Echo Chamber - The Revolving Door
DESPICABLE DAVIS AT IT AGAIN …
FITSNews - May 11, 2008 - More often than not, the root of all evil in South Carolina politics can be traced back to one of two men - lobbyist/ consultant Warren Tompkins or lobbyist Richard Davis.
The former is a “Republican” who has whored his GOP ideals on countless occasions to preserve the state’s failed status quo, while the latter is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who probably never had any ideals to begin with.
This week it was the devious Davis making headlines after he hired a former state environmental regulator to head up his lobbying firm’s “Environmental Services Division.” From the Greenville News:
Art Braswell, former director of solid waste for the state Department of Health and Environmental Control, said he left DHEC midway through an effort by MRR Southern LLC of Raleigh, N.C., to put a landfill in Gray Court in northern Laurens County and joined a consulting group which has MRR Southern as a client.
Just a coincidence? Yeah … right.
Of course as much as we’d love to rip Davis a new one for his flagrant “influence purchasing,” it’s really not his fault. Until the S.C. General Assembly upgrades our state’s bullet-riddled ethics laws to prohibit this sort of revolving door quid pro quo , Davis and other lobbyist goons are totally within their rights to snatch up as many former state employees as they want.
Comments
By Obama Man on May 11th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Nice article on the Myanmar/Burma Junta but…………………….
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/two-mccain-aide.html
So, what is your take? Looks like the good Rev. Wright just became moot.
By Wondering on May 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Why would the former government employee not be covered by the below?
SECTION 8 13 755. Restrictions on former public official, member, or employee serving as lobbyist or accepting employment in field of former service.
A former public official, former public member, or former public employee holding public office, membership, or employment on or after January 1, 1992, may not for a period of one year after terminating his public service or employment:
(1) serve as a lobbyist or represent clients before the agency or department on which he formerly served in a matter which he directly and substantially participated during his public service or employment; or
(2) accept employment if the employment:
(a) is from a person who is regulated by the agency or department on which the former public official, former public member, or former public employee served or was employed; and
(b) involves a matter in which the former public official, former public member, or former public employee directly and substantially participated during his public service or public employment.
By Laurin on May 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Actually, thanks to Operation Lost Trust, South Carolina’s ethics laws are tougher than most other states’. Section 8-13-755 of the SC Code deals with the sort of “revolving door” you’re talking about, and as long as Mr. Braswell waited a year between his work with DHEC and his lobbying gig, he was complying with the laws.
I agree that this system isn’t optimal, but it’s actually one area of our state’s statutory law that doesn’t stink as bad as most states’. (Speaking of stench, “director of solid waste” does not sound like a very appealing job.)
And Richard isn’t a goon.
By Wondering on May 11th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Will,
Did he wait the year before taking the job?
My problem is the Commission itself…they are just slack. They are hard to find, slow to return calls…are “away from their desk” alot…as a state employee I know all the games and they play them all. They are an agency that loves to do nothing.
They give hard working state employees a bad name.
By ??? on May 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Yes, thanks for using the powers of the state for political purposes. The comment,” thanks to Operation Lost Trust” is indeed one of the most moronic statements I have heard given that almost every conviction if not all were thrown out by Federal Judge Falcon Hawkins. And really the State Ethics Act is a joke, and pawn of those doing the very same things that Judge Hawkins’ referred to repeatedly.
Two wrongs make a right? LOL The naivete of youth.
By Laurin on May 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
???, if my statement was one of the most moronic you’ve ever “heard,” then yours was one of the most incomprehensible I’ve ever read. Whatever happened with convictions resulting from Operation Lost Trust FBI sting has absolutely nothing to do with the changes in state ethics law that were made in the aftermath of Operation Lost Trust.
Key provisions such as the “no cup of coffee” rule that were enacted as part of the South Carolina’s ethics reform in the wake of Operation Lost Trust are among the most stringent of such policies in the country. Whether those laws are actually adhered to is another matter, but the laws — in comparison to such laws in other states — are relatively strict.
No idea what all of your “naivete of youth” and other garbled cliches and mixed metaphors were all about, but if you care to dispute what I’ve written — on the merits — and do so in vaguely comprehensible manner, I’d be happy for you to convince me that I’m wrong. I’m by no means an expert on comparative state ethics laws.
By truthseeker on May 12th, 2008 at 8:22 am
The law might be on the books - but our problem is you need someone with integrity who is actually going to enforce the law .
I have seen a S.C. state employee cut a sweetheart deal with a private company and within 4 months be working at the private company benefiting personally from screwing over the State - and the authorities simply did nothing -even after the press wrote all about it -
My suggestion would be to drastically lower your expectations that our state will enforce any of this type of potential ethics violations.
By ??? on May 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Okay Laurin,
First, the Lost Trust operation was politically motivated and thus the prosecutions were made and later reversed by the Court in a blistering reversal(read Falcon Hawkins decision). Thus, the whole operation was a conspiracy against civil rights. What good can come from civil rights violations?
Second, the state ethics laws are not equally applied and therefore another violation of civil rights. There is a little provision called, equal protection.
Third, the state ethics commision is a political weapon and tool that is politically motivated and directed.
With regard to the naivete of youth, I think you have probably never read the Hawkins decision and that you did not have a driver’s license when “Operation Lost Trust” was the news du jour. Am I correct, or are you just plain stupid?
