The Indiana Democratic Central Committee voted on Saturday to grant full voting privileges to two groups, the Indiana Democratic African-American Caucus and the Indiana Stonewall Democrats. “This was an important vote because it will take the party’s central committee to a new level of diversity,” said Indiana Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker. “We need as many voices as possible helping us craft our message for the future of Indiana.”
Before Saturday’s vote, the State Committee was comprised of two members from each congressional district; three national committee members; and two representatives of the young democrats.
The Indiana Democratic African-American Caucus is dedicated to encouraging African-Americans to be part of the Democratic Party and furthering the Democratic Party ideals within the African-American community. Indiana Stonewall Democrats is the state organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender Democrats. ISD is committed to improving the record of the Democratic Party and educating voters about the vast difference that exists between the two major parties on issues of importance to the GLBT communities.
"By taking this step, the Indiana Democratic Party is showing its commitment to the politics of inclusion," said Stonewall Board member Ellen Andersen, who serves as the Stonewall delegate to the State Central Committee. "Groups like ISD and IDAAC need to be at the table when questions of policy and priorities are considered."
While it's good that the Democrats are broadening their tent so to speak, we wonder if it might not have been an oversight on someone's part not to grant a seat at the table to Hispanics. We're sure they will be hearing from them, if they haven't already.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Gay Parent Adoption Case Poses Challenge To Court Of Appeals
A three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals is facing a difficult challenge in deciding a case argued before it just last week concerning the validity of adoptions by unmarried same sex partners under Indiana law. A panel consisting of Judges John Baker, Edward Najam, Jr. and Nancy Vaidik, heard arguments on both sides of the issue in a consolidated action arising from a child in need of services (CHINS) proceeding in Morgan County Juvenile Court and an adoption decree entered by the Marion County Probate Court, both of which pertained to the same child. Whatever decision the court reaches, the decision is likely to become a rallying cry for the losing side.
The Matter of Infant Girl W originated when the Morgan County Office of Family & Children instituted a CHINS proceeding to terminate the parental rights of an infant child's biological mother. The local agency temporarily placed the infant child with lesbian partners who resided in Morgan County as the child’s foster parents. The couple had cohabitated together for more than 10 years, and the local agency encouraged the couple to consider an adoption of the infant child, having concluded that the adoption of the child by the lesbian couple would be in the child’s best interests.
The agency proceeded with the termination of parental rights matter in the court of Circuit Judge Matthew Hanson. Hanson orally ordered the termination of the birth mother’s parental rights; however, he rescinded the order upon learning that the local agency intended an adoption of the child by same sex, unmarried parents in January, 2005, after the child had already been with the couple for more than 6 months. Judge Hanson entered an order finding the best interest of the child to be adoption by a “couple”, which he defined to mean “a man and a woman that are married.”
The foster parents, who were not a party to the Morgan County proceeding, petitioned the Marion County Probate Court for a two parent adoption of the infant child with the support of the biological mother. Superior Court Judge Charles Deiter granted the lesbian couple’s petition to adopt the child last April after concluding that the state’s refusal to consent to the adoption was being unreasonably withheld.
From the record, it is clear that Judge Dieter knew of the pending CHINS case in Morgan County and, in general, of Judge Hanson’s disinclination to grant adoptions to same sex, unmarried parents. The Morgan County Office of Family & Children was also aware of the action in Marion County, but did not timely file a motion to dismiss the case under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(8) asserting that a same action was pending in another state court.
A defiant Judge Hanson refused to recognize the adoption order entered by Judge Dieter and denied a motion by the adoptive parents to dismiss the pending CHINS action in Morgan County. The adoptive parents made an interlocutory appeal of Judge Hanson’s ruling, and the state appealed the adoption order granted by Judge Dieter, a case referred to as The Adoption of M.W. The appeals were consolidated into a single proceeding because they arose from a common nucleus of facts.
The consolidated case was presented to the Court of Appeals with two primary issues: (1) whether the state waived its right to appeal the adoption order because it did not timely file a Rule 12(B)(8) motion to dismiss, or alternatively whether Judge Dieter should have deferred to the Morgan County court out of respect for judicial comity; and (2) more importantly, whether Indiana’s adoption law allows for joint adoptions by unmarried couples.
If the Court of Appeals wants to play it safe, it can simply decide the case on procedural grounds and send it back to the lower courts. If that means Judge Dieter’s order stands, gay rights activists will be pleased. If that means Judge Dieter’s order is set aside and the case remanded back to Judge Hanson, those who oppose gay parent adoptions will be pleased.
The larger issue looming in the case, however, is whether unmarried, same sex couples may adopt. Both sides agree that Indiana’s adoption law neither expressly permits, nor prohibits unmarried couples to adopt children. Both sides also agree that Indiana’s adoption law expressly permits adoptions by married couples and single parents. The question is whether the legislature, through its silence, meant to allow or prohibit unmarried couples to adopt.
In at least four cases, the Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the validity of adoptions granted to unmarried, same sex couples. Those cases include a second parent adoption following the first parent’s adoption and joint adoptions. The Indiana Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the issue, although a case is currently on appeal to the high court which could change that. Frances Barrow, arguing for the state, believes all four court of appeals decisions were wrongly decided.
