By Bill Britt Alabama Political Reporter As the State Legislature cues up for the 2017 Regular Legislative Session, the problems that vexed our State last year continue to this day. The same troubles neglected for decades by Democrats are the identical ones left unresolved by Republicans. The problems facing our State are not new, and Read More

The post It is well past the hour for responsible State government appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Brandon Moseley
Alabama Political Reporter

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017, the Alabama Legislature will return to Montgomery for the 2017 Legislative Session and will face dire funding issues for prisons, for the long-troubled Alabama Medicaid Agency, for mental health, for infrastructure, for State parks, and other General Fund programs. Polling shows that Alabamians are dead set against raising taxes. Republicans hold a commanding super majority. Most of those legislators will not face a credible threat next year from the troubled Alabama Democratic Party. The only credible threat is on their right in a GOP Primary, and Republican voters don’t want higher taxes. The temptation is to look to gambling for revenue. That would be a mistake.

Electronic bingo machines are illegal in Alabama. It is no longer a debate. Bingo machines are ILLEGAL in Alabama. The Alabama Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear in ruling after ruling. Lawyers who dispute that at this point are just wasting their client’s money running up billable hours arguing the settled law. The Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs protects the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and local Sheriffs who dare not close down local gambling halls (and those jobs) protect the few facilities that are still operating outside of State law, and they are subject to being shut down whenever our State authorities decide actually to act. Legalizing those games would require a constitutional amendment and a vote for it by the people. To get the public to vote for gambling is unlikely, but the biggest problem is the Legislature itself and the politics surrounding gambling in Alabama.

No gambling legislation is likely to pass that benefits only a handful of gambling facilities. They simply cannot buy enough legislators to be awarded monopolies. They do own enough state legislators to be able to kill non-monopoly gaming legislation, and there is a significant portion of the legislature that is anti-gambling due to the social costs of gaming that pro-gaming legislators really can’t be divided for a bill that could pass.

A simple gaming amendment that allowed all 67 counties to hold their bingo referendums is dead; because the gambling magnates don’t want competition. Greenetrack would close tomorrow if there were casinos in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa. The Shorter facility would shutter if there were a Montgomery and Opelika casinos. Gambling exists because there is a minority of Americans who are mathematically illiterate and can be lured into playing a significant portion of their income each month. If you understand the math, you find another hobby.

The gambling bosses want their facilities legalized, and everyone else’s banned; a dead issue if you understand the politics and the different factions involved that I hope we can avoid a repeat of last year’s gambling debacle.

The failed Special Session in August was called not to pass electronic bingo; but rather a State lottery. In theory, the lottery has enough votes in the Alabama Senate and enough pro-lottery votes in the Alabama House of Representatives to pass. Theory is not reality, though. What killed the lottery bill is the bizarre politics surrounding electronic bingo. The bingo magnates wanted a piece of the action. They wanted the lottery to give them legalization. An absolutely bizarre lottery bill that allowed the handful of existing gambling magnates to have electronic “lottery machines” passed the Alabama Senate. House Republicans tore that bill apart and passed a bill decidedly defining lottery as a game played with paper tickets and cutting out the strange lottery machines idea. Rather than just pass a lottery amendment for the voters to consider, the pro-gambling faction in the Senate that is constantly pushing gaming as a solution to everything then joined Republican gambling opponents in blocking a vote on the bill in the Senate.

If the gambling bosses don’t get their little monopolies no gaming bill will be allowed to pass, was the message the entire state needs to get.

How much time and ink did we waste in 2016 (and 2015 for that matter) on gambling legislation that has no hope at all of passing?

The Legislature needs to recognize that this issue has been firmly debated and it is not going to happen with this legislature. Don’t consider any gaming or lottery legislation because we know how this is going to end.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Some may think the recent assaults on the Press are new, or unprecedented, but they’re not. From President John Adams to President Donald Trump excoriating the Press is always the first refuge for politicians who want to keep their secrets, failings and even their misrepresentations of facts from public scrutiny.

Is the Press left-leaning? Perhaps disproportionately so, but whether leaning right or left, evidence-based reporting and thoughtful opinions are necessary to ensure our freedom; a word that has seemed to have slipped out of vogue lately.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said, “The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”

From Alabama to Washington DC and around the globe, the powerful would rather rule without the bright light of journalism shining on their actions.

During the 2017 Legislative Session, APR will have five reporters covering the State House. APR’s journalists will out-number most media outlets 4 to 1, with the goal of informing, educating and altering the citizens to every action taken throughout the months ahead.

Alabama native Black also said, “The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.”

