Today, Governor-elect Bobby Jindal announced he was endorsing Republican Jim Tucker to become the next Speaker of the House… which is funny. Only three days ago, Jindal’s spokeswoman, Melissa Sellers, told the Times-Picayune:
Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal released a written statement Friday through spokeswoman Melissa Sellers reiterating his pledge to stay out of the legislative leadership races.
“The governor-elect is continuing to let the members of the House choose their own leader and has been clear that he does not think that process can completely run its course until after the runoff elections this weekend. We plan to talk to the members over the coming days to see if a consensus has formed.”
The problem, beside the fact that Jindal had pledged to stay out of leadership races, is that a consensus was never formed. The run-offs were held only three days ago, and Democrats retained their control of the House.
Representative Cazayoux understands this; after Jindal made his announcement, Cazayoux told the Associated Press:
Cazayoux, of New Roads, said though Tucker was in the lead with votes, he didn’t think Tucker had enough to win the speaker’s election until Jindal offered his support.
“We certainly wish the governor had allowed the process to continue independently because I do think it’s very important for an effective and strong Legislature to elect its leadership independently,” Cazayoux said.
Who is Jim Tucker? The same AP article tells us that Tucker “helped orchestrate a sharp partisan divide in the House.” And we also know that Jim Tucker is the founder of T-PAC, a Republican political action committee financed by a consortium of nursing homes (and sizable donations from Tucker’s campaign fund).
Tucker created T-PAC on January 8, 2007, and within two months, T-PAC had raised over $30,000.
T-PAC’s first donation: $1,000 to Nick Lorusso.
According to a subsequent report, T-PAC officially supported the following Republican candidates: Jack Causey, Jonathan Perry, Lance Maxwell, Kirby Roy, Rick Nowlin, Frank Howard, Patrick Connick, Nickie Monica, Isabella Delahousaye, Raymond “LaLa” LaLonde, and Cameron Henry. They actually “supported” three Democrats: Bernard LeBas, Simone Champagne (who ran unopposed), and Fred Mills.
All of their Republican candidates received $1,000. Fred Mills also received $1000, but Champagne and LeBas only received $500.
Ten days before the General Election, they reported a string of other donations, all to Republicans. $1,000 to Joe Harrison, $2500 to Mitch Theriot, $1000 to Clif Richardson, $2500 to Michael McMyne, and $1000 to Chris Hazel (who they reported giving an additional $1000 in another report).
Unfortunately, run-off reports have not yet been disclosed, but during the primary, T-PAC donated to 16 Republican candidates and 3 Democratic candidates (one of whom was running unopposed).
But T-PAC is not the most offensive part of this story.
Karen Carter is.
Carter, a Democrat, had wanted to become Speaker of the House, and when she realized she could not have received the necessary votes, she told the media, three days before the run-off, that she was now supporting Tucker, who, at the time, was trailing Cazayoux by nearly thirty (likely) votes. Indeed, Cazayoux had likely already had the majority (the consensus) of the House before the run-off.
Jindal then swooped in, broke (once again) his campaign promise of not interfering in leadership races, and endorsed a Republican who had (conveniently) donated to a slew of Republican candidates (through his political action committee) and who has a reputation for being divisive and intensely partisan.
But the vote is more than two months away, and Democrats waged an intense battle to retain their majority. I seriously cannot understand how anyone would be willing to sacrifice their rightful places in leadership positions simply to assuage the Republican Party. Are Democrats really willing to give the Republicans, the LCRM, and all of their related political action committees a consolation prize?
How can we expect a true ethics reform package (a package that would include campaign finance reform) when the Speaker of the State House is a Republican with his own nursing home political action committee?
H/t to PointeCoupeeDemocrat.
CenLamar 
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/11679396.html?index=18&c=y
The Advocate distorts the debate surrounding the election of the House Speaker now that the T-P has already announced Tucker the winner. If only reporters knew how to look under the hood and not just marvel at the glistening surface.
