Monday night, the Craighead County Quorum Court decided that it was better to protect nepotism and encourage corruption than to show residents of the county that their government was open and honest.

The Craighead County Quorum Court voted 8-4 Monday against a proposed anti-nepotism ordinance that would outlaw the hiring of family members by direct supervisors.

Justices of the peace who opposed to the policy said the county hasn’t had problems in the past with nepotism and that the county “shouldn’t fix what isn’t broken.”

Best comment in that article right here-

“This is Craighead County, and we don’t have to follow other counties’ policies,” Justice of the Peace Jim Bryant said.

He’s right, Craighead County doesn’t have to have policies that protect against favoritism and corruption.  That stuff is for counties with good government.  Seriously, have you ever heard anything so asanine?  Thank you Mr. Bryant for that migraine inducing moment.

It truly is embarrassing that only four members of the Craighead County Quorum Court show any concern for protecting the tax payer dollar from corrupt practices.  There names- Kevin Hoke, Barbara Weinstock, Ken Stacks, and Fred Bowers.  As far as I’m concerned, they’re the only four who deserve reelection.

And the ones who voted in favor of protecting nepotism? Jim Bryant, Mike Cox, Mike Hawkins, Kenny Hendrix, Max Render, Terry Couch, Duane Harvey, and Ed Hill.  Oh, and outgoing County Judge Dale Haas didn’t sound too wild about the measure either…surprise, surprise.  (One JP, Mary Suiter, was absent due to illness.)

So, if you’re a Craighead County resident, here’s the contact info of all the JPs that voted no, courtesy of the Craighead County website:

District #3
Jim Bryant
2009 Magnolia
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-932-9506

District #4
Kenneth Hendrix
1400 Twin Oaks
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-972-0837

District #6
Max Render
3200 Moore Road
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-935-7031

District #8
Ed Hill
2207 Fox Meadow Lane
Jonesboro, AR 72404
Home-(870)-897-7900

District #10
Michael Hawkins
499 CR 360
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-932-3135

District #11
Duane Harvey
502 CR 702
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-932-5668
Work-(870)-935-2418

District #12
Terry Couch
4638 HWY 135 South
Caraway, AR 72419
Home-(870)-482-3996

District #13
Mike Cox
328 CR 408
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Cell Phone-(870)-530-0202

Why don’t you give them a call and tell them how you feel…Oh, and for good measure, here’s how you can send a letter to the Jonesboro Sun and let all the paper’s readers know what kind of county government they have.  But while you’re at it, don’t forget those that stood up for good government and responsible policies.  Call them and tell them to keep fighting and tell them that you have their backs.  And you should contact the absent member, Mary Suiter, and make sure she votes against nepotism the next time around.  (Remember, the paper didn’t specify the nature of her illness, so be extra respectful on that one.)  So, here’s the contact info for the good guys and the potential good guy Mrs. Suiter:

District #1
Ken Stacks
527 W. Washington
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Work phone-(870)-932-5530
Home phone-(870)-972-0303

District #2
Fred Bowers
801 French Street
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-972-6105

District #5
Barbara Weinstock
208 Wilkins
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-935-1117

District #7
Kevin Hoke
4008 Chapel Hill Drive
Jonesboro, AR 72404
Home-(870)-935-8647

District #9
Mary Suiter
2019 Pleasant Grove Rd.
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Home-(870)-935-7784

Again, if you’re a Craighead County resident, stand up for good government and tell your representatives on the Quorum Court that you don’t want your taxpayer money going towards nepotism.  And if they don’t listen a second time around, throw the bums out.

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a group that goes after both corrupt Democrats and corrupt Republicans, as taken aim at Tim Griffin:

Mr. Griffin was a former aide to and protégé of notorious political operative Karl Rove. In the 2004 presidential election, Mr. Griffin was the research director of the RNC where he may have spearheaded Republican vote caging efforts, a legally questionable direct mail campaign to disenfranchise poor, minority and military voters.

Mr. Griffin was most prominently touched by scandal when he was picked to replace a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas who, despite being highly regarded, had been asked to resign.  Emails between the Justice Department and the White House revealed that despite his lack of prosecutorial experience, the selection of Mr. Griffin was personally important to Mr. Rove.  Knowing that he would never pass muster at a Senate confirmation hearing, Mr. Griffin was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for an indefinite time period under a misused, emergency provision of the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Griffin resigned effective June 1, 2007, after less than six months on the job and in the midst of an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee into the political motivations behind the U.S. Attorney scandal.  

