Tag Archives: LSEA

Screen Shot 2012-03-06 at 12.45.35 AM

Irony: Conservative Think Tank To Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana Science Education Act Is A “Devastating Flaw” 1

by • Education, Local Political News, Media Studies, National News • Tags: , ,

On May 26, 2011, Stafford Palmieri, who was then serving as the Education and Workforce Policy Advisor to Governor Bobby Jindal, testified in front of the Louisiana House Committee on Education in opposition to the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act (the LSEA). Ms. Palmieri, a 2008 graduate of Yale University, offered a notably convoluted and torturous defense of the LSEA, a law that allows public school science teachers the ability to bypass the teaching of science and supplement their curricula with their own non-scientific and religiously-based beliefs.

“This bill is seeking to remove protections for teachers that give them the ability to teach the full breadth of scientific teaching,” Ms. Palmieri said. This is simply not true, however, as the LSEA has nothing to do with “scientific teaching” and everything to do with equivocating religious beliefs with science. Indeed, the LSEA does not “protect teachers” with “the ability to teach the full breadth of scientific teaching;” if anything, it harms our students by undermining the value and the integrity of science education. More than likely, the LSEA is also unconstitutional; it not only violates the precedent established by the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, it also raises serious questions about our fundamental protection under the First Amendment against the state establishment of religion. No matter how hard some on the religious right may try, creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories; they are both articles of religious faith. And as earnest as some may be in promoting such beliefs, when we conflate them with science, we are doing a disservice to both religion and science.

A few months ago, Ms. Palmieri was promoted to Policy Director for Governor Bobby Jindal, a commendable accomplishment for a young woman who is still in her mid-twenties. But there’s an interesting footnote here, and it needs to be pointed out.

Ms. Palmieri, prior to joining the Jindal administration, worked for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where she oversaw the publication of its newsletter on education issues.

And recently, despite Ms. Palmieri’s outspoken endorsement and defense of the LSEA, the Fordham Institute, her former employer, issued a report that chastised and ridiculed the LSEA in strong and direct language. Quoting (bold mine):

The Louisiana science standards are reasonably challenging and comprehensive, but they suffer from a devastating flaw: Thanks to the state’s 2008 Science Education Act, which promotes creationism instead of science, the standards (especially for biology and life science) are haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state.

“A devastating flaw,” “haunted by anti-science influences that threaten biology education in the state.” This is not analysis by a partisan enemy of Governor Jindal; this is the opinion of the former employer of Governor Jindal’s Policy Director, a conservative think-tank.

I don’t know Ms. Palmieri, but I’m certain of a few things: Her testimony to the Committee on Education was riddled with misrepresentations. It is exceptional and noteworthy that the former employer of Governor Jindal’s Policy Director would publicly criticize her policy statements on education, the very issue she worked on when she was under their employ. And considering this, along with Ms. Palmieri’s exceptional resume, I can only conclude that she is merely doing the bidding of Governor Jindal, even if it means turning against her own true beliefs and the outspoken, public statements of her former colleagues.

This issue will not go away. I, for one, will not back down, and during the next few weeks, I’ll continue to call attention to this critical issue.

Last year, 43 Nobel laureates supported a repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act. And thanks to the continued efforts of my friend Zack Kopplin, there are now 75 Nobel laureates on board; it’s astonishing.

Summer Interview Series (Part Six): Andrew Tuozzolo Reply

by • Education, Interviews, Social Activism • Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Andrew Tuozzolo is the Chief of Staff to Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans). He received a Bachelors of Arts in Economics and History from Boston College and a law degree from Tulane University Law School. Currently, Andrew lives in the Aububon Riverside Neighborhood of New Orleans. You can follow him or contact him on Twitter @atuozzolo.