Barrow maintains that the legislature only intended to allow single parents (regardless of sexual orientation) and married couples to adopt under I.C. §31-19-2-2. If a second parent is allowed to adopt following a first parent adoption, Barrow maintains that the first parent adoption is nullified. She conceded, though, that the state would not have objected to the adoption in the current case if only one of the lesbian parents had petitioned to adopt the child.
Barrow points out that the adoption statute at I.C. §31-19-2-4 requires the consent of both parents, in the case of a married couple as support for the proposition that only married couples may adopt. Had the legislature intended to allow unmarried parents to adopt, a similar consent requirement would have been included in the law Barrow argues. But the three-judge panel countered that consent, in the case of the unmarried couple, is effected by the filing of the joint adoption petition.
The state finds itself in an untenable position. It conceded to the court that the state’s own lawyer for the agency knew of the adoption petition pending in Judge Dieter’s court and made a conscientious decision not to file a Rule 12(B)(8) motion to dismiss it because she personally approved of the adoption by the lesbian couple. Ms. Barrow also conceded that the state agency had found the couple to be suitable parents, and that the only basis for its objection to the lesbian couple’s adoption of the child now was Judge Hanson’s determination that the child had to be adopted by a married couple.
Patricia Logue, arguing for the lesbian couple, asserts that the absence of a statutory prohibition on adoptions by unmarried, same sex couples, infers legislative approval of such adoptions. And alternatively, legislative acquiescence to such adoptions can be inferred from the inaction of the legislature in the face of the appellate court decisions approving of second parent adoptions. She points to the fact that many other states have similarly interpreted their adoption statutes which had nearly identical language to Indiana’s.
The three-judge panel seemed troubled by the notion of forum shopping. While conceding that the Marion County Probate Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the adoption as a distinct proceeding of the CHINS proceeding, the fact that the child and the adoptive parents resided in Morgan County bothered the panel that Morgan County had not been able to exercise jurisdiction over the adoption, as well as the CHINS proceeding. Given Judge Hanson’s predilection against same sex couples, Logue conceded the adoption petition was filed in Marion County because of the likelihood of it getting a more favorable reception from Judge Dieter, who has approved a number of gay parent adoptions.
Regardless of the outcome of this decision, it is not likely to be the end of the matter. The losing party will most certainly appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, and there will no doubt be further efforts by Christian fundamentalist organizations, such as Advance America and the American Family Association, to change Indiana’s adoption laws to specifically prohibit adoptions by same sex parents.
The judges are also no doubt mindful of the impact their decision will have. Legislative efforts in the last two sessions have sought to exert legislative participation in the judicial retention process as a means of exacting revenge on judges who make rulings disagreeable to a majority of legislators. The three-judge panel may hesitate to issue any ruling that is likely to stir further legislative action in that regard.
If you would like to view a video recording of the oral argument in this case, please click here.
The Matter of Infant Girl W originated when the Morgan County Office of Family & Children instituted a CHINS proceeding to terminate the parental rights of an infant child's biological mother. The local agency temporarily placed the infant child with lesbian partners who resided in Morgan County as the child’s foster parents. The couple had cohabitated together for more than 10 years, and the local agency encouraged the couple to consider an adoption of the infant child, having concluded that the adoption of the child by the lesbian couple would be in the child’s best interests.
The agency proceeded with the termination of parental rights matter in the court of Circuit Judge Matthew Hanson. Hanson orally ordered the termination of the birth mother’s parental rights; however, he rescinded the order upon learning that the local agency intended an adoption of the child by same sex, unmarried parents in January, 2005, after the child had already been with the couple for more than 6 months. Judge Hanson entered an order finding the best interest of the child to be adoption by a “couple”, which he defined to mean “a man and a woman that are married.”
The foster parents, who were not a party to the Morgan County proceeding, petitioned the Marion County Probate Court for a two parent adoption of the infant child with the support of the biological mother. Superior Court Judge Charles Deiter granted the lesbian couple’s petition to adopt the child last April after concluding that the state’s refusal to consent to the adoption was being unreasonably withheld.
From the record, it is clear that Judge Dieter knew of the pending CHINS case in Morgan County and, in general, of Judge Hanson’s disinclination to grant adoptions to same sex, unmarried parents. The Morgan County Office of Family & Children was also aware of the action in Marion County, but did not timely file a motion to dismiss the case under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(8) asserting that a same action was pending in another state court.
A defiant Judge Hanson refused to recognize the adoption order entered by Judge Dieter and denied a motion by the adoptive parents to dismiss the pending CHINS action in Morgan County. The adoptive parents made an interlocutory appeal of Judge Hanson’s ruling, and the state appealed the adoption order granted by Judge Dieter, a case referred to as The Adoption of M.W. The appeals were consolidated into a single proceeding because they arose from a common nucleus of facts.
