Many times when I think about what it means to be a conservative, I look back to the days when Ronald Reagan was President. Why do we so revere President Reagan as a conservative? A lot of it had to do with his ability to solve practical problems using his conservative principles. Using the ideals of the free market and a strong national defense, he took on the Soviet Union and won. Using the ideals of limited government and political accountability, he worked to cut wasteful programs from the budget. He used many different ideas to solve a wide array of problems.
If only Troy King were so creative with his ideas. It seems like whenever Troy King has a chance to actually solve a problem, he simply grandstands on the issue. Let's look at just one example, dealing with prisoner meals.
Back when I was in grade school, we had a day in class where we learned about really weird laws. You know, laws regulating things such as chewing gum on Sunday afternoons--things like that. well, Alabama has some pretty archaic laws. One allows county sheriffs to pocket extra money they get from prisoner meals. Obviously, public officials shouldn't be able to get rich off the public dole--this is a clear violation of ethics, and the AG had the chance to end it. Well, first, he issued an opinion allowing it to continue, and second, although Troy King does like a good press release, he never encouraged the legislature to close the loophole once he was aware of it. As a result, a major statewide scandal ensued. Early this year, Morgan County Sheriff Greg Bartlett revealed he had pocketed over $212,000 from prisoner meals for his own personal funds, and Mobile County Sheriff Jack Tillman was convicted of crimes for a similar violation.
Why was Troy King mum on this issue? Perhaps it had to do with the fact that King was friends with Sheriff Tillman, attending a parade with him in Mobile and using his work in order to seize a prosecution from political rival Jon Tyson. Cronyism seems to define Troy King's world, and for whatever reason, it led to no solution to this issue. Instead, Alabama was again a laughingstock in the national media.
We need an Attorney General who sees problems and develops solutions to them. Troy King could have nixed this with an unfavorable opinion, but if he truly believed that this sort of behavior was within the bounds of the law, he could have publicly called for the legislature to close the loophole. Instead, he allowed the problem to persist until it ended with people in prison. If only we had a different AG who could act as Reagan did, and work to actually solve our state's problems.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
On Open-ness
Sorry I have been away for a few weeks. It feels good to be back, particularly knowing that Alabama's AG gives me no shortage of new material.
I read this past week that an opinion from the AG's office has allowed a state banking board to conduct meetings in private. This is the same board which supposedly regulates our economic structure in a time of crisis. That's ironic, since Troy King campaigned in 2006 on his success with open meetings laws.
This summer, the New York Times featured a disturbing story on some of the cronyism in the federal bailout which Congress passed last fall. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had far more contact with Goldman Sachs (the financial firm he led before joining the Treasury) than any other bank CFOs. These phone conversations were held in private and made public only long after the legislation had passed. Fortunately, both of our Senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, voted against bailing out our banks.
However, here's the problem. In a time of financial crisis, true conservatives are pushing for openness in our dealings. It seems like Troy King wants to close the door. Perhaps that's due to the fact that he himself awards secret contracts to lawfirms, but either way, it's definitely bad for the state of Alabama.
I read this past week that an opinion from the AG's office has allowed a state banking board to conduct meetings in private. This is the same board which supposedly regulates our economic structure in a time of crisis. That's ironic, since Troy King campaigned in 2006 on his success with open meetings laws.
This summer, the New York Times featured a disturbing story on some of the cronyism in the federal bailout which Congress passed last fall. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had far more contact with Goldman Sachs (the financial firm he led before joining the Treasury) than any other bank CFOs. These phone conversations were held in private and made public only long after the legislation had passed. Fortunately, both of our Senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, voted against bailing out our banks.
However, here's the problem. In a time of financial crisis, true conservatives are pushing for openness in our dealings. It seems like Troy King wants to close the door. Perhaps that's due to the fact that he himself awards secret contracts to lawfirms, but either way, it's definitely bad for the state of Alabama.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Troy King and Voter Fraud
Sorry I have been out for a few days. Coming back late in the week, it makes sense to talk about the important issue of voter fraud as we head into the 2010 elections.
Back in 2008, voter fraud was a very, very big deal. Fortunately for us in the GOP, the 2008 elections generally centered with Democrats stealing from Democrats. Take a look at Perry County, one of the counties in question. In the 2008 Primary, 1114 absentee votes were cast in Perry County. Compare that to Jefferson County, where just 365 absentee votes were cast. Jefferson County also has a population 60 times the size of Perry County. Several other counties were also involved, including Randolph and Hale Counties.
Troy King was initially interested, and for good reason. It was so bad, it made the New York Times and Secretary of State Beth Chapman, a Republican, called the irregularities "astronomical." However, after releasing press releases and announcing a "tough" role on the issue, the issue simply disappeared. Months later, once the press started asking questions, he blamed the Republican Justice Department under the Bush administration. Now, let's wait a minute on this claim. So, the Bush Justice Department, which has been accused by Democrats of being WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE in going after Democrats for corruptions (see: the Siegelman case) was passive in going after actually corrupt Democrats? I smell a bit of a rat.
Actually, this is a trend with our AG. He consistently releases press memos on important issues, refuses to solve them, and then blames the federal government. On a related issue, look at immigration. He holds forums, calls it a problem, does nothing to solve it, then blames the feds. Now, believe me, the federal government is a problem. Washington is not a solution to many of our problems. However, that just means that we need stronger state leaders who do their best to address these problems. If our state leaders simply wave their hands in the air and claim an inability to address an issue, they are no better than the people we have in Washington.
Ultimately on voter fraud and a host of other issues, we need a new AG who will put his money where his mouth is. Nothing can be more conservative than ensuring free and fair elections. Conservatism itself is based on the twin pillars of freedom and fairness. Troy King talks a big game, but he is yet to provide conclusive action. It would be great if there were no need for action, but all of us know that corruption is rampant in this state. Back in 2006, a number of prominent Democratic state senators didn't fill out their proper campaign documents--still, Troy King refused to prosecute. Thus, yet again, more reasons to replace our AG.
Back in 2008, voter fraud was a very, very big deal. Fortunately for us in the GOP, the 2008 elections generally centered with Democrats stealing from Democrats. Take a look at Perry County, one of the counties in question. In the 2008 Primary, 1114 absentee votes were cast in Perry County. Compare that to Jefferson County, where just 365 absentee votes were cast. Jefferson County also has a population 60 times the size of Perry County. Several other counties were also involved, including Randolph and Hale Counties.
Troy King was initially interested, and for good reason. It was so bad, it made the New York Times and Secretary of State Beth Chapman, a Republican, called the irregularities "astronomical." However, after releasing press releases and announcing a "tough" role on the issue, the issue simply disappeared. Months later, once the press started asking questions, he blamed the Republican Justice Department under the Bush administration. Now, let's wait a minute on this claim. So, the Bush Justice Department, which has been accused by Democrats of being WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE in going after Democrats for corruptions (see: the Siegelman case) was passive in going after actually corrupt Democrats? I smell a bit of a rat.