Lamar: I follow you on Twitter, and I’d bet we probably agree on the vast majority of issues. You and I are both white, politically-active Democrats from Louisiana in their late 20s. So, let’s start this interview on the deep end. Personally, I believe that there are some lingering, residual, and institutional divisions between white Louisiana Democrats and African-American Louisiana Democrats and that those divisions are too often exploited to the party’s own detriment. But during the last six years, as I’ve met young Louisiana progressives across this state, both black and white, I’ve come to believe that these divisions may be waning, that there’s a generational shift in the ways in which people interpret the “institution” of race and racial identity. To me, it’s encouraging. Most recently, Louisiana elected the first Indian-American Governor, a Republican, in the nation’s history, yet there seems to be a perception at least that it would be nearly impossible for an African-American Democrat to be elected to almost any statewide office. What are the root causes of this perception? After all, Louisiana is over 30% African-American. Do you have hope in our generation’s capacity to eliminate race from the political equation?

Andrew: I’ll confront the questions in reverse order, if you don’t mind. I think the inevitable answer to “whether we will eliminate race from the political equation” is absolutely not. That said, I suggest that the prism through which we view racial politics will shift dramatically in the next 20 years. I think several factors are at play here. 

The first, I think, is the generational thought separation of the children of the post-civil rights era folks. I largely agree that among younger people, the question of whether someone is black, or white, or part of a distinct community and committed to tribe-mentality (zero-sum: if they get it, we don’t and vice-versa), is going to fade in importance. It already has, and I think young people of all races often reflexively reject the typical racial politics of their parents. This does not suggest that the race question, which is of extreme import in today’s politics in Louisiana (in fact, it is often the threshold question) will not continue to linger. Louisiana is, due to its history, circumstance, and economy, behind many other parts of the county, including the New South, on issues of race relations. So I think this gets better, and Louisiana has hopes of massive improvement along these lines because we’re so far behind. 

The second factor that will shape the race question in the future will be demographics. The very phrase, “the race question,” today inherently commits one into conversation about a binary choice, i.e. what do blacks want, what do whites want. However, demographics in Louisiana are shifting. Perhaps not on the same scale as Texas or Florida, but at some point, there will be several State Lege seats that are Latino-majority (in fact, there is nearly an available one now in Jefferson Parish that was not drawn). 

Then the question is: to what degree does that upset the current paradigm? When combined with decaying reliance on traditional racial divisions, what emerges? All over the country, there will be a new brand of politics coming from a different point of view that has the potential to upset the standard partisan lines unlike anything we’ve experienced. I won’t engage in prognostication, only to say I see tomorrow’s racial politics as very dissimilar to today’s environment, and influenced by very different things.

So I believe the divisions are waning, or at least there is a recognition that a certain stalemate has been achieved in the struggle between ideologies that are often embodied by race. We’re living through the final vestiges 20th century racial politics in Louisiana, and although due to traditions and discrimination, it will never disappear entirely, the circumstances that maintain the lines of demarcation will be fading away, at least in my opinion. 

But what about electing African-Americans statewide? I think it’s definitely possible, and perhaps even probable, that Louisiana will have an African-American elected Statewide in the future. I think an African-American Republican could probably do it right now, if the margins held as they currently are (approximately 51-54% solid Republican vote in the past 5-6 years statewide across most offices). I believe that Louisiana will do it (and mind you, do it again) in the not too distant future. I do think some folks in Louisiana are uncomfortable electing others of a different race, for whatever reasons they harbor internally. That’s not a sustainable or productive view. You could partially assign the result of this type of politics to many of the devastating issues Louisiana faces today: from poverty, to access to healthcare, to public education. Bottom line is that it’s not results-oriented. If you want to sit in your camps and hear your own thoughts echoed back from one another, that’s your prerogative; you won’t see progress, and you won’t make a better Louisiana. 