The consolidated case was presented to the Court of Appeals with two primary issues: (1) whether the state waived its right to appeal the adoption order because it did not timely file a Rule 12(B)(8) motion to dismiss, or alternatively whether Judge Dieter should have deferred to the Morgan County court out of respect for judicial comity; and (2) more importantly, whether Indiana’s adoption law allows for joint adoptions by unmarried couples.
If the Court of Appeals wants to play it safe, it can simply decide the case on procedural grounds and send it back to the lower courts. If that means Judge Dieter’s order stands, gay rights activists will be pleased. If that means Judge Dieter’s order is set aside and the case remanded back to Judge Hanson, those who oppose gay parent adoptions will be pleased.
The larger issue looming in the case, however, is whether unmarried, same sex couples may adopt. Both sides agree that Indiana’s adoption law neither expressly permits, nor prohibits unmarried couples to adopt children. Both sides also agree that Indiana’s adoption law expressly permits adoptions by married couples and single parents. The question is whether the legislature, through its silence, meant to allow or prohibit unmarried couples to adopt.
In at least four cases, the Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the validity of adoptions granted to unmarried, same sex couples. Those cases include a second parent adoption following the first parent’s adoption and joint adoptions. The Indiana Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the issue, although a case is currently on appeal to the high court which could change that. Frances Barrow, arguing for the state, believes all four court of appeals decisions were wrongly decided.
Barrow maintains that the legislature only intended to allow single parents (regardless of sexual orientation) and married couples to adopt under I.C. §31-19-2-2. If a second parent is allowed to adopt following a first parent adoption, Barrow maintains that the first parent adoption is nullified. She conceded, though, that the state would not have objected to the adoption in the current case if only one of the lesbian parents had petitioned to adopt the child.
Barrow points out that the adoption statute at I.C. §31-19-2-4 requires the consent of both parents, in the case of a married couple as support for the proposition that only married couples may adopt. Had the legislature intended to allow unmarried parents to adopt, a similar consent requirement would have been included in the law Barrow argues. But the three-judge panel countered that consent, in the case of the unmarried couple, is effected by the filing of the joint adoption petition.
The state finds itself in an untenable position. It conceded to the court that the state’s own lawyer for the agency knew of the adoption petition pending in Judge Dieter’s court and made a conscientious decision not to file a Rule 12(B)(8) motion to dismiss it because she personally approved of the adoption by the lesbian couple. Ms. Barrow also conceded that the state agency had found the couple to be suitable parents, and that the only basis for its objection to the lesbian couple’s adoption of the child now was Judge Hanson’s determination that the child had to be adopted by a married couple.
Patricia Logue, arguing for the lesbian couple, asserts that the absence of a statutory prohibition on adoptions by unmarried, same sex couples, infers legislative approval of such adoptions. And alternatively, legislative acquiescence to such adoptions can be inferred from the inaction of the legislature in the face of the appellate court decisions approving of second parent adoptions. She points to the fact that many other states have similarly interpreted their adoption statutes which had nearly identical language to Indiana’s.
The three-judge panel seemed troubled by the notion of forum shopping. While conceding that the Marion County Probate Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the adoption as a distinct proceeding of the CHINS proceeding, the fact that the child and the adoptive parents resided in Morgan County bothered the panel that Morgan County had not been able to exercise jurisdiction over the adoption, as well as the CHINS proceeding. Given Judge Hanson’s predilection against same sex couples, Logue conceded the adoption petition was filed in Marion County because of the likelihood of it getting a more favorable reception from Judge Dieter, who has approved a number of gay parent adoptions.
Regardless of the outcome of this decision, it is not likely to be the end of the matter. The losing party will most certainly appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, and there will no doubt be further efforts by Christian fundamentalist organizations, such as Advance America and the American Family Association, to change Indiana’s adoption laws to specifically prohibit adoptions by same sex parents.
The judges are also no doubt mindful of the impact their decision will have. Legislative efforts in the last two sessions have sought to exert legislative participation in the judicial retention process as a means of exacting revenge on judges who make rulings disagreeable to a majority of legislators. The three-judge panel may hesitate to issue any ruling that is likely to stir further legislative action in that regard.
If you would like to view a video recording of the oral argument in this case, please click here.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Bayhs' Wealth Building Through Public Service Questioned
The Indianapolis Star and other mainstream media in Indiana have pretty much turned a blind eye to the questionable manner in which Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) has managed to parlay a small fortune worth several million dollars during the past 20 years he has been on the public dole as an elected official. Now that he is a candidate for president, Bayh's business affairs seem to be getting a little more scrutiny.
Star business reporter Daniel Lee takes a look at the cool $796,000 Sen. Bayh's wife Susan pocketed from cashing in stock options granted to her by health care giant Wellpoint where she serves as a member of its board of directors. Commenting on the transaction, Lee reports:
The huge windfall Susan Bayh made on the sale of the option shares makes Hillary Clinton's $100,000 questionable windfall from cattle futures trading look like peanuts. Bayh was able to purchase 20,000 option shares for a price varying from $35.93 to $44.18 per share and sell them the very same day for a quick pre-tax profit of $796,000. She also gets paid $52,040 to serve on Wellpoint's board, a part-time service netting her more than most Hoosiers earn in a year's time from their full-time jobs.