Actually, this is a trend with our AG. He consistently releases press memos on important issues, refuses to solve them, and then blames the federal government. On a related issue, look at immigration. He holds forums, calls it a problem, does nothing to solve it, then blames the feds. Now, believe me, the federal government is a problem. Washington is not a solution to many of our problems. However, that just means that we need stronger state leaders who do their best to address these problems. If our state leaders simply wave their hands in the air and claim an inability to address an issue, they are no better than the people we have in Washington.
Ultimately on voter fraud and a host of other issues, we need a new AG who will put his money where his mouth is. Nothing can be more conservative than ensuring free and fair elections. Conservatism itself is based on the twin pillars of freedom and fairness. Troy King talks a big game, but he is yet to provide conclusive action. It would be great if there were no need for action, but all of us know that corruption is rampant in this state. Back in 2006, a number of prominent Democratic state senators didn't fill out their proper campaign documents--still, Troy King refused to prosecute. Thus, yet again, more reasons to replace our AG.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Troy King's College Scandal
Troy King is the second-highest paid AG in America, second only to California's Jerry Brown. He makes over $160,000 a year, which is not a bad payday. In King's fairness, I don't hold him responsible for his pay. It was set around the year he was born and was set by the legislature to link to judicial pay. However, I do hold him responsible for earning his paycheck.
I read a fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal, a conservative national publication, yesterday about why so many football coaches vote Republican. As football season nears again (thankfully), we can be thankful that legends like Lou Holtz, Bobby Bowden, and most other coaches are steadily conservative. According to the column, one reason for this was their belief in hard work and discipline. Holtz put it clearly--he believed that one isn't "given" anything, he earns everything. I think that's fair, to hold Troy King as a leader of an office to this standard set by leaders on the football field.
Well, it doesn't take long to find a major shortcoming, and we stop at the two year college scandal. I know you've all heard about it. Chancellor Roy Johnson went down in flames and was replaced by Bradley Byrne, now a GOP candidate for governor, to clean up the process. The whole scandal has even brought down a number of legislators and is the largest ethics investigation in Alabama history. It has been led skillfully and professionally by Richard Minor, the District Attorney from St. Clair County. However, one must ask, where is Troy King in all of this?
It turns out that Troy King had to recuse himself from this investigation and turn it over to Minor. At the same time he was investigating Johnson, he asked for jobs for at least two friends and financial support for VOCAL, a victims' group. One of the jobs was for the mother of an AG staffer, and Johnson gladly performed the favor for Troy King. As a result, King had to remove himself, and he has not been able to participate in this historic ethics investigation.
Thus, the challenge is simple--we pay Troy King a lot of money to represent our interests. One of those interests is defending us against corrupt politicians. Here, at a historic moment to truly make a difference in this state, Troy King is stuck on the sidelines, warming the bench while Richard Minor has come in to lead the team to victory. It's an impressive performance for Minor, to be sure, but it begs the question of whether Troy King is earning his keep. We, the taxpayers on Alabama, pay Troy King a lot of money every year. We're paying him to lead, not sit on the sidelines. With performances like these, that's all the more reason to give this benchwarmer a pinkslip next time we get the chance.
I read a fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal, a conservative national publication, yesterday about why so many football coaches vote Republican. As football season nears again (thankfully), we can be thankful that legends like Lou Holtz, Bobby Bowden, and most other coaches are steadily conservative. According to the column, one reason for this was their belief in hard work and discipline. Holtz put it clearly--he believed that one isn't "given" anything, he earns everything. I think that's fair, to hold Troy King as a leader of an office to this standard set by leaders on the football field.
Well, it doesn't take long to find a major shortcoming, and we stop at the two year college scandal. I know you've all heard about it. Chancellor Roy Johnson went down in flames and was replaced by Bradley Byrne, now a GOP candidate for governor, to clean up the process. The whole scandal has even brought down a number of legislators and is the largest ethics investigation in Alabama history. It has been led skillfully and professionally by Richard Minor, the District Attorney from St. Clair County. However, one must ask, where is Troy King in all of this?
It turns out that Troy King had to recuse himself from this investigation and turn it over to Minor. At the same time he was investigating Johnson, he asked for jobs for at least two friends and financial support for VOCAL, a victims' group. One of the jobs was for the mother of an AG staffer, and Johnson gladly performed the favor for Troy King. As a result, King had to remove himself, and he has not been able to participate in this historic ethics investigation.
Thus, the challenge is simple--we pay Troy King a lot of money to represent our interests. One of those interests is defending us against corrupt politicians. Here, at a historic moment to truly make a difference in this state, Troy King is stuck on the sidelines, warming the bench while Richard Minor has come in to lead the team to victory. It's an impressive performance for Minor, to be sure, but it begs the question of whether Troy King is earning his keep. We, the taxpayers on Alabama, pay Troy King a lot of money every year. We're paying him to lead, not sit on the sidelines. With performances like these, that's all the more reason to give this benchwarmer a pinkslip next time we get the chance.
Troy King: Gambling on Gambling
Troy King has made a big gamble on our state's future. I've analyzed the detrimental impact of gambling on Alabama in the past, and I won't revisit it today. Instead, I want to look this afternoon at Troy King's intriguing responses on the issue.
As a conservative, I remember laughing at John Kerry in 2004 when he attempted to defend a vote by saying: "I voted for it, before I voted against it." We all laughed at this statement, but now some so-called conservatives attempt to defend Troy King for doing what is effectively the same thing. Troy King won't give us a clear opinion on gambling. Many of his supporters, like developer Ronnie Gilley, will. They will tell you that gambling is great for economic growth, and it brings jobs to repressed regions of the state. Now, I have responded to this argument in the past, and I will summarize my response here. I looked to the Huntsville Times editorial which called gambling a source of "phantom revenue," meaning that it was unreliable. Look at states like Nevada, which have seen revenues plummet by some 2/3 since the economic crisis has forced less tourism. Next, I looked to a fundamental conservative principle--morality. Edmund Burke, considered by many to be the first traditional conservative, summarized his moral philosophy simply--you have no right to do a wrong. With using gambling as a revenue source to fund state sources, you are doing something wrong. In a time of economic crisis, when people have less to spend, the state has to hope that people will choose to gamble, in order to keep funding state services like education. This creates a perverse incentive for the state to not only promote, but also actively encourage gambling, and that just doesn't make sense in an economic crisis. Finally, I encourage folks to look at Indian reservations and rural communities which have gaming establishments. These are not success stories. On Indian reservations, where gambling has been a major mode of economic development for several decades, only more depression and alcohol problems have ensued. I challenge anyone to point to an area where gambling was built either ethically or successfully. Even where it has been successful, in places like Las Vegas or Atlantic City, it has often financed or been financed by shady groups and activities.