It’s an easy choice.  Elect a crook or a state legislator with a stellar track record who has served her constituents well.  (And FYI, that stellar state legislator needs to kick her campaign up a notch…a big notch.  Folks are starting to get nervous.)

Recently, Mike Ross decided to pen an op-ed to roll call discussing health care reform. And, needless to say as this is Ross we’re talking about, the thing is so full of lies and misinformation that it’s only suitable as bird cage liner. Let’s take it apart piece by piece, shall we?

The health care reform process has been a never-ending odyssey of misunderstandings, miscalculations and misinterpretations. As a result, most Americans remain confused, scared, angry or all of the above. I believe the overwhelming disdain for incumbents we now see in this country is a resounding rejection of politics as usual, and, in particular, how both political parties have conducted themselves over the past year on this very important issue.

I suppose this includes his work to kill the public option, a piece of legislation far more popular than the bill as a whole? I suppose it includes his vote for the Stupak Amendment to limit the rights of women when it comes to reproductive health care while voting against the bill as a whole, right? Does that politics as usual bit include that illegal immigrant scare tactic he used after the vote, something that showed him to be nothing but a more subdued Joe Willson? Oh, it doesn’t? I see…

Every American understands that our health care system is broken on a fundamental level and needs change. In a capitalistic society, the universal principle of every business is profit. Without it, you don’t exist. Therefore, health insurance companies will do everything they can to make a profit. As a capitalist, my instinct is to defend a private company’s right to turn a profit and keep its doors open. However, when that profit comes at the expense of the lives and health of countless Americans, we are forced to evaluate the practical approach of pure ideology and conclude that it simply does not work in a debate about health care — and it never will.

One thing in this debate is clear: The status quo is simply not acceptable, nor is it sustainable. Next to making adequate health insurance coverage available for the uninsured and underinsured, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is the most pressing reason why we must act. We can never get our deficits under control or balance our budget again unless we can stop health care costs from rising at twice the rate of inflation. In the past eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And the first $900 those of us with insurance pay in premiums goes to cover the costs of treating the uninsured in emergency rooms across this country. Ensuring American citizens have quality health care and making it both affordable and accessible is key to the long-term strength of our economy.

He really is a shameless lying dog. Here he is saying we can’t allow the status quo to continue, but he’s fighting to preserve it. He lays out a list of indictments against our current system, but still fights reform tooth and nail. I’d call him a snake but it’d be an insult to snakes.

There are three ways we can fundamentally reform our health care system: insurance industry reforms, containing costs and affordability. First and foremost, we must reform the way the health insurance industry operates. Every family needs and deserves health insurance much like they require utilities to heat their homes, and our laws should regulate health insurance companies just as they regulate the utility companies today, including prohibitions on pre-existing conditions, canceling your coverage when you get sick and caps on the total amount they will pay for your health care expenses over a lifetime.

All of that is in this bill he’s voting against…

Secondly, we must explore every available cost-containment measure, and no proposal on Capitol Hill goes far enough in this arena. Every step possible must be taken to root out waste, fraud and abuse, and we need historic investments in preventive medicine, such as physical education in schools and early detection programs.

Actually, there is a proposal that would do great work to contain costs and would do so through that capitalist system of competition Ross so admires. It’s called the PUBLIC OPTION and he’s AGAINST IT.

Finally, we cannot and should not move from our current employer-based health care system, which is uniquely American. Instead, we must build on what we have, which most Americans like, and make it better. It should be more affordable for employers and more portable for employees. As a former small-business owner, I feel strongly that we must protect our small businesses — the backbone of the American economy. That is why I oppose employer mandates and why I support a “marketplace” that allows small businesses and the self-employed to come together as one big group, having greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees, including Members of Congress, have access to affordable insurance, and I believe every American should have access to the same coverage I do.

Small business-fine and dandy. But big businesses like Wal-Mart should take care of their employees. Oh, and by the way, it would be nice if we could get the excellent coverage these guys in Congress have. Maybe instead of fighting to kill health care reform so hard Ross should be working to get us some sort of arrangement like he currently enjoys.

I feel strongly that a majority of Americans are ideologically in the middle, as am I, and I believe the middle is from where we should legislate. If there is one thing my hardworking parents and my small-town values have taught me throughout my life, it is that common sense must always rule the day. However remote, I look forward to that day on Capitol Hill.