We at APR know the wrath of petty despots all too well, and we have also endured the label “fake news.” I wrote over 500 articles on Mike Hubbard before he was convicted on 12 counts of felony public corruption. All the while being called a liar and a false new source. Those in the press even did this. And when they were not selling our stories without attribution, they were casting doubt of our character.

Good journalism by its very nature is adversarial. There are plenty calling themselves journalists who are in reality just stenographers regurgitating the false promises and corrupt policies fostered by politicos. Taking a politician at their word is to suspend disbelief, or swallow the vaguest of truths to repeat a lie.

If a politico can’t co-opt a reporter, he or she will try to discredit them. Are all journalists honest? Do many have an agenda?  All journalists are not honest and many have agendas but as famed news anchor David Brinkley observed, “Numerous politicians have seized absolute power and muzzled the press. Never in history has the press seized absolute power and muzzled the politicians.”

Journalism doesn’t need to be courtly or “impartial” to be accurate; it just needs to get the facts right. As journalist Glenn Greenwald, stated, “A journalist who is petrified of appearing to express any opinions will often steer clear of declarative sentences about what is true, opting instead for a cowardly and unhelpful ‘here’s-what-both-sides-say-and-I-won’t-resolve-the-conflicts’ formulation’Worst of all, this model rests on a false conceit. Human beings are not objectivity-driven machines. We all intrinsically perceive and process the world through subjective prisms. What is the value in pretending otherwise?”

So as we at APR will be unleashing the dogs of journalism in the halls of the State House, we promise to give our all, to be honest, accurate and fair.

But don’t expect us to roll over to have our bellies rubbed, because the view only changes for the lead dog.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

In the hidebound thinking of Montgomery’s political class, any appointment made by Gov. Robert Bentley is suspect, at best, most likely double-dealing. However, despite the initial unease with the appointment of Steve Marshall as Attorney General, there seems to be hope that he is the man for the job.

So, there’s a new Sheriff in town, and that could be a very good thing.

After being sworn into office, Marshall’s speech hit all the right topics with tones of humility, honesty and a willingness to tackle the tough issues.

Having spoken with Marshall over the weekend, I am encouraged about the future of the Attorney General’s Office. Friends I trust speak highly of his ability, integrity and work ethic.

My impression is that he will be a more hands-on Attorney General than his predecessor, who was little more than a reluctant occupant of the office who operated it like an absentee landlord.

When Alice Martin was hired as Chief Deputy, she took charge of an office which had been allowed to become factious and in many instances unscrupulous. Martin cleaned house, provided strong leadership and fought to bring probity back to the Office of Attorney General.

In his speech, Marshall pledged a commitment to rooting out and to prosecute public corruption without political concern. If his promise to fight crime is real, he will have no greater ally than The Alabama Political Reporter, save perhaps Special Prosecution Division Chief Matt Hart, whose long history of fighting public corruption is legendary.

Marshall said if Bentley is under investigation by his office he will recuse himself from the case. If Bentley is not being investigated, he will inform the public. This announcement at least gives the people some understanding as to what is happening with Bentley.

What we know is that Bentley is believed to have used State resources to facilitate his dalliance with Rebekah Caldwell Mason, his married senior adviser. It also seems clear he may have used State Law Enforcement to destroy the reputation of his former friend, Spencer Collier. Recently it was discovered that Bentley used campaign contributions to pay Mason’s legal fees while she was a State employee and failed to handle his campaign account properly. Some of these actions appear to be indictable offenses, but is there enough for a jury to find him guilty?

Meanwhile, Bentley lives in an imaginary world in which he is not only charming and handsome, he is also very popular and loved. Latest polling numbers have Bentley’s favorability number below 28 percent. When almost three-quarters of the State dislikes the Governor, his political capital is nonexistent, and without that Bentley is finished.

So, Marshall’s appointment may be once act that was without the stink of Bentley’s incompetence, arrogance and hubris. If Marshall keeps the promises he made upon taking the oath of office, then he may very well be the brightest star in the political firmament known as insular Montgomery. If not, he will be yet another ambitious politico discarded on the dung heap on Goat Hill.

We should pray for the former but for now, Godspeed General Marshall, your leadership is greatly needed.

The post There’s a new Sheriff in town appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

There is a movement afoot in the Alabama House of Representatives to impeach Governor Robert Bentley, a mission which, if accomplished, will doom the 2017 Regular Legislative Session.

Bentley is an embarrassment, a fool, a liar and a cheat, and may have even committed crimes that are punishable by law.

Gov. Bentley:

Is believed to have used State resources to facilitate an affair with a married staff member Rebekah Caldwell Mason.

Manipulated Law Enforcement to accuse Spencer Collier of crimes he did not commit it seems.

May have violated the State’s FCPA by failing to report a $50,000 loan he made to his campaign in the required time.