HOWEVER, that is not what Troy King is willing to argue. He is not willing to step out and engage in this issue like Democrats Artur Davis and Ron Sparks. He engaged in stealth warfare, legalizing gambling under narrow exceptions and claiming that he is being a true conservative and "following the law." I have big problems with this argument. First, other conservatives have viewed this issue and reached the opposite conclusion. Jeff Sessions, Bill Pryor, Bob Riley, and Riley's anti-gaming task force have all added their eyes to the issue, and they have all reached the same conclusion--it is not legal. These men certainly seem like conservatives to me. Second, as the Birmingham News has noted, the courts of Alabama, traditionally ruled by conservative Republicans, have refused to grant the same types of narrow exceptions granted by Troy King. So, if Troy King is right, his logic defies the logic of EVERY SINGLE other conservative in Alabama. Everyone else has reached a conclusion which differs from Troy King's.
Finally, Troy King has reached this conclusion on questionable grounds. He was the guest of honor at a party held by developer Ronnie Gilley six weeks before issuing an opinion in his favor. King has also received money from PACs which received hundreds of thousands of dollars from gaming magnate Milton McGregor. So, when you look at the facts, it seems that Troy King's opinion on the matter is based not on his own convictions, but on other political motives.
At the end of the day, the issue is still the same. If this opinion is Troy King's out of conviction, it deviates from that of every major conservative in the state. If this opinion is Troy King's out of corruption, then he has violated the trust of the voters of Alabama. If this is his convcition, his recourse his simple--he should go out and join the Democrats, who agree with him. Ron Sparks and Artur Davis, the Democratic nominees for Governor, have both agreed that gambling is needed for economic growth. If he has been corrupted, he should admit his failings and resign his post. Either way, he should stop masquerading as a conservative on this issue when he clearly is not.
As a conservative, I remember laughing at John Kerry in 2004 when he attempted to defend a vote by saying: "I voted for it, before I voted against it." We all laughed at this statement, but now some so-called conservatives attempt to defend Troy King for doing what is effectively the same thing. Troy King won't give us a clear opinion on gambling. Many of his supporters, like developer Ronnie Gilley, will. They will tell you that gambling is great for economic growth, and it brings jobs to repressed regions of the state. Now, I have responded to this argument in the past, and I will summarize my response here. I looked to the Huntsville Times editorial which called gambling a source of "phantom revenue," meaning that it was unreliable. Look at states like Nevada, which have seen revenues plummet by some 2/3 since the economic crisis has forced less tourism. Next, I looked to a fundamental conservative principle--morality. Edmund Burke, considered by many to be the first traditional conservative, summarized his moral philosophy simply--you have no right to do a wrong. With using gambling as a revenue source to fund state sources, you are doing something wrong. In a time of economic crisis, when people have less to spend, the state has to hope that people will choose to gamble, in order to keep funding state services like education. This creates a perverse incentive for the state to not only promote, but also actively encourage gambling, and that just doesn't make sense in an economic crisis. Finally, I encourage folks to look at Indian reservations and rural communities which have gaming establishments. These are not success stories. On Indian reservations, where gambling has been a major mode of economic development for several decades, only more depression and alcohol problems have ensued. I challenge anyone to point to an area where gambling was built either ethically or successfully. Even where it has been successful, in places like Las Vegas or Atlantic City, it has often financed or been financed by shady groups and activities.
HOWEVER, that is not what Troy King is willing to argue. He is not willing to step out and engage in this issue like Democrats Artur Davis and Ron Sparks. He engaged in stealth warfare, legalizing gambling under narrow exceptions and claiming that he is being a true conservative and "following the law." I have big problems with this argument. First, other conservatives have viewed this issue and reached the opposite conclusion. Jeff Sessions, Bill Pryor, Bob Riley, and Riley's anti-gaming task force have all added their eyes to the issue, and they have all reached the same conclusion--it is not legal. These men certainly seem like conservatives to me. Second, as the Birmingham News has noted, the courts of Alabama, traditionally ruled by conservative Republicans, have refused to grant the same types of narrow exceptions granted by Troy King. So, if Troy King is right, his logic defies the logic of EVERY SINGLE other conservative in Alabama. Everyone else has reached a conclusion which differs from Troy King's.
Finally, Troy King has reached this conclusion on questionable grounds. He was the guest of honor at a party held by developer Ronnie Gilley six weeks before issuing an opinion in his favor. King has also received money from PACs which received hundreds of thousands of dollars from gaming magnate Milton McGregor. So, when you look at the facts, it seems that Troy King's opinion on the matter is based not on his own convictions, but on other political motives.
At the end of the day, the issue is still the same. If this opinion is Troy King's out of conviction, it deviates from that of every major conservative in the state. If this opinion is Troy King's out of corruption, then he has violated the trust of the voters of Alabama. If this is his convcition, his recourse his simple--he should go out and join the Democrats, who agree with him. Ron Sparks and Artur Davis, the Democratic nominees for Governor, have both agreed that gambling is needed for economic growth. If he has been corrupted, he should admit his failings and resign his post. Either way, he should stop masquerading as a conservative on this issue when he clearly is not.
Troy King and the Interminable Trial Lawyers
So, I've done some research, and it turns out that Troy King seems to have some pretty cozy relationships with trial lawyers. I guess he needs it, since he always seems to need representation against some new ethical charge. It makes me feel disgusted that, as a taxpayer in the middle of an economic crisis, we're all paying over $100,000 for Troy King's legal defense bills. However, the problem is actually worse.
Many of you have probably followed Alabama's Medicare fraud case. In short, a whole lot of different pharmaceutical companies defrauded the Alabama Medicare system. Like some other states, Alabama elected to sue many of these companies. As the state's representative, Troy King was in charge. Well, Troy King latched onto a growing trend--he hired private trial lawyers to take over the case. These private lawyers then represent the state in the case, in return for a share of winnings. Seems simple, right?
Well, it gets more complex when you look at the big picture of this blog, with reference to Troy King's standing as a conservative. Troy King awarded the contracts to Hand Arendall a firm from Mobile, which then worked with Jere Beasley, a trial lawyer from Montgomery. Here's the issue--trial lawyers like Jere Beasley are liberals. Beasley himself chairs Artur Davis' campaign. Now, some Troy King supporters would just say that this is an example of an AG willing to reach across party lines to get the job done.