Lamar: A few years ago, Don Cazayoux, after beating State Representative Michael Jackson in the primary and Republican Woody Jenkins in the run-off, was elected to the United States Congress. His election made national news, because it demonstrated the ways in which Democrats could make in-roads in historically conservative districts. When Cazayoux ran for re-election, Michael Jackson ran against him again, but this time, as an Independent. Many saw Jackson’s decision as a vindictive and calculated effort at siphoning African-American votes from Congressman Cazayoux. Jackson did not seem to wage a serious campaign, but if the goal was to split up the Democratic base along racial lines in order to hand the seat back to a Republican, it worked. Ryan at The Daily Kingfish did a tremendous job covering this story. He demonstrated the ways in which people like Lane Grigsby donated thousands of dollars to the Republican challenger, Bill Cassidy, while simultaneously buying billboards all over Baton Rouge in support of Michael Jackson. Then, the day after Cassidy was elected, he and Jackson were photographed having coffee together at a Baton Rouge coffeeshop. What lessons should Democrats in Louisiana learn from this? They lost a Congressional seat, after all.

Andrew: Anyone that thought that Michael Jackson wasn’t being pushed along by folks who didn’t want to see Cazayoux re-elected are not being honest. Funny fact: Politics is one of those games that people always play to win. And just like water rushing around a levee, looking for a weak spot, if there are tactics that are within the law (or even in a gray area), you can expect that those who want to win will use them. Be ready for anything. Now, dividing your opponents’ vote isn’t a new tactic, but it can be an effective one. And even if Jackson had had every intention of actually winning that seat, it’s hard to argue that his entry wasn’t the sole cause of Cazayoux’s defeat. 

This says a lot about coalition politics, insomuch as it was Jackson who, as a nominal Democrat, divided Democratic votes, and especially African-American Democratic votes. Now, this is always a problem for Democrats: What binds us together? How do we coalesce around issues and policy in a way that secures consistent victories? How do you make the case that voting for the strongest Democrat, white or black, is better than voting for the candidate you are most familiar with or at least more comfortable with? Democrats talk about getting on the same page, but when it comes down to brass tacks, winning isn’t always the priority. And maybe that’s a healthy way to run a community. But it’s not a productive way to win political campaigns. 

I think this is a great example of the big tent that Democrats must hold together, in Louisiana especially– core Democratic constituencies, labor, African-Americans, liberals, Women, environmentalists, etc. 

Will different groups believe that their issues will be addressed, even if not primarily, over time with a Democratic candidate? Do they believe that a candidate they support will even advocate on behalf of them when the time comes? That’s a big problem with many Democratic candidates in Louisiana. Maybe they have a (D), but do they actually want to go to bat for progressive values and ideals? Do they make a positive case for why progressive policies work?

It’s about messaging and about genuineness. Sure, we know what to say about middle-class jobs, education, healthcare, and opportunity. But who is it that’s conveying the message. We haven’t had genuine messengers that strongly appealed to heterogenous constituencies in a long time. Perhaps the last one was Governor Edwards. But there are others. I think Mayor Landrieu obviously has that type of talent, for example.

Lamar: This year, your boss, Senator Carter-Peterson attempted to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. It was an issue you covered personally through Twitter, so I know you probably worked on this professionally as well. Much of the news coverage, including the coverage I published on my website, focused on our young friend Zack Kopplin. I know that sometimes, it takes a high school student like Zack to make the adults realize that they’re wrong. I also know this is a controversial issue, even though I think it shouldn’t be. What’s your take? The Times-Picayune said Zack “got nowhere.” Do you think that is accurate? Do you think this is an issue our legislators should lead on? And why do you think the Louisiana Family Forum has been so successful in promoting the LSEA?

Andrew: I don’t think it’s at all accurate or fair to say Zack “got nowhere.”

Zack is a high-school student from Baton Rouge who- through perseverance and dedication- got the attention and endorsement of just about every major scientific coalition in the country, not to mention the backing of 43 nobel laureates (now 44). For those of you scoring at home, Nobel Laureates are a really big deal. They’re the Drew Brees’ of science (and math, economics, etc.), except better. And don’t forget the thousands upon thousands of teachers, scientists, and regular folks that signed the petition supporting the teaching of science in science classrooms. 