Inappropriately paid the legal expenses for Mason and accepted reimbursement from the Republican Governor’s Association during a time when it was forbidden which according to the State’s Secretary of State can not do.

Bentley, who is fond of quoting scripture but loathe to follow its most basic tenets: He is a double-minded man, which the Bible teaches is unstable in all his ways. James: 1:8.

The rush to impeach will do more harm to the people of the State than Bentley remaining in office a few more months or even until the end of his term. This Legislative Session is the last of the quadrennium, in during  which anything meaningful can be accomplished, as election season will commence once the Legislature adjourns sine die.

If the House does pass a resolution, the Senate will not go along with what amounts to a coup d’etat, because an impeachment is a complicated process as opposed to a hastily contrived Legislative resolution.

An impeachment is comparable to an indictment in regular court proceedings. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”

The House Judiciary Committee was charged with gathering facts, to determine if Bentley’s action rose to the level of a crime. That Committee halted its work at the request of then Attorney General Luther Strange. On at least two occasions, Strange muddied the waters by first asking the impeachment committee to delay its investigation and then by saying, “He” had never said Bentley was under investigation. Bentley elevated Strange to the US Senate with a stroke of his pen. Did the pair strike a corrupt bargain? We may never know, but I don’t think so. It was, however, a foolish pact between political enemies. Bentley was wrong for offering and Strange was foolish to take it.

Of course Strange may hope to find enough support from K Street lobbyists to overcome the war chest that businessman Jimmy Rane has ready to defeat him in 2018. Rane is already meeting with potential candidates and is even considering running himself, according to those in his sphere. In the age of President Trump, a candidate like Rane should easily catch fire with a barnburner campaign.

Strange had little to no support in Washington for his appointment. However, Bentley, either through weakness, incompetence or hubris didn’t listen to the counsel of DC lawmakers who wanted someone younger and preferably a woman. No doubt US Senate leadership wanted Rep. Martha Roby, a centrist Republican who could grow in the office and watched over Alabama’s interest in the Capitol.

Impeachment at this time is folly, unwise and dangerous. Does Bentley deserve to finish out his term in office? I don’t think so. But just because we wish a thing or even believe it is fair, doesn’t mean it is ultimately the best course of action.

All evidence suggests Bentley is under investigation by the Special Prosecution Division of the Attorney General’s Office. Attorney General Steve Marshall promised to recuse himself if there is an investigation (and he should because Bentley appointed him) and to tell us if there isn’t.

Almost an entire Legislative day was wasted on the resolution to impeach Bentley. I understand the desire, but the timing is wrong. Let the process play out under the Judiciary Committee, and let the Attorney General’s Office do its job.

For the sake of the people of Alabama, go to work for them during this session. They know Bentley is a fool and worse. And you know he is irrelevant.

Just because the Governor is a fool, don’t you act foolishly.

The post Move to impeach Bentley: Don’t be foolish appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Vice, vainer and corruption has left Alabama a leaderless State, but there is hope that some with integrity will step forward to fill the void.

Governor Robert Bentley has long ago forfeited any claim of moral leadership and to list his many failings would be as tedious as it is long.

However, calls for his impeachment may be premature.

How can those who defended former Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard chanting “innocent until proven guilty” in the face of his indictment on 23 felony counts of public corruption now feign such righteous anger at this scoundrel Bentley? Hubbard was convicted of 12 of those charges and today, many of those same individuals who blithely ignored Hubbard’s malfeasance want to hang the fool on Goat Hill.

For years, State Auditor Jim Zeigler has been the most prominent voice in opposition to our State government’s incompetence, inefficiency, and squandering. There may be those who question his style, but the substance of his railings against Gov. Robert Bentley, the Department of Finance and other agencies are factual and honest.

Over the last several months, the House of Representatives, the Department of Finance, and now the Attorney General’s Office have witnessed changes in leadership. The reputations of those individuals who now hold these positions of power are not of self-serving, incompetence or corruption.

Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon, Finance Director Clinton Carter, and Attorney General Steve Marshall have all taken their post at a time when our State is in dire need of competent moral leadership to right this floundering ship of State.

Not one of these individuals are new to command but they are recent occupants of such high offices.

McCutcheon and Marshall have an independence not afforded Carter, who serves at the pleasure of the Governor. But Carter is working diligently to restore integrity to a department that was subject to no less than four investigations under the former Acting Director.

So far Marshall is making the right moves to ensure the public that he will helm his office with tenacity and honesty. But it is McCutcheon who must show not only those in the House but for all Alabamians he is fighting on their behalf.