However, several facts call that argument into question. First, Troy King in 2006 received a whole lot of Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions. These PACs are hard to follow, which is exactly how the special interests want them. However, King received a substantial amount of money from PACs heavily financed by a combination of gambling interests and trial lawyers. Here's one example. King received some $32,500 from PACs run by lobbyist Rudy Davidson leading up to the election. Those PACs received $193,625 from the Trial Trust PAC for Alabama Trial Lawyers, and another $75,000 came from Beasley Allen itself. This is just one example, and the records are obscured for a reason. Jere Beasley told the Birmingham News that: "They [candidates] think the stigma of a trial lawyer will hurt them." Thus, they give through a murky process meant to confuse voters on the actual source of contributions. It is effectively an end-run around the law, something conservative legislators have attempted to correct, though they have faced obstacles in the legislature. Second, in other states like Georgia and West Virginia, similar programs have led to public corruption. These are no-bid contracts, and they can be awarded by the AG to his political cronies, creating a hot scene for potential corruption.
Finally, conservative judicial scholars have steadfastly REJECTED the validity of this process of hiring private attorneys for state work. The leading conservative judicial group the Federalist Society published a criticism of the process last year. In that piece, conservative judge and Alabama's previous AG Bill Pryor said that these contracts to private firms "create the potential for outrageous windfalls or even outright corruption for political supporters of the officials who negotiated the contracts." Andrew Spiropoulos, the author of the piece, a law school professor from Oklahoma identifies some key problems: (a) Self-interest, as self-interested trial lawyers will be looking out for themselves and gaining the biggest settlement from a corporation, not doing justice, which is the function of the AG office; (b) Separation of powers, since the AG can hire private firms even if the legislature disagrees with a decision to sue an entity; and (c) Extensive cost, since even though initial costs may be low, attorneys take huge checks which would go to the states when the attorneys prevail. If you believe the Beasley Allen press release, they stand to pocket over $17 million already, and the cases haven't even concluded. That doesn't even include expenses, which means the ultimate fee will be far higher. That's money that could be in our state's general fund which is instead enriching trial lawyers.
Thus, it seems Troy King doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to hiring these lawyers. It isn't sound policy for the office, and it's certainly not conservative, having been critiqued both by a past Alabama conservative AG and another leading conservative legal scholar in a leading conservative legal publication. Troy King's ethics are definitely questionable, in terms of his campaign financing, but they are also more speculative. The impact of this decision is not. It takes powerful liberal trial lawyers and gives them an even greater hand over state business. This is certainly not doing justice.
Many of you have probably followed Alabama's Medicare fraud case. In short, a whole lot of different pharmaceutical companies defrauded the Alabama Medicare system. Like some other states, Alabama elected to sue many of these companies. As the state's representative, Troy King was in charge. Well, Troy King latched onto a growing trend--he hired private trial lawyers to take over the case. These private lawyers then represent the state in the case, in return for a share of winnings. Seems simple, right?
Well, it gets more complex when you look at the big picture of this blog, with reference to Troy King's standing as a conservative. Troy King awarded the contracts to Hand Arendall a firm from Mobile, which then worked with Jere Beasley, a trial lawyer from Montgomery. Here's the issue--trial lawyers like Jere Beasley are liberals. Beasley himself chairs Artur Davis' campaign. Now, some Troy King supporters would just say that this is an example of an AG willing to reach across party lines to get the job done.
However, several facts call that argument into question. First, Troy King in 2006 received a whole lot of Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions. These PACs are hard to follow, which is exactly how the special interests want them. However, King received a substantial amount of money from PACs heavily financed by a combination of gambling interests and trial lawyers. Here's one example. King received some $32,500 from PACs run by lobbyist Rudy Davidson leading up to the election. Those PACs received $193,625 from the Trial Trust PAC for Alabama Trial Lawyers, and another $75,000 came from Beasley Allen itself. This is just one example, and the records are obscured for a reason. Jere Beasley told the Birmingham News that: "They [candidates] think the stigma of a trial lawyer will hurt them." Thus, they give through a murky process meant to confuse voters on the actual source of contributions. It is effectively an end-run around the law, something conservative legislators have attempted to correct, though they have faced obstacles in the legislature. Second, in other states like Georgia and West Virginia, similar programs have led to public corruption. These are no-bid contracts, and they can be awarded by the AG to his political cronies, creating a hot scene for potential corruption.
Finally, conservative judicial scholars have steadfastly REJECTED the validity of this process of hiring private attorneys for state work. The leading conservative judicial group the Federalist Society published a criticism of the process last year. In that piece, conservative judge and Alabama's previous AG Bill Pryor said that these contracts to private firms "create the potential for outrageous windfalls or even outright corruption for political supporters of the officials who negotiated the contracts." Andrew Spiropoulos, the author of the piece, a law school professor from Oklahoma identifies some key problems: (a) Self-interest, as self-interested trial lawyers will be looking out for themselves and gaining the biggest settlement from a corporation, not doing justice, which is the function of the AG office; (b) Separation of powers, since the AG can hire private firms even if the legislature disagrees with a decision to sue an entity; and (c) Extensive cost, since even though initial costs may be low, attorneys take huge checks which would go to the states when the attorneys prevail. If you believe the Beasley Allen press release, they stand to pocket over $17 million already, and the cases haven't even concluded. That doesn't even include expenses, which means the ultimate fee will be far higher. That's money that could be in our state's general fund which is instead enriching trial lawyers.
Thus, it seems Troy King doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to hiring these lawyers. It isn't sound policy for the office, and it's certainly not conservative, having been critiqued both by a past Alabama conservative AG and another leading conservative legal scholar in a leading conservative legal publication. Troy King's ethics are definitely questionable, in terms of his campaign financing, but they are also more speculative. The impact of this decision is not. It takes powerful liberal trial lawyers and gives them an even greater hand over state business. This is certainly not doing justice.
Victims, Revisited
Yesterday, I touched on what I believe to truly be one of the great hypocrisies of Troy King's term as Alabama's AG, that being his position on victims' rights. Certainly, Troy King has spoken out on these issues, but it takes more than words to judge the actions of a leader. Consider this...
Ronald Reagan, a truly great conservative leader, asked voters to consider a basic question in his 1980 election against Jimmy Carter. He asked them: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Today, I ask that question of Troy King, and I further ask, can you show me specific examples of how Alabamians are safer today than they were in 2006, when you were elected to your first full term, or in 2004, when you were first appointed? Frankly, I don't feel all that much safer.
Frankly, I see an Attorney General who has certainly "stood" with some victims and their families, but this ignores my essential point that I made yesterday. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any AG to be with every victim, all the time. Certainly, the AG can be there for widely-publicized cases, but the fact is, there are a whole lot of victims out there who will never meet with any AG. Instead, they must be a part of a broader system--the criminal justice system. This process is probably one of the hardest things an individual can go through, and it can truly be like a great maze. Troy King has done nothing to simplify this maze--he has often made it more complex. On issues like the widely-publicized church fires created by Birmingham students, King took the case, held his press conferences, then transferred authority back to local authorities. There was no real reason for this other than his own political popularity. Also, consider this. Over the past term, Troy King has been involved in the seizure of two key cases--one from Mobile DA John Tyson and the other from Shelby County DA Robby Owens. However, by doing so, he has compromised the reputation of two veteran prosecutors (including one who represents one of the most conservative counties in Alabama) who regularly prosecute hundreds of cases each year. By doing so, he has compromised these attorneys. If Troy King felt strongly enough that these DAs were incapable of representing the interests of their counties, he should have fought to take every case from them and do all the work himself. However, Troy King realizes that this is impossible, because District Attorneys perform a vital role in the criminal justice system of this state. They do the dirty work, when no one is paying attention. So, Troy King chose to take widely publicized cases for himself and leave the dirty work to the District Attorneys.