By Rob W. on May 12th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Not that Laurin needs anyone’s help defending herself, but none of your three points speak to what Laurin said. She didn’t say whether Lost Trust was good or not, she just said that our ethics laws were a result of Lost Trust, which is true. She also said South Carolina has some of the toughest ethics laws in the nation, even if they’re not always enforced; all you really said is that they’re not enforced. Same thing. Try actually reading what was written and responding logically to it instead of stooping to ad hominem attacks and being a total jerk.
By truthseeker on May 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Rather than banging on each other here, you could also try wasting your time sending in a complaint to the Ethics Commission.
That would be good for a few laughs watching them do nothing with it.
By ??? on May 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Rob W,
I view the ethics laws as the “fruits of the poisonous tree” and to sum it up.
Operation Lost Trust-Violation of Civil Rights(42USC1983)
State Ethics Laws-Violation of Civil Rights(equal protection)
The application of the above-cited were and are flawed so, how can someone in good conscience defend/advocate something that tainted both now, and then? Both are classic discriminatory application cases involving political views as being the basis for the prosecution thereof.
So, do you and Laurin think that either are fair and equally applied as required or just another long line of constraints designed to repress political discourse much like “Jim Crow”?
With regard to being a jerk, I will accept that if, you will agree you are a Nazi and not a friend to democracy.
Truthseeker,
Maybe someone should file a complaint against the state over the ethics laws or more specifically, the application thereof in a real court-Federal Court. I know you see the light. I always love to hear the rumours of the SEC being disbanded.
By ??? on May 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Equal protection clause in SC. LOL
“it’s actually one area of our state’s statutory law that doesn’t stink as bad as most states’”
Just another weapon for the bad guys to use at their discretion.
By ??? on May 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it.
By JM on May 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Rob W,
Get a JD son.The fruits of the poisonous tree is what “???” was stating. Anything that grows from civil rights being violated is poisonous which includes primarily, the state’s ethics laws.
By the way, the whole firm here is laughing at you all. Truthseeker is right on mark.
By FYI on May 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Not to be picky, but Judge Hawkins’ “blistering reversal” was actually mercilessly reversed by the Fourth Circuit in one of the most pointed opinions I had read from that Court up to that time. Case is Luther Taylor vs. U.S. Follow-up civil suit against the prosecutors was slapped down, hard, as well.
By Just to clarify. . . on May 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Actually, ???, Judge Hawkins’ “blistering reversal” was harshly reversed by the Fourth Circuit in U.S. v. Derrick. Case was remanded with instructions that the superceding indictments were improperly dismissed. Thus, no civil rights claims could possibly follow, as the Court again recognized when some of the criminal defendants later tried to sue. . . .
By ??? on May 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
And the balance of the defendants? LOL
By just to clarify on May 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Sorry; having trouble with the postings. I can’t remember what happened with all of the defendants. Only 5 were covered in the Hawkins order. Some of the defendants pled, at least one passed away in the interim. (And one Senator who would have been a key defendant passed away before indictments came down, but that’s a whole different story). The big talk at the time was the Hawkins Order. There was a stack of copies of it at the clerk’s desk because so many people wanted to read it. Then, when the Fourth Circuit’s opinion came out, people were stunned by how harsh the reversal was. The Court went far beyond what it needed to say in picking apart the errors.
By ??? on May 12th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Indeed we were stunned. Funny how most of the Democrat trial lawyers I am associated with wanted the conservative judges promoted to Richmond, and out of South Carolina. Once again, political motives impede the way justice is served. And too bad the errors were not argued before the USSC. Nonetheless, it was obvious that the motivation for the prosecution was politically motivated, and succeded in reshaping the political landscape of South Carolina instead of implementing justice , without prejudice, for all.
We all have heard of legislating from the bench. I do believe with others that this was an attempt to politic from the bench. After all, innocent people went to jail, and when that happens we all fail.
And in conclusion, the State Ethics Commission(SEC) is basically a political weapon guised under color of law. And I would gladly take them into any Federal Court in the land. Republicans cry of McCain-Feingold, but support the SEC as long as it is convenient.Both limit contribution and campaign speech. But, when it becomes inconvenient(controlled by Democrats) then, they will protest as I am now.
Enjoyed the chat, out of town for a week. Have a nice one number 18.
By Rob W. on May 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I think I’ll pass on the JD and on admitting I am a Nazi/ enemy of the people.
I don’t know anything about these ethics laws or about how they are enforced; I hope I didn’t imply that I did. My point was that Laurin (who does know something about law) seemed to be looking at the laws by themselves, on their own merits, and stating that they are tough compared to other states. ???, on the other hand, seemed to be looking at the enforcement and origin of the laws. Of course we can understand a law by observing where it came from, but it’s origin (and enforcement) are separate issues from the letter of the law.
I also reject that no good can come out of bad things like civil rights violations (although I would say that there is always more harm than good to come out of such actions). Since you mentioned the Nazis, their medical experiments were horrendous and we would be better off if they had never been done; however, it obtained medical knowledge that was very useful, and declining to use this “tainted” knowledge would just put more people at risk. My rough understanding of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument, in the specific context of law, is that it usually refers to evidence, not legislation. Using it to talk about public policy decisions, while still valid, falls closer to the Nazi case than it does to cases of using tainted evidence.
One more thing- ??? states that the State Ethics Laws are a violation of civil rights, because they are unevenly applied and therefore run afoul of the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment. I’m a bit confused- how does uneven enforcement of a law make the law itself a problem? If the state only prosecuted, say, Asian murderers and let the all other ethnic groups get away with murder, that would be a gross violation of civil rights, but that wouldn’t imply our murder laws are twisted or unfair. It would just imply our government/ law enforcement/ court system was twisted and unfair.