Like many individuals serving during Hubbard’s reign of corruption, McCutcheon made mistakes, and there are those who can’t seem to let that go. They should remember that they too cast their vote for Hubbard, even after he was indicted by a Lee County Grand Jury. And then there are the “Hubbardites” who so wildly feasted on the toxic elixir served during Hubbard’s orgy of greed, that they are even now delusional and threatening to divide the Republican House Caucus.

McCutcheon wants to wait to make leadership changes, but him may want to revisit that notion.

Bentley may very well deserve to be removed from office, but where’s the profit? What is the benefit to the State? How does the House now do to Bentley what it would not do to Hubbard? Hubbard was a crook who used his office and those around him for personal gain, while every House member stood by while Van Davis, Matt Hart and company use the courts to remove him from office.

Bentley has not been indicted so why the rush to judgment. Long-serving former Montgomery District Attorney Ellen Brooks is called upon to lead the team that toppled Hubbard, to investigate Bentley, and for now, that should be enough.

But what to do about Bentley?

Rather than impeaching the Governor, Speaker McCutcheon, joined by Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, and all constitutional officers with spin, should quietly confront Bentley and if necessary his alleged lover and confidant Rebekah Caldwell Mason, and give them notice that it is time to shut up or stand down. They should tell Bentley that he must be content to visit Cracker Barrel and local groceries to tell the people how much he loves them. If not, then they should publicly denounce him and let the shame cow him into excepting the fact that he is the lamest of ducks. We are far past the hour when Bentley can earn political redemption, but if he can be put in a box before he is put out to pasture, all the better for the State.

Speaker McCutcheon is now the de facto leader of our State. If joined by Marsh, Marshall, Zeigler, Treasurer Young Boozer, Commissioner John McMilan, Secretary of State John Merrill and others, they together can bring Bentley to heel while assuring the State that they have the people’s best interest going forward.

Calmer heads will need to prevail so that the 2017 Legislative Session is not derailed by a sideshow of impeachment.

Impeachment before indict is a fools errand.

The post What to do about Bentley? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

There is a general sense around the State House that the 2017 Legislative Session is different.

But in what way?

Is there a chance we are witnessing an era of cooperation rather than confrontation? Could this be the time where all the citizens in every district matter whether Republican or Democrat?

While this may be overly optimistic, there does seem to be a few seeds of hope.

Since 2006, when Mike Hubbard became House Minority Leader, a state of war existed between House Democrats and Republicans. Hubbard escalated this warfare by using a highly strategic plan he called “Storming the State House,” replacing the Democratic majority with an autocratically run Republican supermajority. Hubbard is gone now, a victim of his greed and corrupt moral character. But those who obeyed his every command, and those who suffered his wrath still hold offices of power and walk the halls of the State House. Hubbard is a convicted felon, but the legacy of his orgy of greed and corruption continue to infect the People’s house every day. And, for the most part, those who were his partners have retained their positions or moved on to become lobbyists reaping significant financial gains.

Hubbard, like a sadist, derived pleasure from inflicting pain on others; but that spirit no longer stalks the State House.

For those who prospered under Hubbard, like masochist still longing for their Master’s touch. Other are just now realizing that the bonds that held them down no longer exist.

A form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in some, in others, a desire for a controlling hand is in part why this session seems, at times, laid back or even disjointed.

Under the even-handed, even-tempered leadership of Speaker Mac McCutcheon, the whip is replaced with persuasion, and the ties that bind are those of conscience.

Mac McCutcheon’s method is something new, and for those who formally relied on inevitable outcomes dictated by the Speaker.  Change of any kind can be disorienting, and uncertainty breeds fear among the weak. While not entirely erased, the era of “my-side” politics employed by Hubbard and many who came before him is fading in the House Chamber and in some might say in the Senate as well where Republican Sen. Dick Brewbaker introduced a bill to overturn judicial override in capital murder cases. While presenting the legislation, Brewbaker acknowledged that it was, in fact, a word for word copy of a bill carried by Democratic Sen. Hank Sanders. under the Hubbard Republican supermajority, that would never have seen the light of day.

Brewbaker met with Sanders first asking his permission to carry the bill to which the Democratic Senator readily agreed. The bill passed the Senate with an overwhelming majority and is being carried in the House by Democrat Rep. Christopher England. The bill is expected to clear both chambers. We may very well be witnessing an era change.

Is Republican Rep. Issac Whorton the enemy of Democrat Minority Leader Anthony Daniels? Is Republican Rep. April Weaver the nemesis of Democrat Rep. Merika Coleman? It is highly unlikely in real life, but in the show world of “my-side” politics, it is possible if rallied by a manipulative leader like Hubbard.

Are there differences in approach on some things, yes. But none of these individuals appear to be radicals in thought or manner.