Last year, in an analysis of the Bayh's personal wealth the Star described the cash cow Susan Bayh has become for the couple:
For his part, Sen. Bayh reportedly earned close to $1 million as a partner at the law firm of Baker & Daniels during the two-year period between the time he left the Governor's office in 1996 and was elected to the Senate in 1998. Bayh earned more than many full-time partners in the law firm earned at the time, even though he worked only part-time, devoting much of his time to running for the Senate and helping other Democratic candidates. The law firm lobbies Congress through its D.C. affiliate, Sagamore & Associates. Bayh also earned hundreds of thousands more serving on corporate boards during his two years in the private sector, including many businesses with a big interest in matters before Congress.
At least one former Bayh staffer, Rashid Hallowell, went to work as a lobbyist for B&D's Sagamore & Associates after leaving Bayh's staff where he worked on appropriation matters. He now works for Evansville-based AmeriQual as a Vice President of Government Relations, and he recently registered to lobby Congress on behalf of company according to Indiana Legislative Insight. Congress appropriated money in the Defense Department's budget to fund a multi-million dollar contract with AmeriQual to provide pre-packaged meals for military personnel. Hallowel is the step-son of Bill Moreau, who served as Bayh's first chief of staff when he was governor, and who is one of the top fundraisers for Bayh's presidential campaign.
An interesting comparison can be made between the wealth Indiana's two senators have accumulated while in public office. Sen. Lugar, who was already a millionaire before becoming a U.S. senator in 1976, has seen the size of his holdings remain stagnant, actually losing value when factoring in inflation according to his financial disclosure statements. A Star analysis from June 15, 2005, of his statement showed him to be worth about $1.9 million, including a suburban Virginia home worth more than $900,000.
Sen. Bayh's financial disclosure form paints quite a different picture. When Bayh was first elected to public office as Indiana's Secretary of State in 1986, his principle assets were a very modest condominium in downtown Indianapolis and a used BMW. According to his most recent financial disclosure statement, he and his wife are worth between $3.1 million and $5.1 million according to last year's Star analysis. That includes a $1.8 million dollar beach-front home the Bayh's own in Bethany Beach, Delaware. The Bayh's other home in D.C. is valued at $1.65 million.
Star business reporter Daniel Lee takes a look at the cool $796,000 Sen. Bayh's wife Susan pocketed from cashing in stock options granted to her by health care giant Wellpoint where she serves as a member of its board of directors. Commenting on the transaction, Lee reports:
While big stock trades are commonplace in corporate America, some watchdog groups see an awkward mix of business and politics when it comes to a U.S. legislator having a spouse so closely involved with a major corporation. Sen. Bayh is considering a run for the presidency in 2008.
"Given that she has a high-profile role with the company and that this is a company that could benefit from the legislative actions of her husband, there is definitely a potential for a conflict of interest," said Alex Knott, political editor for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan group in Washington.
Watchdog organizations Public Citizen and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights echoed those concerns.
Sen. Bayh and Susan Bayh each declined to comment on the stock trade. But Sen. Bayh's communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, said that the Bayhs are strict in keeping their careers separate.
Pfeiffer said that Sen. Bayh forbids any company affiliated with Susan Bayh from lobbying him or his office.
"Senator Bayh always votes in what he believes is in the best interest of Hoosiers and the country, and the interest of companies that his family members may be affiliated with are completely irrelevant," Pfeiffer said.
He added that Bayh's votes are often in direct opposition to the interests of those companies. Pfeiffer cited the senator's 2003 vote against Medicare reform legislation, which was lobbied for by the health-care industry.
The huge windfall Susan Bayh made on the sale of the option shares makes Hillary Clinton's $100,000 questionable windfall from cattle futures trading look like peanuts. Bayh was able to purchase 20,000 option shares for a price varying from $35.93 to $44.18 per share and sell them the very same day for a quick pre-tax profit of $796,000. She also gets paid $52,040 to serve on Wellpoint's board, a part-time service netting her more than most Hoosiers earn in a year's time from their full-time jobs.
Last year, in an analysis of the Bayh's personal wealth the Star described the cash cow Susan Bayh has become for the couple:
Susan Bayh, a lawyer who worked for Eli Lilly and Co. while her husband was governor, was paid for work on 10 corporate boards last year. The other pharmaceutical and health-related companies she worked for were Novovax,
Dendreon Corp., Dyax Corp., Curis, and Cubist Pharmaceuticals. Susan Bayh also
worked for Emmis Broadcasting, an Indianapolis-based media company; Golden State Foods, a California-based food processor and distributor; and E Trade Bank, a
Virginia-based financial-services company.
For his part, Sen. Bayh reportedly earned close to $1 million as a partner at the law firm of Baker & Daniels during the two-year period between the time he left the Governor's office in 1996 and was elected to the Senate in 1998. Bayh earned more than many full-time partners in the law firm earned at the time, even though he worked only part-time, devoting much of his time to running for the Senate and helping other Democratic candidates. The law firm lobbies Congress through its D.C. affiliate, Sagamore & Associates. Bayh also earned hundreds of thousands more serving on corporate boards during his two years in the private sector, including many businesses with a big interest in matters before Congress.