When we look at what's left, what has Troy King done to make us safer? We still have the same expanding drug problem, particularly with methamphetamine use, that we had in the state four years ago. Illegal immigration continues to run rampant. I know this is largely due to federal blunders, but surely our own state should make sure that the laws of Alabama are enforced with regard to this issue as well. We still have cities like Birmingham, which have some of the highest murder rates in the nation, beating even Washington, DC, and New York some years. Back when Jeff Sessions campaigned for AG in 1994, he campaigned on SYSTEMIC reforms to make the system fairer for all parties. He wanted quicker trials, more like the federal prosecution system, so that victims and defendants wouldn't have to wait for years to see justice done in the courts. Instead of focusing on reforms to make our system more efficient as a whole, Troy King has chosen to take particular cases and grandstand on them.
Now, if I'm a Troy King supporter reading this, I ask, what about the sex offender legislation? It is true that the Alabama legislature passed sex offender legislation under Troy King's watch, and this is, by far, his best accomplishment as AG. Case granted. However, I would argue that any AG would have addressed this issue, and King's handling of the matter is far from perfect. In 2005, Carla Crowder of the Birmingham News reported on some inconsistencies with King's actions. Crowder noted that the monitoring bracelets pushed by King wouldn't be required for 20 years, meaning that we won't REALLY be that much safer from sex offenders until the year 2025. Honestly, that's a long time to wait for justice. Additionally, not all folks were happy with this. They may have understood the legal reasons, but they felt uninformed. Randy East of Rushton Child Care Center in Birmingham said: "So the people who are out there today living in my neighborhood would not have to wear them?...I'm really kind of offended that I was not made more aware of it." Like Mr. East, I'm offended, too. I believe an AG should be accountable and explain the pros and cons of any legislation to voters, fairly and honestly.
So, that's what we're left with for a record. As I said yesterday, Troy King has offered plenty of honorable rhetoric. As I said yesterday, I sympathize with victims and their families. Crime is devastating. However, since crime is devastating, that should mean that WE FIGHT ALL THE HARDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS LESS OF IT EVERY FOUR YEARS. That's what Ronald Reagan set as the conservative standard, and I set it today--a strong conservative leader should leave his office (or campaign for re-election) on the premise that he has executed it better and more justly than he found the office on his arrival. I ask Troy King--what, in terms of substance, have you done to reduce crime in Alabama? What have you done to prevent folks from offending in the first place, and what have you done to prevent those who have been released from prison from offending again? What have you done to improve upon the records of Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor, remarkable conservatives in their own right? Finally, what have you done to make the system fairer for those victims who will never be at your press conferences? I'm interested in those victims, and I believe they deserve a voice, too.
Ronald Reagan, a truly great conservative leader, asked voters to consider a basic question in his 1980 election against Jimmy Carter. He asked them: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Today, I ask that question of Troy King, and I further ask, can you show me specific examples of how Alabamians are safer today than they were in 2006, when you were elected to your first full term, or in 2004, when you were first appointed? Frankly, I don't feel all that much safer.
Frankly, I see an Attorney General who has certainly "stood" with some victims and their families, but this ignores my essential point that I made yesterday. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any AG to be with every victim, all the time. Certainly, the AG can be there for widely-publicized cases, but the fact is, there are a whole lot of victims out there who will never meet with any AG. Instead, they must be a part of a broader system--the criminal justice system. This process is probably one of the hardest things an individual can go through, and it can truly be like a great maze. Troy King has done nothing to simplify this maze--he has often made it more complex. On issues like the widely-publicized church fires created by Birmingham students, King took the case, held his press conferences, then transferred authority back to local authorities. There was no real reason for this other than his own political popularity. Also, consider this. Over the past term, Troy King has been involved in the seizure of two key cases--one from Mobile DA John Tyson and the other from Shelby County DA Robby Owens. However, by doing so, he has compromised the reputation of two veteran prosecutors (including one who represents one of the most conservative counties in Alabama) who regularly prosecute hundreds of cases each year. By doing so, he has compromised these attorneys. If Troy King felt strongly enough that these DAs were incapable of representing the interests of their counties, he should have fought to take every case from them and do all the work himself. However, Troy King realizes that this is impossible, because District Attorneys perform a vital role in the criminal justice system of this state. They do the dirty work, when no one is paying attention. So, Troy King chose to take widely publicized cases for himself and leave the dirty work to the District Attorneys.
When we look at what's left, what has Troy King done to make us safer? We still have the same expanding drug problem, particularly with methamphetamine use, that we had in the state four years ago. Illegal immigration continues to run rampant. I know this is largely due to federal blunders, but surely our own state should make sure that the laws of Alabama are enforced with regard to this issue as well. We still have cities like Birmingham, which have some of the highest murder rates in the nation, beating even Washington, DC, and New York some years. Back when Jeff Sessions campaigned for AG in 1994, he campaigned on SYSTEMIC reforms to make the system fairer for all parties. He wanted quicker trials, more like the federal prosecution system, so that victims and defendants wouldn't have to wait for years to see justice done in the courts. Instead of focusing on reforms to make our system more efficient as a whole, Troy King has chosen to take particular cases and grandstand on them.
Now, if I'm a Troy King supporter reading this, I ask, what about the sex offender legislation? It is true that the Alabama legislature passed sex offender legislation under Troy King's watch, and this is, by far, his best accomplishment as AG. Case granted. However, I would argue that any AG would have addressed this issue, and King's handling of the matter is far from perfect. In 2005, Carla Crowder of the Birmingham News reported on some inconsistencies with King's actions. Crowder noted that the monitoring bracelets pushed by King wouldn't be required for 20 years, meaning that we won't REALLY be that much safer from sex offenders until the year 2025. Honestly, that's a long time to wait for justice. Additionally, not all folks were happy with this. They may have understood the legal reasons, but they felt uninformed. Randy East of Rushton Child Care Center in Birmingham said: "So the people who are out there today living in my neighborhood would not have to wear them?...I'm really kind of offended that I was not made more aware of it." Like Mr. East, I'm offended, too. I believe an AG should be accountable and explain the pros and cons of any legislation to voters, fairly and honestly.