There are leaders who find it easier to govern with the “us versus them” mentality. But are Alabama Republican State lawmakers truly the enemy of Alabama Democrats? Opposition yes, the enemy no. But the national parties as well as the media, both countrywide and within states promotes the idea of division. And there are more than a few political careers made by being against the other side no matter what. This is part of a political construct that uses lies, half-truths and other devices of propaganda to pit one group against another.

In his 1841 work, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackay noted, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

Perhaps the herd driven by Hubbard is coming to its senses, and the result is cooperation, not warfare.

It’s only a few seeds I admit, but they are worth nurturing.

The post This Session is different appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

In a complex world where the government continues to play an increasingly larger role in the lives of its citizens, it is often necessary to step back and ask: when is it appropriate for the government to limit individual liberty?

The latest fight over decriminalizing midwifery is an example of how governments rules and regulations have permeated every aspect of our lives. Home birth was commonplace in Alabama until the passage of  which made 2006 Alabama Code Section 34-19-3 makes midwifery a crime. The code reads, “It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed professional nurse who has received a license from the State Board of Nursing and the Board of Medical Examiners to practice nurse-midwifery in this State. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Opinions differ on whether a mother and child are safer under the care of a medical professional. However, in a State where the infant mortality rate lags behind some third world countries, it’s easy to question the efficacy of medically provided post and prenatal care.

Beyond the fact that Medicaid covers nearly half of the births in Alabama, government intervention into the most private of family matters is a good starting point to reexamine the nanny-state.

The term “nanny-state” refers to an overprotective government which interferes excessively in its citizen’s personal choices. This form of government overreach falls under the notion that “government knows best,” and that the State must protect its people from themselves. Each lawmaker who supports the continued criminalization of midwifery stubbornly refuses to answer this fundamental question: “Do you think the government has a right to tell a woman how and where she may give birth to her child?” Each answered with a series of reasons why the State should limit a woman’s birthing choices. Not one would outright say the State should have the right to tell a woman how and where her child should be born.

This issue should not be confused with Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, as these women are clearly committed to having their children, just not like the State demands. Of course, it is not the State that wants to regulate how and where a woman gives birth but the Medical Association of the State of Alabama (MASA) and its related organizations.

Politics is about who gets what and MASA, along with others, not only want the steady flow of cash that comes with such regulations it also wants to maintain its grip on all things it deems medical.

A study in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on “Pregnancy, Birth, and Medicine,” looks at the ethics of reproduction and specifically the medicalization of childbirth. Part of the discussion involves two camps: the medical community and natural birth advocates.

“{B]irth has been heavily medicalized in contemporary North America, while at the same time a vocal ‘natural birth’ movement has pushed against medicalization. The disagreement between these two camps often circulates around whether birth is best thought of as a dangerous and abnormal process best managed by medical experts in an institutional setting, or as a ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ bodily function that requires formal medical intervention only in unusual cases.”

To summarize the debate playing out at the State House where HB316, a pro-midwifery legislation, faces a challenge from HB344 which would continue to restrict those who favor home childbirth.

HB316 sponsored by Representative Ken Johnson (R-Moulton) would allow for home births attended by midwives while HB344 written by the Medical Association and carried by Health Committee Chair April Weaver (R-Alabaster) would continue to restrict where and how a woman gives birth. Both Weaver and Johnson offer reasoned arguments in defense of their bill, but Weaver failed to answer if she believes the State has the right to tell a mother where and how she should give birth.

Here again, the issue of State vs. individual choice lands hard against the lobbying efforts of the monolithic Medical Association.

Speaker Mac McCutcheon recently informed those gathered for the Family Advocacy Day that he supports Johnson’s bill to legalize midwifery. McCutcheon is increasingly showing all the signs of a compassionate conservative who believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility.

It has been over a generation since a US President embraced the idea of personal liberty as a driving force in matters of policy.

President Ronald Reagan in his farewell address to the Nation reflected on his mission to undo government rules and regulations that were, “taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom.”

Over the last 30 years, conservatives have sought to limit rules and regulations on businesses and taxes, while utterly failing to protect most individual liberties.

Here in the South, the kind of paternalism once used as justification for slavery has barely moved beyond the Bourbon’s who shaped the State’s 1901 Constitution.

Reagan’s final thoughts on the American prospects of liberty came on January 11, 1989, a frigid day in Washington DC, where the core of his message is frozen in time. “I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

The Midwifery Bill will serve as a test of what kind of conservatives now have charge of State government. Will it continue to be a paternalistic nanny-state or one that values the ideals of liberty?

The post Does the State know best? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

It may be too late for Governor Robert Bentley to save himself as the gallows of impeachment’s trap door is oiled and ready. There is, however, a chance that the man, Robert Bentley, may be spared the Hangman’s noose; but even that outcome is tenuous at best.