At least one former Bayh staffer, Rashid Hallowell, went to work as a lobbyist for B&D's Sagamore & Associates after leaving Bayh's staff where he worked on appropriation matters. He now works for Evansville-based AmeriQual as a Vice President of Government Relations, and he recently registered to lobby Congress on behalf of company according to Indiana Legislative Insight. Congress appropriated money in the Defense Department's budget to fund a multi-million dollar contract with AmeriQual to provide pre-packaged meals for military personnel. Hallowel is the step-son of Bill Moreau, who served as Bayh's first chief of staff when he was governor, and who is one of the top fundraisers for Bayh's presidential campaign.
An interesting comparison can be made between the wealth Indiana's two senators have accumulated while in public office. Sen. Lugar, who was already a millionaire before becoming a U.S. senator in 1976, has seen the size of his holdings remain stagnant, actually losing value when factoring in inflation according to his financial disclosure statements. A Star analysis from June 15, 2005, of his statement showed him to be worth about $1.9 million, including a suburban Virginia home worth more than $900,000.
Sen. Bayh's financial disclosure form paints quite a different picture. When Bayh was first elected to public office as Indiana's Secretary of State in 1986, his principle assets were a very modest condominium in downtown Indianapolis and a used BMW. According to his most recent financial disclosure statement, he and his wife are worth between $3.1 million and $5.1 million according to last year's Star analysis. That includes a $1.8 million dollar beach-front home the Bayh's own in Bethany Beach, Delaware. The Bayh's other home in D.C. is valued at $1.65 million.
As With Eric Miller, Jack Abramoff's Charity Began At Home
Advance Indiana has through a series of stories over the past nine months detailed how Eric Miller and his Advance America organization have flaunted federal tax laws governing nonprofit organizations to promote a Christian, fundamentalist legislative agenda in Indiana and have promoted Miller's own political and personal self-interests. We learn now the extent to which the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff similarly used nonprofit organizations for other than charitable purposes. As the Los Angeles Times reports:
The revelations coming out of the Abramoff scandal is all the more reason local prosecutors in Indiana should be taking a closer look at the affairs of Eric Miller and Advance America. As we reported just this last weekend, Miller's non-profit group is currenlty lobbying for the passage of a sales tax break which will benefit the RV industry specifically. Miller received more than a half-million dollars, or 60% of his campaign contributions in his unsuccessful bid for Governor in 2004 from Mahlon Miller, the owner of RV manufacturer Newmar Corp. in Nappanee, Indiana. This raises serious questions about whether Mahlon may also be financing Advance America and using its tax-exempt organization to perform lobbying he would otherwise have to register and report to the state and be prohibited from deducting as a business expense.
We also reported earlier this month about the fact that Eric Miller had told an Indianapolis Star reporter last summer that the six-figure legal retainers Advance America was paying to his law firm were for the work furnished by other members of his law firm for the organization--work which involved "lobbying" within the meaning of Indiana's Lobby Law. Yet Advance America, Miller's law firm and the lawyers furnishing the work did not register and report those lobbying activities as required under the Lobby Law.
And still other reporting we've done shows that the organization, while devoting most of its efforts to lobbying the Indiana General Assembly and local governments, reports but a small fraction of its expenditures for lobbying purposes.
Like with Abramoff, Eric Miller's charity seems to begin at home. He has personally earned well in excess of $1 million courtesy of the tax-exempt Advance America. The issues raised by Advance Indiana are all legitimate matters for public scrutiny. We only hope that someone in the mainstream media will finally figure this out as well.
Charities are supposed to advance the public interest, which is why they aren't taxed. But Abramoff, by his own admission, used them to evade taxes, enrich himself and bribe public officials, according to a plea agreement he signed with federal prosecutors in January . . . .
Abramoff's use and misuse of nonprofits played a key role in each of the three counts of his indictment: conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion. He admitted evading $1.7 million in income taxes over three years, in part by using nonprofits to conceal personal income from the IRS.
The fast-growing ranks of tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations are tailor-made for operators like Abramoff.The number of tax-exempt groups in the United States has tripled over the last three decades, but nonprofit groups usually pay no tax, so there is little incentive for the IRS to keep an eye on them.
The lack of oversight is especially meaningful in Washington, where trade associations, public-interest groups and grass-roots lobbying organizations all have tax-exempt status under generous IRS rules designed to foster public debate. Members of Congress are also getting into the act and forming their own charities.
The revelations coming out of the Abramoff scandal is all the more reason local prosecutors in Indiana should be taking a closer look at the affairs of Eric Miller and Advance America. As we reported just this last weekend, Miller's non-profit group is currenlty lobbying for the passage of a sales tax break which will benefit the RV industry specifically. Miller received more than a half-million dollars, or 60% of his campaign contributions in his unsuccessful bid for Governor in 2004 from Mahlon Miller, the owner of RV manufacturer Newmar Corp. in Nappanee, Indiana. This raises serious questions about whether Mahlon may also be financing Advance America and using its tax-exempt organization to perform lobbying he would otherwise have to register and report to the state and be prohibited from deducting as a business expense.