So, that's what we're left with for a record. As I said yesterday, Troy King has offered plenty of honorable rhetoric. As I said yesterday, I sympathize with victims and their families. Crime is devastating. However, since crime is devastating, that should mean that WE FIGHT ALL THE HARDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS LESS OF IT EVERY FOUR YEARS. That's what Ronald Reagan set as the conservative standard, and I set it today--a strong conservative leader should leave his office (or campaign for re-election) on the premise that he has executed it better and more justly than he found the office on his arrival. I ask Troy King--what, in terms of substance, have you done to reduce crime in Alabama? What have you done to prevent folks from offending in the first place, and what have you done to prevent those who have been released from prison from offending again? What have you done to improve upon the records of Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor, remarkable conservatives in their own right? Finally, what have you done to make the system fairer for those victims who will never be at your press conferences? I'm interested in those victims, and I believe they deserve a voice, too.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Troy King--VOCAL for Victims?
Last week, I got a letter from Troy King, asking me to donate to his re-election campaign. I was intrigued by what AG King had to say. Right there at the top, he made clear that he was out there "fighting for the victims," and that is why we should send him back to Montgomery. Well, I do agree with King on one point--victims are an important aspect of crime and crime fighting, and justice involves respecting the victim. Since conservatives are ideally committed to the interests of justice, looking out for victims is a truly conservative thing to do. However, when I look beyond Troy King's repeated press conferences o the subject, I'm really struggling to find examples of how he has looked out for victims.
Several years before he took away the now-infamous case from Shelby Co. DA Robby Owens, Troy King took away a case from his 2006 Democratic opponent, John Tyson of Mobile. King stood with the victims then, and he took the case to court. However, Tyson noted that he was planning to present the case to the grand jury as well--he was simply waiting for another piece of evidence from processing. We'll never know the truth, but taken in context with King's 2007 decision, it seems that he has a bigger interest in standing with victims' families than actually making decisions as AG which help victims of crime.
In looking at this, consider the following about victims of crime--the people we see standing with AG King at his press conferences are a miniscule percentage of the actual victims of crime in this state. Every single day, an unfortunate number of Alabamians become crime victims. Many of them will never get the attention of a statewide elected officer. Instead, most of them will look for justice from their local District Attorney, the person they elected to represent their interests. That DA works with the AG and his officers to best provide for justice in their given area, and that is how the process should work. However, instead of working with this process, King has alienated DAs. When he seizes cases, this undermines the credibility of these District Attorneys. That means that the next time they sit across from a guilty defendant, that defendant can better bargain with the DA, since that DA's character has been compromised in public fashion. Also, these scandals detailed what a vast majority (all but 1 or 2) of DA's called a fundamental lack of communication with the DA's office. Thus, it would be fairer to say that, instead of being interested in victims of crime, the AG is most interested in the public cases, the cases most likely to draw wide amounts of media coverage.
Even then, though, the details are sketchy. Back in 2005, a group of Birmingham students set fire to a series of churches in rural Alabama. Troy King hosted a large number of press conferences, pledging harsh punishment for the young men. However, weeks after the cameras stopped rolling, King quietly placed the responsibility of prosecution back on the local DAs, forcing each to try the defendants and creating a situation of legal confusion. The defendants were eventually convicted, but only after grandstanding by the AG.
Then, there is the problem with the 2-year college fiasco. When Troy King was investigating Roy Johnson, president of the 2-year-college system, on top of asking for jobs for friends, he also asked for funding for VOCAL, a victims'-rights group. Newspapers published critical editorials, noting that this was effectively a strategy to "buy" votes in the next election. Although I question the truth of Troy King's position on victims' rights, I know that even if he feels passionately about the issue, that does not allow him to go ask for funds from someone he is investigating.
Thus, I do feel for the victims of crime in this state. However, I also know that if I am ever a victim of crime, as an ordinary Alabamian, I am unlikely to ever receive the bright camers and statewide media coverage. Instead, I will have to rely on the strength of local institutions which Troy King has steadfastly alienated. If AG King had problems with our local prosecution system when he was elected, he could have strengthened and changed it. He could have had more contact with DAs and willingly done the difficult work of improving our criminal justice system. Insetad, he has given me a lot of eloquent speeches on the issue without much action. I want to see the action, and having not seen this action, I can only believe that King has failed to deliver on his biggest campaign issue of the previous two campaigns.
Several years before he took away the now-infamous case from Shelby Co. DA Robby Owens, Troy King took away a case from his 2006 Democratic opponent, John Tyson of Mobile. King stood with the victims then, and he took the case to court. However, Tyson noted that he was planning to present the case to the grand jury as well--he was simply waiting for another piece of evidence from processing. We'll never know the truth, but taken in context with King's 2007 decision, it seems that he has a bigger interest in standing with victims' families than actually making decisions as AG which help victims of crime.
In looking at this, consider the following about victims of crime--the people we see standing with AG King at his press conferences are a miniscule percentage of the actual victims of crime in this state. Every single day, an unfortunate number of Alabamians become crime victims. Many of them will never get the attention of a statewide elected officer. Instead, most of them will look for justice from their local District Attorney, the person they elected to represent their interests. That DA works with the AG and his officers to best provide for justice in their given area, and that is how the process should work. However, instead of working with this process, King has alienated DAs. When he seizes cases, this undermines the credibility of these District Attorneys. That means that the next time they sit across from a guilty defendant, that defendant can better bargain with the DA, since that DA's character has been compromised in public fashion. Also, these scandals detailed what a vast majority (all but 1 or 2) of DA's called a fundamental lack of communication with the DA's office. Thus, it would be fairer to say that, instead of being interested in victims of crime, the AG is most interested in the public cases, the cases most likely to draw wide amounts of media coverage.
Even then, though, the details are sketchy. Back in 2005, a group of Birmingham students set fire to a series of churches in rural Alabama. Troy King hosted a large number of press conferences, pledging harsh punishment for the young men. However, weeks after the cameras stopped rolling, King quietly placed the responsibility of prosecution back on the local DAs, forcing each to try the defendants and creating a situation of legal confusion. The defendants were eventually convicted, but only after grandstanding by the AG.
Then, there is the problem with the 2-year college fiasco. When Troy King was investigating Roy Johnson, president of the 2-year-college system, on top of asking for jobs for friends, he also asked for funding for VOCAL, a victims'-rights group. Newspapers published critical editorials, noting that this was effectively a strategy to "buy" votes in the next election. Although I question the truth of Troy King's position on victims' rights, I know that even if he feels passionately about the issue, that does not allow him to go ask for funds from someone he is investigating.