Bentley, like so many men before him, fails to grasp that it is not his alleged affair with the married former staffer, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, or using his position as Governor to destroy perceived political enemies, such as former Law Enforcement Chief Spencer Collier. Hubris is his undoing.

Bentley as a man and Governor stubbornly refuses to admit what the people of the State seem to know intuitively: he is a liar and a cheat. As a man who once compared himself to King David, he is utterly unrepentant for transgressions against his wife, his family, and his State. When David saw the error of his ways, he repented. Bentley has not.

Outside of his family and friends few cared about Bentley’s peccadillo. It is almost a given that politicians indulge in the same pleasures they condemn or deny others. Hypocrisy is unanimously expected among the ruling elite. But by continuously flaunting his relationship with Mason, he has pushed an otherwise reluctant Legislature toward the brink of impeachment.

In the beginning, calls for Bentley’s removal from office were mainly heard from those who had defended former Speaker and convicted felon Mike Hubbard. But Bentley’s “sneering” resistance to admitting his wrongdoings while continuing to indulge in his passions is galling to lawmakers and the public as a whole.

Many legislators report that daily they are asked by their constituents “When will the fool Bentley be removed from office?” or something to that effect.

Average voters do not pay much attention to the scheme that may or may not surround Bentley’s dogged campaign to build a billion dollar prison system or any other suspect act on his agenda. What they do understand, is Bentley having “Rebekah” sitting in the First Lady’s chair at the State of the State, and taking her and her (Cuckold?) husband to the Presidential Inauguration.

And who in their right mind believes Bentley only used inappropriate language in one FaceTime chat with the married Mason. The recording appears to be a reenactment of previous encounters, but Bentley doesn’t seem to understand the transparency of his lies.

Beyond being an embarrassment, Bentley is dangerous because he seems incapable of making sound decisions. He also lacks the moral authority to lead or represent the State in any credible way.

Even if the investigation handed to former Montgomery District Attorney Ellen Brooks bares fruit, an indictment is not likely for eight months to a year.

Lawmakers staring down an election season that fires up in just a few months are reluctant to face angry voters having done nothing about Bentley.

In all likelihood, the Ethics Commission at the April 5 meeting will report Bentley has committed at least some ethics code infractions. If so, the rush to judgment will become an unstoppable stampede.

It would perhaps be best for the State if Bentley were allowed to quietly finish his term cooling his heels at the Governor’s Beach Manson with Mason, (something the couple already does with some regularity). He should stay behind the closet of his shame only coming out of to sign legislation or other perfunctory obligations. But it appears he is too arrogant to acknowledge that he is finished and seems incapable of admitting he has failed everyone who has ever cared for him.

Without a sincere confession to stir the peoples’ compassion to forgive him, the Hangman’s knot known as impeachment is the fate Bentley’s faces.

And as everyone should know, it’s the guilty who put the noose around their own neck.

The post Will Bentley face the Hangman’s noose? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, “A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.”

It seems evident that Gov. Robert Bentley sits in a similar room without imagining the obvious way out.

If our sources are correct, on April 5, the State’s Ethics Commission will hear evidence of possible wrongdoing on his part. How Director Tom Albritton presents the facts of the investigation will be critical to what happens next. Albritton finds himself in the unenviable position of introducing the fruit of an almost year-long investigation. How he presents those facts, what he says and doesn’t say will perhaps mean more than the ethics probe itself.

When on July 5, 2016, FBI Director James B. Comey made his remarks on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system, he laid the groundwork for an onslaught of negative reports on her candidacy (This is not to argue any justification for Secretary Clinton but rather point to an example). Toward the end of his statement Comey said, “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” The words “extremely careless” condemned Clinton in the eyes of a great portion of the electorate.

This week, Comey made several statements that cast doubt on President Trump’s tweets and revealed an almost nine-month investigation into Russian influence or ties to President Trump’s campaign. In both instances, the FBI Director’s public statements were a harsh blow, uncharacteristic of FBI protocol.

Comey’s words had weight, as will Albritton’s in determining the perception of the investigation.

If there are serious charges or any the commission votes to refer to the State’s Attorney General’s Office, then it is widely believed there will be a stampede in the House of Representatives to impeach Bentley.

Would this be a rational course of action or an emotional response to a Governor, who has embarrassed his State, shamed himself, and continues to rub the Legislature’s nose into what appears to be an inappropriate relationship? Ferrying Rebekah Caldwell Mason and her husband to the Presidential Inauguration and having her sit in the First Lady’s seat at the State of the State has infuriated lawmakers and much of Alabama, notably, Republicans, who are feeling the sting of Bentley’s filtration. It is common knowledge within the bubble of Goat Hill that Mason, who announced over a year ago she was leaving government service, still writes his speeches, gives Bentley counsel, and is frequently his companion. The Legislature rightfully has a visceral disgust to Bentley recklessly flaunting this relationship.