We also reported earlier this month about the fact that Eric Miller had told an Indianapolis Star reporter last summer that the six-figure legal retainers Advance America was paying to his law firm were for the work furnished by other members of his law firm for the organization--work which involved "lobbying" within the meaning of Indiana's Lobby Law. Yet Advance America, Miller's law firm and the lawyers furnishing the work did not register and report those lobbying activities as required under the Lobby Law.
And still other reporting we've done shows that the organization, while devoting most of its efforts to lobbying the Indiana General Assembly and local governments, reports but a small fraction of its expenditures for lobbying purposes.
Like with Abramoff, Eric Miller's charity seems to begin at home. He has personally earned well in excess of $1 million courtesy of the tax-exempt Advance America. The issues raised by Advance Indiana are all legitimate matters for public scrutiny. We only hope that someone in the mainstream media will finally figure this out as well.
Bosma To Face Serious Democratic Challenger
A serious Democratic candidate has stepped forward to challenge House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) for his District 88 seat, which encompasses most of Lawrence Township, the Geist Reservoir area and a small portion of Hamilton County. Susan Fuldauer, a 49-year old public relations director for an insurance company, has been slated by Democrats to challenge Bosma the Star reports.
"Indiana is teetering on the edge of a new era in government," Fuldauer said in a news release. "Hoosiers are becoming tired and frustrated with old-style politicians running our state government."
While Fuldauer appears to be a credible candidate, she will have her work cut out for her. The district Bosma represents tilts heavily in favor of the Republicans. Bosma has represented the area for 20 years. His strident conservatism, however, may be out of step with many people in his district.
As Speaker, Bosma has pushed an extremely conservative, Christian fundamentalist agenda. He has advanced a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and civil unions, has supported some of the most ant-abortion legislation to come through the legislature in many years and has wrestled with a federal court over the constitutionality of permitting blatantly Christian prayers in formal House proceedings. Bosma faced a huge embarrassment earlier this session when even members of his own caucus rebelled against an amendment Bosma permitted Rep. Jeff Thompson to offer, which would have nullified gay rights ordinances adopted by local communities, such as Indianapolis; Bosma prevailed upon Thompson to withdraw the amendment after it was so negatively received.
If Fuldauer runs as a fiscal conservative but a social moderate, she may be successful in making inroads into Bosma's traditonal Republican base. Bosma in the past has run unopposed or faced only token opposition. This may be one of the first serious challengers he has faced in his 20-year career. He was able to ride the coattails of his father's long-time service as a state senator to win the seat originally. It remains to be seen whether Democrats will actually put some real money behind Fuldauer's candidacy.
"Indiana is teetering on the edge of a new era in government," Fuldauer said in a news release. "Hoosiers are becoming tired and frustrated with old-style politicians running our state government."
While Fuldauer appears to be a credible candidate, she will have her work cut out for her. The district Bosma represents tilts heavily in favor of the Republicans. Bosma has represented the area for 20 years. His strident conservatism, however, may be out of step with many people in his district.
As Speaker, Bosma has pushed an extremely conservative, Christian fundamentalist agenda. He has advanced a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and civil unions, has supported some of the most ant-abortion legislation to come through the legislature in many years and has wrestled with a federal court over the constitutionality of permitting blatantly Christian prayers in formal House proceedings. Bosma faced a huge embarrassment earlier this session when even members of his own caucus rebelled against an amendment Bosma permitted Rep. Jeff Thompson to offer, which would have nullified gay rights ordinances adopted by local communities, such as Indianapolis; Bosma prevailed upon Thompson to withdraw the amendment after it was so negatively received.
If Fuldauer runs as a fiscal conservative but a social moderate, she may be successful in making inroads into Bosma's traditonal Republican base. Bosma in the past has run unopposed or faced only token opposition. This may be one of the first serious challengers he has faced in his 20-year career. He was able to ride the coattails of his father's long-time service as a state senator to win the seat originally. It remains to be seen whether Democrats will actually put some real money behind Fuldauer's candidacy.
Star To Garton: Kill This Perk!
An editorial in today's Star tells Sen. President Bob Garton to do what we've been suggesting for several weeks now: kill the health care for life legislative perk. The editorial explains how former Sen. Larry Borst (R-Indianapolis) and Rep. John Frenz (D-Vincennes) both lost their re-elections when their opponents made an issue of their support of the legislative perk. It poses several good questions about the plan with very pointed answers.
Here's the full text of the editorial.
Here's the full text of the editorial.
Our position: Senate president pro tempore should end perk that gives legislators and their families subsidized health care for life.
You're probably asking yourself, Sen. Garton, why you should take away from your fellow senators a generous benefit that provides heavily subsidized health, dental and vision care for retired lawmakers and their families for life. The Star Editorial Board offers some answers:
Could part-time workers in any other field get as generous a health plan? Most part-time employees don't even get health insurance, much less a plan this heavily subsidized.