Now I’m familiar with the general dismissal of folks with letters “behind their names” and international recognition. Unfortunately, those who tend to dismiss empirical evidence tend to end up wrong. Many of the folks that have a problem with science aren’t being honest with themselves. The fact is, everyone can have an opinion, but they can’t have their own facts. And Zack’s going to win because he’s simply got the facts on his side. Big time. 

It gets really fun when you start talking to the business and technology folks. They understand better than anyone the importance of science education for our future. The LSEA is just another law that helps keep Louisiana near the bottom of the pile. It tells others that we don’t want to win. 

In emerging economies, like China and India, they’re not sitting around wasting time debating whether they should teach science in science classrooms. They’re moving full-speed ahead with innovation and research to create the next big thing. Why? Because that’s what’s going to make them money and get them jobs. 

So, the moral is, we should be thanking Zack for fighting back against these regressive laws like the LSEA. Whether some politicians know it or not, he’s doing them a favor by fighting for our future and giving hope that we’ll be able to produce opportunities with cutting-edge, high-paying jobs. That’s better for everyone. 

Legislators should be running to Zack, because despite how fundamentally correct Zack is on the issue, they have to weather the considerable political muscle of LSEA-supporters. It’s important to realize that regular folks in Louisiana probably don’t want consequences of the LSEA, but they haven’t had a champion to focus their energies on this type of dangerous legislation. Laws like the LSEA get passed because the only people that care about them are the extremists. In 2008, almost no one paid attention to the law in the legislature, because it was written to seem as ecumenical as possible. However, as we can plainly read, the bill’s obvious purpose is to open the door for creationism and other nonsense to be taught in science class. The quieter that the extremists can keep their work, the better their success rate. Now that Zack has rightfully raised awareness of the issue, I think we’ll eventually see the LSEA’s repeal.

The LSEA is bad for business, it’s bad for science and it’s bad for our children. And Zack’s going to beat it.

Lamar: Would you ever consider running for office?

Andrew: Not likely. I don’t think running for office should be something you pursue. You have to be called to serve by your neighbors, your friends and your community.

Lamar: I’m asking everyone this. What are the first three things you would immediately do if you were Governor?

Andrew: Now this is definitely just me, and not reflective of anyone else’s views, but:

- Call a constitutional convention where, among other things, I would call to eliminate the Governor’s patronage by eliminating 99% of all State Boards and Commission; reform the tax code and eliminate almost all tax credits while lowering the relative rates; 

- Open the Governor’s Office with transparency via executive order. All applicable records would be publicly available for the current and previous administrations;

- Reverse nearly everything Jindal has done on Healthcare, cancel privatization contracts, revive a reformed charity system (perhaps even through something like making medicare available for all through the options available through ACA).

There’s so much more. Reform Higher Education, shifting more schools into Community and Technical System, investing heavily in the port of south Louisiana and New Orleans to create a world-scale modern containerized port, opening a film school at LSU, passing marriage equality, reforming DEQ and giving it some teeth, order the AG to drop the suit over ACA, etc.

Lamar: Can Barack Obama win Louisiana? I recently read he has a higher approval rating in Texas than Rick Perry. Why isn’t Louisiana on his map?