Thus, I do feel for the victims of crime in this state. However, I also know that if I am ever a victim of crime, as an ordinary Alabamian, I am unlikely to ever receive the bright camers and statewide media coverage. Instead, I will have to rely on the strength of local institutions which Troy King has steadfastly alienated. If AG King had problems with our local prosecution system when he was elected, he could have strengthened and changed it. He could have had more contact with DAs and willingly done the difficult work of improving our criminal justice system. Insetad, he has given me a lot of eloquent speeches on the issue without much action. I want to see the action, and having not seen this action, I can only believe that King has failed to deliver on his biggest campaign issue of the previous two campaigns.
Troy King--Conservative?
Recently, some have inquired as to what these posts have to do with whether or not Troy King is a "conservative." They have also noted that whether I like Troy King is irrelevant--he is still a conservative. The one point upon which I agree is that whether I like Troy King is irrelevant to this blog. I don't know Troy King, so it's hard for me to know what I would think of him as an individual. That is not my purpose, nor is it my intent. My intent is to evaluate his professional service to the state of Alabama and consider that record. Today, I will spell out some specific traits which I think define an individual as a "conservative," why one should accept these characteristics as valid, and how Troy King has violated each of these pillars.
5 PILLARS OF CONSERVATISM:
(1) Belief in Fiscal Responsibility and Limitation (FA Hayek, Edmund Burke, John C. Calhoun, etc.)--You can find academic writing on limited spending from each of these classical conservative authors, and many more which I elected not to include in the interest of space. Early conservatives argued that a large government gives government officials a lot of money, and thus, a whole lot of power. By limiting spending, the government has far less money to funnel to their special interests. John C. Calhouh, one of the first 'Southern conservatives' wrote entire academic works focusing on the dangers of a system where funds were disbursed to reward political interests.
Troy King has violated this tenet repeatedly. First, as I have written during the past week, he has given capricious raises to members of his staff. He has promoted his staff based not on merit, but on political loyalty instead (again, look to Chris Bence, who is paid as a paralegal without doing paralegal work or having paralegal training). Second, AG King has awarded what are effectively no-bid contracts to private law firms to do work on behalf of the state of Alabama. This includes the firm of liberal trial lawyers led by Jere Beasley (ironically, who is heading Artur Davis' campaign). Once these firms get their share of the winnings, this will add into the millions. I'd say that's a fair bit of public power rewarded to a special interest, and not a conservative one.
(2) Acceptance of an objective morality which influences behavior (Edmund Burke (again), Richard Weaver, etc...)-- Conservatives traditionally accept an objective moral code which influences their public behavior. "Alabama" conservatives are, as some would say, generally "men and women of God," who believe in the tenets of the Christian faith and use that faith to guide the repsonsibility of their actions.
However, I would argue that a basic standard of both public and religious morality is abstinence from corrupt activities. Corruption was a major point which led to the foundation of the Protestant churches some centuries ago, and they now dot hundreds of communities across Alabama. Troy King has also repeatedly violated this tenet. He has accepted gifts from Alabama Power, a company he regulates, without reporting this information to the taxpayers. He asked for three seperate favors from a 2-year college chancellor he was also investigating, thus being forced to remove himself from the case. Finally, Troy King affirmed an archaic opinion that allowed county sheriffs to pocket additional money for feeding prisoners. The result was a scandal where sheriffs were pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars for their personal use, which garnered national headlines. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that his political ally, the sheriff of Mobile County, was facing charges in a related matter at the same time, but I'm skeptical. I am not questioning Troy King's faith--that is a matter for him personally. However, I do question whether his activities reflect anything higher than sheer political maneuvering. I can find little evidence of that.
(3) Belief in a free, open, and fair market (FA Hayek, Milton Friedman, etc.)-- Economic conservatives have long believed in the market as the proper organ of economic growth, and it functions best when it is free and fair. The AG's office plays an essential role in this process by producing clarifying opinions for municipalities and organizations seeking to grow.
While I cannot confirm Troy King's opinions on a free and open market, he hasn't been the best at establishing a fair market. Back in 2005, Etowah County leaders were confused when the AG's office, over the course of several weeks, released contradictory opinions on water issues in the area without conducting any fact-finding in the case, simply issuing opinions on the facts provided without attempting to determine the veracity of any particular facts. These sorts of conflicts, and the inability for the AG's office to provide coherent counsel, is both a violation of a conservative principle and the fundamental functioning of the office.
(4) Belief in fairness related to gambling-- This issue is a uniquely Alabama issue, since gambling issues do not produce the conflict in many states which they produce in Alabama. Obviously, like most Alabama politicians, Troy King has claimed to be "anti-gaming" and simply following the law of the state, not being an "activist" like other politicians. However, let's evaluate that argument on two levels.
First, I would argue that Troy King is being an activist by NOT nipping gambling in the bud. King argues that he is bound by the law. However, Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor ALSO believed in a strict interpretation of the law as AG, and they came out against the gaming interests. I remember when Bill Pryor was nominated as a federal judge--Chuck Schumer and other liberals were pressing him on being TOO originalist, not that he was an activist. Thus, I find it hard to believe that Troy King is somehow a truer conservative than two of our most conservative leaders. Additionally, this is reinforced by the fact that Alabama courts, dominated heavily by conservative Republicans, have traditionally refused, as the Birmingham News noted, to grant exceptions similar to those granted by the AG.
However, this is about more than whether Troy King is for or against gambling. This is also about his conduct. Whether an AG rules for or against gambling, his opinion should be completely objective. Troy King went to Ronnie Gilley's party in the wiregrass, he was a guest of honor, and he then turned around 6 weeks later and issued an opnion in Gilley's favor. By the letter of the law, this may not be illegal. However, it is certainly a very visible sign of impropriety.
(5) A belief in the validity of local authorities (James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet)-- The Founders of the American republic were firm believers in local control and authority. They believed that laws should differ, from state to state and municipality to municipality, to reflect the particular needs and interests of these areas. When it came to enforcement, it should be local, governed by the people of these particular areas. The Founders feared that consolidation of power would lead to some of the situations we have in Washington, where lawmakers regularly treat the public's tax dollars as their own personal option and impose particular social norms on parts of the country which object to these ideas.
At a smaller level, Troy King is violating this in Alabama. He is stripping local District Attorneys, who have been duly elected by the people of Alabama to represent their interests, of their power. He is also doing this for political purposes, not in the interests of justice. When we look back at the DAs who protested Troy King's seizure of a case from Shelby County DA Robby Owens in 2007. First, Shelby County has one of the most (if not the most) conservative voting record in Alabama, and they have regularly elected Owens to represent their interests. Second, all but one or two Alabama DAs joined in the protest. Although admittedly there may be some liberal DAs in Alabama, there are also a fair number of conservative DAs in Alabama, as well. Conservatives and liberals, alike, united around the DA of one of the most conservative counties in Alabama in this instance. It's hard to argue, at that point, that Troy King was somehow seizing a case from a "liberal activist" DA in the interests of justice. This was exactly what the papers called it--political retribution for one of his opponents within the Republican Party.