But, are these impeachable offenses or just poor judgment, unrestrained behavior, and hubris in motion?

Another reason the House is so intent on Bentley’s impeachment is that they ignored, made excuses, and cowardly allowed Mike Hubbard to continue as Speaker, even after being indicted on 23 felony counts of public corruption. Of course, all the House except Rep. Alvin Holmes feared Hubbard, but no one trembles before Bentley.

Recently, the Governor called his Cabinet together to say he would fight on until the end. In an “either you are for me or against me” speech, he told his cabinet he would not resign, or give quarter to those who want him removed from office. Why should he leave? There are no charges being presented by Law Enforcement, only a Special Grand Jury in Montgomery County. There is smoke but is there fire?

Let’s face it, Bentley has done some improper things; immoral things. Consider what he did to former ALEA Chief Spencer Collier, his wife, his own children, and those who believed in him.

He hasn’t even thought to honestly address his relationship with Mason. He defiantly refuses to acknowledge his failures.

As for now, Bentley lacks a fire brigade of supporters to help extinguish the blaze he has started.

The Ethics Commission meeting on April 5, may bring good news, bad news, or no news, but the State will be watching how Director Albritton chooses his words.

Bentley is his own worst enemy.

He keeps pushing when he should pull.

The post What’s next for Gov. Bentley? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

In an op-ed published in several statewide media outlets on June 8, 2015, Business Council of Alabama (BCA) Chairman Billy Canary spoke out against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) North Birmingham 35th Avenue Superfund cleanup:

“It is obvious that the EPA is seeking to revitalize urban neighborhoods surrounding Birmingham’s 35th Avenue Superfund site by using dollars that are hijacked from the targeted industries, which seems to be less about environmental mitigation and more about engaging in a social engineering experiment.”

The op-ed and the Joint Legislative resolution it praised is part of a Federal Grand Jury probe currently underway in Birmingham.

Here in his writing, Canary seems to equate removing toxic chemicals from a black community as a “social engineering experiment,” paid for “using dollars that are hijacked from the targeted industries.” He appears that think that fines imposed by the EPA on polluters shouldn’t be used to rebuild minority communities that are affected by industrial pollution.

As defined by the Tokyo Institute of Technology, ”Social Engineering, in short, is about engineering the society. In other words, it is a field of study to solve various problems in the society through practical approaches, as in engineering.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as “the practice of making laws or using other methods to influence public opinion and solve social problems or improve social conditions.”

But it’s difficult to imagine that either of these definitions is what Canary believes the EPA was attempting in North Birmingham.

In July of the same year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unveiled rules that, “localities will have to show the Federal government how they use its money to integrate housing. The goal is to improve the quality of housing in low-income areas and to encourage the construction of affordable housing in higher-income ones, ultimately leading to greater racial integration than existing law has achieved,” according to a published report in Boston Review.

The article also quotes the American Enterprise Institute’s Edward Pinto who told the New York Times, “This is just the latest attempt by HUD to social engineer the American people.” It also uses a statement by Arizona Republican Representative Paul Gosar, who said the [Obama] administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble. American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering.”

Social Engineering is a code word for government actions that favor minorities and especially the bettering of poor black neighborhoods.

The idea of engineering society’s development evolved from the Eugenics movement that emerged in the late 19th Century and into the middle 20th Century. The term was coined by English mathematician and geographer Francis Galton (1822-1911) in his, “Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development” (1883) and referred to one born “good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities.”

By 1930, the idea as expressed in Eugenical Sterilization: A Reorientation of the Problem, where it was thought that Eugenics could address the “insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, pauperism, alcoholism and certain forms of criminality, [which] are on the increase.”

Perhaps Canary is not a racist, and his understanding of social engendering is wholly different from the canons of writing on the subject. But in this case, it comes as a surprise that some of the State’s most influential and admired businesses are represented by a man, who once again finds his name linked to a grand jury inquiry.

It wasn’t enough that Canary and several BCA board members were embarrassingly hauled into criminal court because they enabled the crook, Mike Hubbard. Perhaps it is not sufficient to use racist-laced innuendo toward the urban population of the Magic City. But, for the love of all that is good and decent, should this man and his cronies lead the most prestigious business association in our State?

It may be that BCA under Canary wants to promote businesses that come from good in stock and to prevent government’s meddling in pauperism or toxic pollution (as long as it’s in minority communities) and just allow Social Darwinism to run its course.