Andrew: No, Louisiana is likely out of the question. I think Obama has a better shot in several other Southern states, including Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. The way Republicans have successfully cast the President (and a way local Democrats have been helpless to counter),  I think it’d be impossible for Obama to win a majority of Louisianians over. It’s not his actual policy-making, but rather a concocted perception full of innuendo and falsehoods that drives Obama’s unpopularity. And of course the oil industry’s incredibly successful political attack over the BP oil disaster’s after-effects, or the moratorium. Obama has been a rather historically moderate President, but because he is perceived to be different (racially, biographically, temperamentally), he cannot win Louisiana over. Whether it’s his name, or his unorthodox journey, his presidency will never be given a fair shake on the merits. I’m recognizing by saying it’s all spin and no substance that the right-wing will immediately, and breathlessly, point to several “horrible” and “socialist” policies that he supports. But I’ve watched it pretty closely, and if anything, Obama is very H.W. Bush-esqe. The political and economic climate is just incredibly toxic, and I won’t begin to retread the various influences leading to these circumstances. He’s made a mistake by being a little less populist than he had room to be. But I think the reality is that he needs some cooperation from corporate America to make anything work. And so, he’s tread a middle path.

Needless to say, Texas ain’t Louisiana. Obama won around 39% of the vote in 2008. His approval rating is probably around 37-41% in Louisiana. So he’s basically been stationary. When you think about it, that isn’t half bad. Texas is going to be a purple state by 2020. Demographics make that a guarantee. 

Lamar: Jazzfest or Voodoofest?

Andrew: Jazzfest. Although City Park is a much better venue for a fest. 

Lamar: Who is the greatest living Louisianan?

Dr. John, without a doubt. A close second is Wynton Marsalis.

Andrew: Lamar: Am I making a huge mistake going to law school?

Absolutely, but I already told you that. 

Lamar: Finally, what’s the last book you read?

Andrew: I’m going to mention one that I find important, and highly recommend: Winner-Take-All Politics. Great book on modern political circumstances and how it all fits together. 

Gene Mills and the Louisiana Family Forum: The LSEA Is Like Taking a Microscope to the Bible Reply

by • Education, Media Studies, Social Activism • Tags: , , , , ,

Kudos to Dr. Barbara Forrest for catching this. From the Louisiana Family Forum newsletter:

Thank you to Reverend Gene Mills and the Louisiana Family Forum for finally admitting the true purpose of the Louisiana Science Education Act.

As the adage goes: A picture speaks a thousand words.

Read Dr. Forrest’s entire post for context.

Louisiana Coalition for Science: HB580 Is Dead Reply

by • Education, Local Political News, Social Activism • Tags: , , , , ,

From Dr. Barbara Forrest of the Louisiana Coalition for Science (in full):

The Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS) is pleased to announce the demise of HB 580, which is official with the adjournment of the Louisiana legislature today, June 23, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. This legislation was, by every indication, nothing more than an attempt to reverse the Louisiana Family Forum’s defeat in its effort to block the approval of new biology textbooks for Louisiana public schools in fall 2010. However, even though HB 580 was another stealth creationism bill, no subject of instruction in public schools would have been safe from its effects.

HB 580, sponsored by Rep. Frank Hoffmann (West Monroe) was moving along under the radar, eclipsed by the publicity surrounding the effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), until Dr. Ian Binns, our LCFS colleague, alerted us to it. If the bill had passed, the purview of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) would have been diluted from being able to “prescribe and adopt” a list of state-approved textbooks to being able merely to “recommend” them. Local school boards would have been given carte blanche to purchase textbooks and other materials that were not even on the list of “recommended” textbooks, and they could have used an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to buy them. Moreover, the professional staff of the Department of Education (DoE) would have been written out of their role under current law as participants in the process of reviewing textbooks, overseeing textbook adoption committees, etc. (See the LCFS press release [pdf] and analysis of HB 580 [pdf].)

That prospect has fortunately been averted — for now.

LCFS would like to thank the people who played a role in this outcome. Our greatest gratitude must go toSenator Karen Carter Peterson (New Orleans) and her staff. Working with Zack Kopplin, she sponsored the unsuccessful SB 70, which would have repealed the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act. But she then went above and beyond the call of duty by spearheading the opposition to HB 580 — marshaling “nay” votes from other senators through not one but two Senate votes. So, Senator Peterson, please accept our most sincere thanks. You were wonderful.

