:

According to the Department of Commerce, as recently as 2005, the government of Dubai was alleged to be asking U.S. companies to certify that goods shipped to Dubai were 'neither of Israeli origin nor do they contain Israeli materials, nor are being exported from Israel.

For decades, the United States has been a leader in the fight against the economic boycott of Israel... Dubai, an adherent to this boycott, should not benefit from America's open trade policy.

There are many complex issues involved in this deal and many serious debates are going on around the country regarding port security and process. Aside from these considerations, if Dubai continues its anti-Israel activity, it must be grounds for the cancellation of the deal.

Foxman points out that the Bush administration demanded that the government of Behrain abandon its boycott of Israel when negotiating trade relations with it. The fact that the administration would so easily overlook this important point with respect to this critical sale is quite troubling.

The story also notes that the U.S. Coast Guard, as of just a few weeks ago, raised concerns about the proposed sale because of U.S. intelligence gaps which made it impossible to conclude that the company was not tied to anti-American terrorists.

The Word Turns Back On Carson--Endorses Kiser

REPOSTED FROM 2-28-06

Indianapolis’ largest GLBT news publication, The Word, has turned its back on incumbent Rep. Julia Carson (D) and endorsed her openly gay Democratic primary opponent, Kris Kiser. Citing Kiser’s age and vitality in comparison to Carson’s personal health and long-time service, The Word believes the Democratic GLBT community should abandon Carson and support new-comer Kiser. In endorsing Kiser in its March edition, The Word said:

[W]hile this newspaper would be remiss were we not to thank (Carson) for all her support and attendance at our events over the years, we feel the time has arrived for a new face, a new spirit and a young congressman who is both alert to the issues, and has the health and vitality to actually be present for votes—not to mention being out in our community . . . A word here about Julia Carson for those wondering about our about-face; age and vitality, as well as a total understanding of our issues are the reasons. While we believe as Kris himself said, “I have a genuine respect for the incumbent and her many years of dedicated service to Hoosiers . . . I share her values of inclusion and believe in a true democracy, for inclusion of all citizens regardless of our colour, sexual orientation or economic condition . . .” we also feel that Rep. Carson’s personal health and length of service both call out for a new voice to represent Marion County.

The Word has very directed criticism at those within the Democratic Party “who are scheming to defeat him.” The Word said, “These include old guard ‘political machine’ types who have reacted less-than-warmly to Kris and his candidacy, and those who feel that an openly-gay candidate has no place running for office in the heartland.” The so-called old guard has a little different take on it.

Kiser, whose campaign purchased a full-page ad in the March edition of The Word, has spent virtually his entire adult career living and working in Washington, D.C. first as a legislative staffer and then as a lobbyist for large business concerns. He returned to his roots in Indiana a little more than a year ago “to see the lay of the land for his congressional run” as The Word puts it. That smacks as arrogance in the minds of many local Democrats who prefer a candidate who has been active in the community and the party, and who is willing to wait their turn when Carson decides on her own to retire.

The GLBT community was delighted by the local efforts Carson made to convince Democratic city-county councilors to support the HRO despite her duties in D.C. She publicly tongue-lashed those who opposed gay civil rights in her own party in the face of heavy opposition from the area’s African-American clergy.

In an interview with The Word, Kiser said, “I hope to be a congressman who happens to be gay, not the other way around, but I also plan to be an outspoken proponent for issues of importance to the community.” Critics would note, however, that Kiser, unlike Carson, was anything but outspoken during the fight for passage of the HRO in Indianapolis last year. In fact, it is not apparent that Kiser did anything publicly to support the passage of the HRO, even though he was living in the community and not actively engaged in a full-time job. Very few persons in the community knew anything about Kiser before he launched his campaign to unseat Carson. One can't help but wonder if The Word would have noticed him had he not purchased ad space in its newspaper.


Advance Indiana has also learned from a reliable source that the person Kiser has chosen to manage his campaign is not held in high favor with many Democratic leaders because of his past involvement in other campaigns, notably a congressional campaign in northern Indiana (per Ted's correction).

The Word’s endorsement of Kiser is likely to have little impact within the GLBT community. Carson’s support within Democratic members of the GLBT community is pretty rock solid, and he will have little success chipping away at her support. An outsider like Kiser will be treated like the outsider he is and looked upon negatively for challenging an incumbent member well known for her ability to turn out the party’s base in general elections. If Ann Delaney could only manage 38% of the primary vote in her race against Carson in 1996 with a lot of party support and big bucks behind her, Kiser will be doing good to get 20% of the vote. His candidacy does, however, make what otherwise would have been a boring primary race into one that will generate some interest.

21 comments linked to the original post

Log Cabin Republicans To Award Keller With Political Hero Award

The Log Cabin Republicans are awarding the 2006 Log Cabin Political Hero Award to Indianapolis City-County Councilor Scott Keller (R) at its national convention in Washington D.C. on April 29, 2006 in recognition of his work in securing passage of Indianapolis' Human Rights Ordinance last year.

In a letter to Keller from Patrick Guerriero, the group's president said the award was to honor Keller "for standing up for basic fairness for gay citizens of Indianapolis, for using facts to combat fear among your Republican colleagues on the City-County Council, and for putting yourself on the line to what is rights." Guerriero added, "Your brave stand represents the inclusive big tent future we are working to build for the GOP."

Keller will be presented the award at the Log Cabin Republicans' national dinner at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington.

Other notables recognized with the award in the past include Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) and Rep. John Schwarz (R-MI).

Advance Indiana congratulates Keller on the award, which is well-deserved.