CenLamar | Est. 2006

  • Drunk On Moonshine

    Drunk On Moonshine

    When Bobby Jindal campaigned for Governor in 2007, he railed against cronyism and corruption and promised to implement a new era of fair, honest, and transparent government. His campaign produced and aired a thirty-second television commercial that depicted his Democratic opponents in clown costumes in comically miniature cars, the kind you see the Shriners driving in Christmas parades, chasing one another around the state capitol building in search of a cash bribe. Jindal, we were told, would put an end to the circus. He’d introduce and enact a “gold standard” of ethics reform legislation, and he would ensure accountability. He…

  • Everyone Is Wrong About Austin Badon’s Bill Requiring Brain-Dead Pregnant Women To Be On Life Support, Including Austin Badon

    During the last few weeks, more than a couple of barrels of ink have been spilled about Louisiana State Representative Austin Badon’s (D- New Orleans) HB 1274, a bill ostensibly intended to require mechanical life support for brain-dead pregnant women, regardless of what her family desires. HB 1274 sailed through the legislature nearly unanimously, and currently, it’s sitting on Governor Bobby Jindal’s desk, awaiting his signature. It’s a complicated and controversial issue, no doubt about it. But perhaps more importantly, HB 1274 is also an embarrassingly sloppy piece of legislation, and no matter what your personal opinions may be about abortion…

  • How Bobby Jindal’s Con-Profit and David Vitter’s Super PAC Undermine Democracy

    How Bobby Jindal’s Con-Profit and David Vitter’s Super PAC Undermine Democracy

    Four years ago, an otherwise dull case concerning a pay-per-view documentary about the former and future Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton provided a divided United States Supreme Court with the opportunity to issue its most consequential and most controversial ruling since it halted a ballot recount in Florida ten years prior. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in simple terms, allows corporations to spend unlimited money in order to influence elections. To Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s other reliably conservative members, the previous limitations on corporate spending represented an improper restraint on speech and, therefore, a violation of the First Amendment. But for the…