The other senators who joined Senator Peterson in voting to protect public school science education by opposing HB 580 also deserve our thanks (in alphabetical order):

In addition, LCFS owes much to one of our own members, Dr. Ian Binns, who not only alerted us to the HB 580 but testified against it — twice — on behalf of LCFS before both the House and Senate Education Committees. Dr. Binns has offered a statement about the successful defeat of the bill:

This is a great moment for science education and education in general for the state of Louisiana. Rep. Hoffmann’s bill would have been another step in the wrong direction for science education in Louisiana. I am thankful for the work of Senator Peterson and the other senators who were brave enough to stand up to Rep. Hoffmann and the Louisiana Family Forum. These senators did the right thing in protecting science education. I hope that this is also the beginning of the end for the Louisiana Science Education Act. I am happy to have played a part in the defeat of HB 580.

We also thank Zack Kopplin — yet again — for being at the Capitol and helping Sen. Peterson and her staff. After doing yeoman’s work, working with Sen. Peterson, to repeal the LSEA, Zack also stepped up to the plate to help defeat HB 580. We offer a statement from Zack as well:

Special thanks to all the legislators who prevented this bill from passing not once, but twice. This has been a good year for our state. We’ve gotten new biology books approved, despite creationists attempts to block them. We’ve stopped an attempt to pass another stealth creationism law. Lastly, we made substantial progress in our attempt to repeal Louisiana’s ‘job-killing’ creationism law and we’ll come back with an even stronger repeal next session.

Last, we thank the local media for paying attention to this bill and informing the public. The Baton Rouge Advocate provided thorough coverage and a powerful editorial in opposition to HB 580. James Gill at theTimes-Picayune outdid himself yet again, awarding the legislature an “F in science.” The Daily Comet andHouma Today ran articles, as did Gambit. Walter Pierce at the Independent Weekly in Lafayette also provided coverage, helpfully getting the word out by linking to the LCFS analysis of the bill.

We conclude by pointing out that the Louisiana Coalition for Science has gone 2 for 3 against the LFF’s creationist agenda in the last 6 months. Although we failed to repeal the LSEA (don’t worry — Zack vows to try again next year), we successfully persuaded BESE to do the right thing and approve new biology textbooks for our public school students. And now we have prevented Hoffmann’s and the LFF’s end run around that decision. And we did it without paid lobbyists and deep-pocketed donors.

Just knowing that we helped to protect the education of Louisiana children is reward enough for us.

**** End ****

PS: In an earlier post, I wrote that Zack’s efforts to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act had attracted the endorsements of 43 Nobel laureates. Make that 44. Earlier this week, Nobel laureate John Mather signed on.

What Is The Louisiana Family Forum? 15

by • Local Political News, National News, Media Studies, Today's News, Social Activism • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

They’re considered one of the most influential lobbying organizations in the State of Louisiana. On their website and their Facebook page, they’re upfront about their true mission: Influencing legislators and legislation. They publish an annual legislative scorecard, and every year, they host a lavish dinner for selected legislators, doling out awards and commendations.

And every year, they raise and then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax-deductible donations.

The Louisiana Family Forum may, on its surface, appear to be nothing more than a powerful lobbying group that represents the interests of far-right Christian conservatives, but officially, the Louisiana Family Forum is organized as both a 501c3 and a 501c4.

The 501c3 is the money-maker, the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), the tax-deductible half of the organization. But because it’s a 501c3, the LFF is limited by how much money it can spend on lobbying. Thankfully, there’s an easy way around this problem. The other half of the organization is the Louisiana Family Forum Action (LFFA), their 501c4. LFFA is still tax-exempt, but, because it can spend as much as it wants on lobbying, there are no tax-deductible donations. It’s an important distinction.

Why?