Do other state employees get such a sweet deal? Not at all. State employees paid as much as $13,000 more last year than your fellow legislators for health insurance. In 2005, taxpayers spent $250,000 to subsidize the legislature's health care costs.
What's wrong with spending $250,000 of taxpayers' money for our well-being? Public service, as you know senator, means being a good steward of taxpayers' money. Giving yourselves such an extravagant perk violates that principle.
But my fellow legislators make only $11,000 a year. Yes, but lawmakers also
receive $128-a-day in expense money while in session, another $51 daily for out-of-session expenses, and a retirement plan under which taxpayers match $4 for every dollar vested.
Will primary opponent Greg Walker and Democratic challenger Terry Corriden use this issue against me this year? Ask former colleague Lawrence Borst, whose defeat at the hands of now-Sen. Brent Waltz was as much due to outrage about the perk as it was about Borst's opposition to gaming expansion. Or talk to state Rep. Troy Woodruff, who credits voter outrage over the perk with his victory over incumbent John Frenz two years ago.
The answer, senator, is yes. And deservedly so.
So how can I save my job and best serve the voters? Even though Rep. Woodruff's plan to kill the perk, in the form of HB 1309, died in the House, you can simply end the benefit with the stroke of a pen. Speaker Brian Bosma did exactly that last month. Then, in next year's session, you could support a new version of the bill to end the subsidy permanently.
Do the right thing, senator. Kill this perk.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
United Arab Emirates Firm To Control Major U.S. Ports
While many Hoosiers have expressed concern over the prospect of turning control of the Indiana Toll Road over to an Australian-based firm, the U.S. government has given its approval to the sale of a London-based company, which overseas most of the country's major ports, to a firm based in the United Arab Emirates. From today's Washington Post:
According to the Post report, a panel of U.S. representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security concluded that the purchase by the Arab country represented no threat to national security. In fact, the government considers UAE a major partner in the war on terrorism despite its role in the 9/11 attacks. The Post reported:
In an un-related story, news comes that the UAE has just jailed 26 men for being gay, sentencing them to 5 years in prison. WebIndia reports:
So we're suppose to entrust control of our nation's most important ports to a nation which doesn't afford any individual rights to its own people--where you can be jailed for practicing Christianity or any other non-Muslim religion and where you can be executed for homosexual relationships? Will you feel more secure knowing that major ports of entry to the U.S. will be under UAE control?
A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The $6.8 billion sale could be approved Monday and would affect commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
According to the Post report, a panel of U.S. representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security concluded that the purchase by the Arab country represented no threat to national security. In fact, the government considers UAE a major partner in the war on terrorism despite its role in the 9/11 attacks. The Post reported:
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FBI concluded.
In an un-related story, news comes that the UAE has just jailed 26 men for being gay, sentencing them to 5 years in prison. WebIndia reports:
Their arrest had made news in November last year when they gathered at a hotel in Ghantout, a desert region on the Dubai-Abu Dhabi highway to organise a gay wedding. Police got wind of the meeting and swooped on the hotel and arrested the participants.
The Khaleej Times said the gays defended themselves in the court saying they were proud of their act and were keen to practice it.
An earlier report said the gays may be given hormone treatment to correct their behaviour as sodomy is punishable by death under the Islamic sharia law.
Homosexuality is said to be common in this part of the world where men and women lead a highly segregated life.
So we're suppose to entrust control of our nation's most important ports to a nation which doesn't afford any individual rights to its own people--where you can be jailed for practicing Christianity or any other non-Muslim religion and where you can be executed for homosexual relationships? Will you feel more secure knowing that major ports of entry to the U.S. will be under UAE control?
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Miller Helping Miller
Advance America usually devotes its energy at the Indiana State House pushing its fundamentalist Christian agenda. That means no abortions, no gay marriages or adoptions, prayer in school and public funding of religious schools. It came as somewhat of a surprise when Advance Indiana discovered that Eric Miller is touting a sales tax break during this year’s legislative session for the recreational vehicle (RV) industry on behalf of Advance America. Upon further investigation, it should have come as no surprise.As Miller describes two bills moving through the legislature, HB 1073 and SB 106, to Advance America’s members, the legislation will “help protect Hoosier jobs.” He further explains the legislation to his members:
HB 1073 authored by Rep. Jackie Walorski has passed the House and SB 106 authored by Sen. Mike Young has passed the Senate. Both of these bills help restore the law as it used to be a few years back concerning the purchase of recreational vehicles in the state of Indiana by an out-of-state buyer. Since the law was changed approximately four years ago, sales of recreational vehicles to out-of-state buyers have decreased dramatically. This has had an adverse impact on recreational vehicle dealers and also hurts the entire RV industry in Indiana. Since Indiana is the RV leader in the world, any impact on the RV industry adversely affects the entire state of Indiana. Representative Walorski and Senator Young are working to help ensure that Indiana does not continue to have the loss of recreational vehicle sales to out-of-state buyers.