According to the Advocate, Tucker has assembled a bipartisan coalition of support. But they fail to mention how this coalition is comprised of one Democrat, Karen Carter, and 50 Republicans. And notice how they cite this chimerical bipartisan coalition as evidence of Jindal’s committment to shielding Baton Rouge from “Washington, DC” politics. Was it not Jindal and his Party who imported DC lobbyists and fundraisers into Louisiana during the campaign cycle? Are not three former US House staffers members of Jindal’s cabinet? And did not Tucker contribute to the same candidates bankrolled by Vitter’s LCRM? Is not Tucker a mere extension of all that was wrong with Jindal’s Washington, DC, campaign apparatus?
Notice also how the article portrays Cazayoux as the overly ambitious politician, when it is in fact Karen Carter who will parlay her support for Tucker for support from the West Bank during the Congressional campaign she will launch against Jefferson next year. The Advocate also fails to mention how Carter announced her intention to support Tucker only after she realized Cazayoux enjoyed the support of the majority of Democrats. Because the Advocate refers to Tucker’s coalition as bipartisan, they should at least discuss why the only Democrat who has announced support for Tucker has decided to betray her Party. Or would this require them to expend some energy and look under the hood? Why are they frightened of the actual operations behind this attempt to manufacture support for Tucker?
They must omit a discussion of Carter’s motivations, as the Advocate is attempting to render Tucker’s ascendence to Speaker inevitable, just as they rendered Jindal the inevitable winner of the race for Governor. They do, however, mention the politics of geography as an afterthought near the end of the article. And notice what occurs in the closing paragraphs: a Republican from Baton Rouge articulates a few reservations about Jindal’s decision to support a candidate who hails from Orleans metro. Is this not a sign of the erosion of the [bi]partisan coalition Tucker has cobbled together? Is this not a sign that Cazayoux may have more votes than Tucker? And if this is indeed the case, is not Jindal’s intervention somewhat inappropriate?
These omissions beg a question: Who truly enjoys bipartisan support, Cazayoux or Tucker? And if it is Cazayoux, why does everyone insist on citing the number of votes Tucker constantly cites? Why not ask Tucker to list the names of his supporters? Why not ask Cazayoux to do the same? And why not ask Jindal why he is impetuously supporting someone who is clearly hedging? Or is Jindal also hedging? And if so, why not question and not merely reproduce this Rovian rhetoric of inevitability the Republicans have imported from Washington, DC? Or has the Advocate been reduced to a mere propaganda arm of the Republican Party?
Once the Governor throws his hat in…it’s all over. There will be no erosion of support for Tucker now that Jindal had his 2 cents.
My guess is that many of the Democrats supporting Tucker are from New Orleans. For the record, there are a lot of freaking Democrats in New Orleans. Those guys will put their city before their party, so, when given the option of having a Speaker from New Orleans who will help NOLA recover, or sending the Speakership north up the river, the answer is easy for them, geography trumps party.
Furthermore, don’t be naive in thinking that LCRM’s New Orleans members dont have their hands in the New Orleans Democrat legislators’ pockets. I bet you this “bi-partisan (really geographical) coalition” was in place long before they knew who would end up with the majortiy. This was their back-up plan and now they can get the majority, just not on election day.
The problem is, no other Republican can get the bi-partisan support like Tucker (due to geography). So, it is unlikely that any GOPers would defect and give the Speakership to a Dem.
The R’s will have a majority really soon, boys. Those independents and democrats in republican leaning districts are goners. Once they are promised new district borders and nice committee posts by the T-PAC/LCRM/GOP machine, it’s all over.
Crap.
Isn’t this the same Tucker that was under an ethics investigation for receiving hurricane restoration contracts? Or am I not remembering this correctly?
From The Shreveport Times:
Jim Tucker, R-Terrytown.
“State representative, 2001-present; Speaker of the House.
No findings for ethics or campaign finance violations.
Last month, the board voted 9-2 to dismiss charges against Tucker for an alleged violation of the ethics code for pursuing tax credits through a hurricane recovery program. Tucker had been accused of violating the state ethics code by receiving low-income housing tax credits to rebuild two apartment complexes he owns in New Orleans. In tossing out the charges, the board said there was no evidence Tucker intended to violate the law and the application process Tucker followed for the tax credits was competitive and followed the spirit of the law. Tucker didn’t use the $1.9 million in state-issued tax credits.”
Thanks for posting the outcome – I only remembered seeing the investigation piece but no report on the findings.