The Internal Revenue Service explains the lobbying constraints on 501c3s:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).  A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure.  It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying.  For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

The Louisiana Family Forum, the 501c3 half, defines itself to the IRS as an educational organization. Their mission is simply stated, “Education and Promotion of Family Values.” According to their most recent 990 report, the LFF has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for several years on salaries and “consulting” services (also listed as “Other” under “Fees for Services”). It spends tens of thousands of dollars every year on travel costs. Despite this, though, it only itemized $35,628 in lobbying expenditures in 2009.

(Click to expand)

At the same time, the LFF funneled $201,646 to Louisiana Family Forum Action, their 501c4. The LFFA’s total revenue in 2009 was $204,546. Interestingly, $201,646, the exact amount transferred by the LFF, is itemized as by the LFFA as “consulting” services.

(Click to expand)

(Click to expand. See item #9)

To be clear, I believe the only reason the LFF would create the LFFA, a separately organized and legally distinct off-shoot, is because they recognized a 501c4 better allows them to lobby.

Here’s the problem, though: The Louisiana Family Forum receives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in tax-deductible donations, and the Louisiana Family Forum Action, which is not tax-deductible, receives nearly 99% of its annual revenue from its sister organization, the other half. In other words, if you give money to the LFF, which you can deduct from your taxes, the chances are that you’re also helping to fund the LFFA, which isn’t tax-deductible. From Hurwit and Associates, a firm that specializes in providing legal advice to non-profit organizations:

Suffice it to say that if no more than five to ten percent of an organization’s total efforts are devoted to lobbying, it is probably acting within legal limits.

Many organizations shy away from activities they presume to be lobbying but which in fact fall outside of the definition of lobbying, which is narrowly defined by the IRS. Generally speaking, lobbying is the expression of a view or a call to action on specific legislation. Lobbying does not include, for instance, nonpartisan analysis of legislation, the expression of a position on issues (as opposed to legislation) of public concern, or action taken in “self-defense” of the organization.

If more than an insubstantial amount of an organization’s resources are devoted to lobbying, the organization may wish to choose what is called a 501(h) election. This allows the organization to expend up to approximately 20% of its funds on lobbying.

If you wish to lobby more than that, you might want to consider establishing a separate 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization specifically for the purposes of advocacy and lobbying. The main difference between 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations is that contributions to the latter are not tax-deductible.

Notwithstanding the serious questions about whether or not the Louisiana Family Forum expends a substantial amount of its resources on lobbying for specific legislation, there’s another problem: If a 501c3 gives money to a 501c4, it has to be spent like 501c3 money, which means it can’t just be moved around to fund a lobbying apparatus. From SourceWatch (bold mine):

The U.S. tax code makes special provision for non-profit groups which are, once approved by the Internal Revenue Service, exempt from paying income tax.

However, whether contributions by individuals can be claimed as a deduction against personal income tax depends on whether the organisation is registered as a non-profit group under section 501c(3) or 501c(4) of the tax code.

Contributions to a 501(c)(3) organization can be claimed against income tax but donations to a 501(c)(4) entity cannot. While 501(c)(3) groups – which range from religious organizations, traditional service provision charities through to advocacy organisations – are more attractive to individual donors, the tax code places restrictions on the amount of funds that can be spent on lobbying and bans funds being used on election campaigns. However, what constitutes lobbying - defined as urging a vote on legislation – and educational activities is one of gray zones that is constantly debated.

From a fundraising point of view it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because individual donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income. However, such organizations are free to spend as much of their funds as they like lobbying on legislation.

Often a non-profit groups will have two related entities – one a 501(c)(3) and another a 501(c)(4). Under the tax code provisions it is perfectly legal to transfer funds from a 501(c)(3) to a 501(c)(4)organisation. However, the restrictions on how funds are spent by the original 501(c)(3) carry over on the funds transferred to the 501(c)(4).

So, what does this all mean?