The tax law Miller is seeking to undo was enacted by the legislature several years ago as a revenue enhancement measure. Essentially it requires Indiana RV dealers to collect sales taxes on the sale of RVs to persons who purchase in-state but reside outside the state of Indiana at a rate at least equal to the person’s state of residence but no higher than Indiana’s 6% sales tax rate. According to a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Legislative Services Agency, the state will lose between $3.7 million and $7.2 million in annual sales tax revenues if the law as written is repealed. To be fair there are economic arguments in support of the legislation as the Elkhart Truth discussed in recent reporting on the bills.
So why is Miller and Advance America pursuing this legislation? Because their largest benefactor is a big player in the RV industry. Mahlon Miller, who is no relation to Eric Miller, is an “Amish Mennonite RV magnate” as the Star’s Matt Tully describes him. During Miller’s unsuccessful bid for Governor in 2004, Tully reported: “Mahlon Miller — described by friends, employees and relatives as deeply religious and extremely generous — has largely bankrolled conservative activist Eric Miller's campaign for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.
Mahlon Miller kicked in $570,000, or 63% of the funds Miller had in his campaign account in 1994. As Tully described it, “The brotherly financial love (between the two Millers) has helped offset a huge fund-raising advantage enjoyed by GOP rival Mitch Daniels as the May 4 primary approaches. It also shows the freedom Indiana's campaign laws allow donors — there is no limit on contributions by individuals." Miller’s campaign also toured the state in an RV donated by the RV mogul. Eric Miller defended Mahlon’s large contributions to his campaign. "What Mahlon has done is make sure we have had the resources to get our message out, and make sure the people of Indiana know who I am and what our plan is to get Indiana moving," said Eric Miller.
Mahlon Miller is a 66-year old father of 6 children from Nappanee. He owns Newmar Corp., an RV manufacturer based in Nappanee which employees more than 1,000 employees. Newmar produces about 4,400 RVs annually and has annual revenues in excess of $350 million.
What Tully did not explore in his election year report is how much Mahlon Miller is funding the Advance America organization. Because the organization is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, any contributions Mahlon makes to Advance America are tax-deductible. It is not clear just how much Mahlon has contributed to Advance America because federal tax laws do not require non-profit organizations to divulge the identity and amounts its contributors donate. Given the large campaign contributions Mahlon made to Miller’s political campaign, it is not difficult to surmise that he may well be bankrolling the tax-exempt organization as well.
There is a major difference though between the two types of contributions. Mahlon, a multi-millionaire, could not deduct the campaign contributions he made to Miller’s campaign on his personal income tax return. He can, however, deduct the contributions he makes to Advance America because it is a tax-exempt organization. And because Advance America appears to be lobbying for a tax break to benefit his industry, he effectively is able to obtain a deduction he otherwise would not qualify for. Lobbying expenses are not deductible under the Internal Revenue Code, which bars deductions of expenses to influence legislation, political campaigns, referenda and executive decisions.
The arrangement works wonderfully for both Millers. Mahlon can bankroll a tax-exempt organization which in turn lobbies the legislature to advance his religious, social agenda and his own personal business interests and, at the same time, obtain a tax deduction for expenses he otherwise could not deduct. Eric Miller is able to use those funds to pay himself a hefty salary to run the organization, pay six-figure retainer fees to his law firm and otherwise advance his own personal and political ambitions.
It all just adds up to an even greater need for a complete and thorough investigation of Eric Miller and Advance America by the appropriate governmental authorities. Advance America is nothing more than a political action group masquerading as a legitimate, tax-exempt educational organization. It should be stripped of its tax-exempt status and appropriate punishments should be handed down to Eric Miller and others responsible for allowing it to flaunt its tax-exempt status. Is anybody listening?
Friday, February 10, 2006
Ann Coulter Cracks Up
Since we criticized Democrats for inappropriate speech at a funeral, we're going to similarly criticize a Republican for making what we consider inappropriate speech anywhere. Ann Coulter, a favorite of red-meat conservatives who is best known for her short dresses and sharp-witted tongue, stepped over the line--way over the line this week.Coulter addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C. before an audience of more than 1,000, mostly young conservative Republicans. The event is a must-attend event for top Republican luminaries and presidential hopefuls. Vice President Dick Cheney addressed the group as did Senate GOP Leader Bill Frist.
As another blogger describes it, "Coulter took her brand of performance art to new heights." Max Blumenthal offers us a sampling of some of the outrageus and offensive comments Coulter made while speaking before the conservative audience:
Coulter on Muslims:
"I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" (This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.)
Coulter on killing Bill Clinton:
(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemna) "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"
Coulter on moderate Republicans:
"There is more dissent on a slave plantation then amongst moderates in the Republican party."
Coulter on the Holocaust:
"Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions."
Coulter on the Supreme Court:
"If we find out someone [referring to a terrorist] is going to attack the Supreme Court next week, can't we tell Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalito?"
Instead of laughing at her comments and holding her up as a symbol of their movement, conservative Republicans should be condemning Coulter's remarks. After Coulter's speech, Blumenthal approached Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in the CPAC exhibitor's hall and asked him what he thought of Coulter's characterization 15 minutes earlier of Muslims as "ragheads." His reply? "I wasn't there so I better not comment." Not the answer we wanted to hear from someone who wants to be president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)