That’s it? No indictment of the bill you’re opposing? No reason for him standing in the way of reform now that his insurance company buddies got their way and seemingly killed the public option? (There’s still a chance to bring it back in the future.) Talk about pathetic.

There’s really no room for doubt here. Mike Ross represents the worst in our politics, and not just because he’s a walking ethics issue or a poster child for why we need campaign finance reform. In this crap he’s peddling, he’s showing off a trait that is worse than any of that-his willingness to lie.

But there’s hope. Ross got off without a primary challenge this year, but there’s always the next cycle. That’s one of many reasons why it’s so important to hold Blanche Lincoln accountable and get Bill Halter elected. If that happens, it breaks open the gate and provides the first nail in the establishment’s coffin. Whenever I talk about that with regards to Ross I always get these shrugs and some remark about how entrenched he is. But there’s plenty of reason to take him on and, I’m convinced, a chance to replace him with a better Democrat.

Buried in a piece on Blanche Lincoln over on Arkansas Blog was this little nugget:

 records kept by the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group, show numerous lobbyist-organized fundraisers for Democrat Mike Ross. But apparently none of the lobbyists or PACs helping him crossed the disclosure threshold. There are no bundling reports filed by Ross or his leadership PAC for 2009.

Now, what Ross is doing isn’t really illegal, but it’s very unethical.  The law in question here is a bit of ethics legislation put into place in the wake of the Abramoff scandal.  The article explains its purpose, and its weakness:

One of the ideas behind the law, passed after the Jack Abramoff scandal, was to shed additional light on the influence of lobbyists who help raise campaign money. But critics say the disclosure rules allow a lot of lobbyist-related fundraising to go unreported.

Now what’s really sad about this is that I remember in the runnup to the 2006 elections, Ross was Mr. Ethics himself.  As I recall, he even turned down a bag of popcorn from the boy scouts to send a message on gifts.  Kind of funny to see that all peeled away now and revealed to be nothing but a bunch of postuering and hypocricy.  Again, what Ross is doing isn’t illegal, but it is unethical and embrassing to his state and district.  He managed to get off lightly this year, but neither this or any of his past antics will be forgotten.  After we’re done with Lincoln, we’ll be focusing in on him for 2012.

Big name Democrats in Congress are working on legislation to deal with the Supreme Court’s disastrous citizens united decisions.

Congressional Democrats unveiled a plan Thursday to put in place new restrictions on spending for political campaigns, an effort to combat the effects of a Supreme Court ruling that made it easier for corporations and other groups to fund campaign advertisements.

The plan was presented by Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) as a “framework” for future legislation. Groups that would be banned from making campaign expenditures include foreign entities, federal contractors and recipients of funds from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The plan also would require chief executives from corporations that fund political ads to disclose that they paid for the ads.

The major provisions of the legislation include:

•Foreign influence would be deterred by banning corporations which have 20% foreign ownership, a foreign-majority board of directors or U.S. operations (or political decisionmaking) under the direction or control of a foreign entity, including a foreign government, would be barred from doing the independent expenditure ads permitted under Citizens United.
•Pay-to-Play restrictions by extending the existing ban on government contractors’ political contributions to these independent expenditures, and barring TARP recipients from using taxpayer money for political expenditures.
•Stand By Your Ad requirements would be extended to require a corporation’s CEO to appear on camera to say that he or she “approves this message,” just like candidates do now, and for shadow groups/coalitions, the top funder does the disclaimer and the top five contributors have to be listed in the ad.
•More disclosure to make clear who’s funding these activities, both in filings with the FEC and to corporate shareholders (both within 24h of each such expenditure and compiled quarterly). Also, registered lobbyists would have enhanced disclosure requirements.
•Ensuring media access by requiring broadcasters to extend the lowest unit rate to candidates and parties whenever corporations place independent expenditure ads on them, and requiring broadcasters to ensure candidates reasonable access to airtime (so that corporations can’t dominate the market).
•Extending coordination restrictions to ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate within 90 days of the primary through the general election, and even before that window for ads which explicitly promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate.

Now this is all good stuff and I’d love to see it become law, but it falls way short of addressing the root problem of corporate personhood. Then there’s the sticky little problem of the Supreme Court just turning this legislation over as well. Personally, the best route in my opinion seems to be the one proposed by Representatives Edwards and Conyers, that of a Constitutional Amendment.