In light of these five tenets, it is clear that being a conservative is about more than the words one speaks. It is about the principles one holds, and the actions which stem from these principles. Troy King has a great history of speaking conservative words--many of his speeches, on their face, I agree with. I agree with fighting for victims and their families, promoting tradiational values, and promoting the rule of law. However, when I look at Troy King's actions, they do not reflect his principles. Instead, they reflect the traits of a skilled politician who will stop at nothing to ruin the lives of any who stand in his way and do anything to enhance his own personal standing.
5 PILLARS OF CONSERVATISM:
(1) Belief in Fiscal Responsibility and Limitation (FA Hayek, Edmund Burke, John C. Calhoun, etc.)--You can find academic writing on limited spending from each of these classical conservative authors, and many more which I elected not to include in the interest of space. Early conservatives argued that a large government gives government officials a lot of money, and thus, a whole lot of power. By limiting spending, the government has far less money to funnel to their special interests. John C. Calhouh, one of the first 'Southern conservatives' wrote entire academic works focusing on the dangers of a system where funds were disbursed to reward political interests.
Troy King has violated this tenet repeatedly. First, as I have written during the past week, he has given capricious raises to members of his staff. He has promoted his staff based not on merit, but on political loyalty instead (again, look to Chris Bence, who is paid as a paralegal without doing paralegal work or having paralegal training). Second, AG King has awarded what are effectively no-bid contracts to private law firms to do work on behalf of the state of Alabama. This includes the firm of liberal trial lawyers led by Jere Beasley (ironically, who is heading Artur Davis' campaign). Once these firms get their share of the winnings, this will add into the millions. I'd say that's a fair bit of public power rewarded to a special interest, and not a conservative one.
(2) Acceptance of an objective morality which influences behavior (Edmund Burke (again), Richard Weaver, etc...)-- Conservatives traditionally accept an objective moral code which influences their public behavior. "Alabama" conservatives are, as some would say, generally "men and women of God," who believe in the tenets of the Christian faith and use that faith to guide the repsonsibility of their actions.
However, I would argue that a basic standard of both public and religious morality is abstinence from corrupt activities. Corruption was a major point which led to the foundation of the Protestant churches some centuries ago, and they now dot hundreds of communities across Alabama. Troy King has also repeatedly violated this tenet. He has accepted gifts from Alabama Power, a company he regulates, without reporting this information to the taxpayers. He asked for three seperate favors from a 2-year college chancellor he was also investigating, thus being forced to remove himself from the case. Finally, Troy King affirmed an archaic opinion that allowed county sheriffs to pocket additional money for feeding prisoners. The result was a scandal where sheriffs were pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars for their personal use, which garnered national headlines. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that his political ally, the sheriff of Mobile County, was facing charges in a related matter at the same time, but I'm skeptical. I am not questioning Troy King's faith--that is a matter for him personally. However, I do question whether his activities reflect anything higher than sheer political maneuvering. I can find little evidence of that.
(3) Belief in a free, open, and fair market (FA Hayek, Milton Friedman, etc.)-- Economic conservatives have long believed in the market as the proper organ of economic growth, and it functions best when it is free and fair. The AG's office plays an essential role in this process by producing clarifying opinions for municipalities and organizations seeking to grow.
While I cannot confirm Troy King's opinions on a free and open market, he hasn't been the best at establishing a fair market. Back in 2005, Etowah County leaders were confused when the AG's office, over the course of several weeks, released contradictory opinions on water issues in the area without conducting any fact-finding in the case, simply issuing opinions on the facts provided without attempting to determine the veracity of any particular facts. These sorts of conflicts, and the inability for the AG's office to provide coherent counsel, is both a violation of a conservative principle and the fundamental functioning of the office.
(4) Belief in fairness related to gambling-- This issue is a uniquely Alabama issue, since gambling issues do not produce the conflict in many states which they produce in Alabama. Obviously, like most Alabama politicians, Troy King has claimed to be "anti-gaming" and simply following the law of the state, not being an "activist" like other politicians. However, let's evaluate that argument on two levels.
First, I would argue that Troy King is being an activist by NOT nipping gambling in the bud. King argues that he is bound by the law. However, Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor ALSO believed in a strict interpretation of the law as AG, and they came out against the gaming interests. I remember when Bill Pryor was nominated as a federal judge--Chuck Schumer and other liberals were pressing him on being TOO originalist, not that he was an activist. Thus, I find it hard to believe that Troy King is somehow a truer conservative than two of our most conservative leaders. Additionally, this is reinforced by the fact that Alabama courts, dominated heavily by conservative Republicans, have traditionally refused, as the Birmingham News noted, to grant exceptions similar to those granted by the AG.
However, this is about more than whether Troy King is for or against gambling. This is also about his conduct. Whether an AG rules for or against gambling, his opinion should be completely objective. Troy King went to Ronnie Gilley's party in the wiregrass, he was a guest of honor, and he then turned around 6 weeks later and issued an opnion in Gilley's favor. By the letter of the law, this may not be illegal. However, it is certainly a very visible sign of impropriety.
(5) A belief in the validity of local authorities (James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet)-- The Founders of the American republic were firm believers in local control and authority. They believed that laws should differ, from state to state and municipality to municipality, to reflect the particular needs and interests of these areas. When it came to enforcement, it should be local, governed by the people of these particular areas. The Founders feared that consolidation of power would lead to some of the situations we have in Washington, where lawmakers regularly treat the public's tax dollars as their own personal option and impose particular social norms on parts of the country which object to these ideas.
At a smaller level, Troy King is violating this in Alabama. He is stripping local District Attorneys, who have been duly elected by the people of Alabama to represent their interests, of their power. He is also doing this for political purposes, not in the interests of justice. When we look back at the DAs who protested Troy King's seizure of a case from Shelby County DA Robby Owens in 2007. First, Shelby County has one of the most (if not the most) conservative voting record in Alabama, and they have regularly elected Owens to represent their interests. Second, all but one or two Alabama DAs joined in the protest. Although admittedly there may be some liberal DAs in Alabama, there are also a fair number of conservative DAs in Alabama, as well. Conservatives and liberals, alike, united around the DA of one of the most conservative counties in Alabama in this instance. It's hard to argue, at that point, that Troy King was somehow seizing a case from a "liberal activist" DA in the interests of justice. This was exactly what the papers called it--political retribution for one of his opponents within the Republican Party.
In light of these five tenets, it is clear that being a conservative is about more than the words one speaks. It is about the principles one holds, and the actions which stem from these principles. Troy King has a great history of speaking conservative words--many of his speeches, on their face, I agree with. I agree with fighting for victims and their families, promoting tradiational values, and promoting the rule of law. However, when I look at Troy King's actions, they do not reflect his principles. Instead, they reflect the traits of a skilled politician who will stop at nothing to ruin the lives of any who stand in his way and do anything to enhance his own personal standing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)