First, it means that if the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) is providing nearly 99% of the funding for the Louisiana Family Forum Action (LFFA), then the LFFA should be subjected to the same lobbying constraints as its sister organization. Still, it’s not clear what, exactly, the LFFA spends its money on. This is how they describe the way in which they spent the $201,646 provided to them by the Louisiana Family Forum:

Apparently, the LFFA spent every tax-deductible dime they received from the LFF on “consulting services.” How much did the LFF spend on consulting services during the same time period? Officially, nothing, but curiously, the LFF lists $203,106 as “Other” under “Fees for Services (non-employees).”

It’s also worth noting that the LFF disclosed they spent $35,628 with the LFFA specifically for “lobbying expenses.” This begs the question: How much money did the LFFA state as lobbying expenses? Exactly zero dollars and zero cents, at least according to their most recent 990.

Given the ways in which both the LFF and the LFFA vaguely describe their expenses, it’s difficult to determine what they’re buying with the hundreds of thousands of dollars they spend every year on consulting services and services for “non-employees.” In 2008, the LFF itemized over $123,000 as expenses related to its “newsletter;” the next year, the number shrank to less than $14,000.

But what is clear, however, is that the Louisiana Family Forum is widely considered as a powerful and influential force in the Louisiana legislature. Just last week, at the invitation of Congressman Steve Scalise, Gene Mills, the LFF’s Executive Director, delivered the opening prayer for the United States Congress. Reverend Mills appears to be on a hot streak.

While he was in Washington, D.C., his organization successfully prevented the repeal of the Louisiana Family Forum’s signature piece of legislation: the Louisiana Science Education Act. The Louisiana Family Forum, along with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes “intelligent design,” wrote the Louisiana Science Education Act in 2008. It was then introduced by State Senator Ben Nevers, who publicly admitted that he was acting at the request of the LFF, and subsequently signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal. Nevers, the current Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, does not have a bachelors degree; Jindal, on the other hand, has a degree in Biology from Brown University.

Only a few years prior, in 2004, Dan Richey, the LFF’s “grassroots coordinator,” was hired to work on Senator David Vitter’s first campaign for the United States Senate. Vitter paid Richey over $17,000, and three years later, Vitter attempted to earmark $100,000 in federal funds so that the Louisiana Family Forum could draft model legislation for public school science education. At the time, the LFF, an organization with an overtly religious mission, made it clear: They wanted to allow the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the science classroom. The earmark may have failed, but the LFF still pressed on.

Last year, Richey, incidentally, was also paid handsomely as a “grassroots” consultant for Roger Villere’s campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Although he lost the election, Mr. Villere was and still is the Executive Director for the Louisiana Republican Party.

If lobbying is, in fact, the “expression of a view or a call to action on specific legislation,” then what do you call it when a tax-exempt, tax-deductible organization actually writes the legislation?

The Louisiana Science Education Act isn’t the only piece of “specific legislation” that the LFF has targeted. Two weeks ago, Gene Mills gloated that he was able to kill HB112, which would have better protected school children from bullying, by simply writing a floor note to the legislature.

There’s a good reason we have laws that govern the ways in which tax-exempt, tax-deductible organizations can influence our democratic process, and there’s a good reason we also have laws that govern the activities of lobbyists. Subverting or skirting those laws, no matter who you are or how noble your cause may be, is never acceptable. Neither is using religion as camouflage. The Louisiana Family Forum may be led by a reverend, but it’s not a church.

When Governor Jindal was elected, he vowed to ensure that Louisiana’s ethics laws met “the gold standard.” Although, ironically, Mr. Jindal has continued to push back against requirements for increased transparency in the Governor’s Office, he still signed into law a sweeping set of disclosure requirements for almost everyone else in the State who could, potentially, influence legislation, even volunteer members of local commissions. Yet an organization that is widely considered as one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the State, somehow, they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars without actually disclosing what they’re buying.

Bienvenue ’a Louisiane.