But it could be that, like the German Roller Canary which is considered the best at mimicry, this Canary is singing a tune that is still sweet to the elite business entities of our State, or it could be that like the coal miner’s bird whose demise provided a warning of dangerous levels of toxic gases.

Racism is still the most pernicious influence in State politics, the foulest pathogen in our society as a whole. Poverty recognizes no race, industrial pollution sees no color, the color of one’s skin, or a bank account, but it seems BCA does and it appears that at least in June 2015, the State legislature did too.

The post BCA’s thoughts on Social Engendering: Sweet mimicry or demise? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

President Reagan once ominously remarked, “The nine most dangerous words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Rep. Bob Fincher (R-Woodland) is sponsoring a Constitutional Amendment in the House that would cap “certain” loans at 36 percent interest, which reads in part, “No person should be subject to unconscionable interest rates authorized by government regulation. No church, charity, or community foundation should bear the burden of providing financial assistance because government-approved loan products are proven to be exploitive.”

Laboring under the pangs of idealism rather than data-driven evidence some have reasoned that it is a religious mission to protect these borrowers from themselves.

“Except for the ten to twelve million people who use them [payday lenders] every year, just about everybody hates payday loans,” states Robert DeYoung, the Capitol Federal Distinguished Professor in Financial Institutions and Markets at the University of Kansas School of Business. DeYoung says, “Detractors include many law professors, consumer advocates, members of the clergy, journalists, policymakers, and even the President [Obama]! But is all the enmity justified?” DeYoung says, “No.”

DeYoung, along with Ronald J. Mann, the Albert E. Cinelli Enterprise Professor of Law at Columbia University, Donald P. Morgan, assistant vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group, and Michael R. Strain the Deputy Director of Economic Policy Studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute writings at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, cast doubt on the wisdom being employed by these Republican legislators.

As for the proposed 36 percent cap, these economists and scholars found, “If payday lenders earn normal profits when they charge $15 per $100 per two weeks as the evidence suggests, they must surely lose money at $1.38 per $100 (equivalent to a 36 percent APR).”

Quoting from The Pew Charitable Trusts (p. 20) notes that storefront payday lenders “are not found” in states with a 36 percent cap.

They also reference studies that say “a 36 percent cap as an outright ban.” In their view, “’36 percenters’ may want to reconsider their position, unless, of course, their goal is to eliminate payday loans altogether.”

In the Senate, Republican Arthur Orr wants to help lower income families, single mothers, and minorities escape what is claimed to be usury in the form of payday, check cashing, and other small lenders by sponsoring Legislation that would cap all lending at 36 percent. (That’s all lending)

Orr doesn’t express any religious reference for his bill but has made common-clause with advocacy groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center, Alabama Arise and other progressive to end small lending.

Star Parker, founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, (CURE) a public policy think tank that promotes market-based solutions to fight poverty, also feels it’s a warning when government wants to lend a hand.

Parker, is African-American, a woman, a Republican, and has suffered most of the ills that accompany a life of Welfare dependency. Parker says when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) website welcomes visitors with the slogan, “We’re on your side,” that’s a warning too.

The CURE board is comprised of such conservative luminaries as, Generals John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, and HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson.

In one of her syndicated columns, Parker looks at the effects of the Obama era Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010 in response to the financial crisis of 2007-08. She notes that, under the Dodd-Frank Act, “The ten largest bank loans to Blacks dropped from 8 percent in 2007 to 5 percent in 2014. The percentage of total loans to Hispanics dropped from 11 percent in 2007 to 7 percent in 2014.” Citing a Pew Charitable Trust study she reports if payday loans were not available, “81 percent of borrowers say they would cut back on expenses. Many also would delay on paying some bills, rely on friends and family, or sell personal possessions.”

Parker feels Reagan’s admonition applies to those who want to help minorities by capping small borrowing.

Much of the new lending regulations are being driven by paid political operatives, registered and unregistered, having planted a false flag claiming the backing of the Alabama Federation of Republican Women citing old resolutions and outdated press reports.

The question they don’t answer is, where will these borrowers turn when they can’t pay their power bill, car insurance, or buy groceries at the end of the month?

The post GOP lawmakers become “36 percenters” appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

What the public learned from the Ethic Commission hearing surrounding accusations against Gov. Robert Bentley, is that he may have violated the Ethics Code and the Fair Campaign Practice Act (FCPA). What observant politicos witnessed was an Ethics Commission that is political, ineffectual, and has long outlived its sell-by-date.

Let’s take the cute little nod and wink between Commissioner Stewart Tankersley and Tom Albritton.

Tankersley asked the commission to determine if sex was a thing of value. His motion for a vote failed, not even garnering a second from any of the other commissioners. Their silence leads us to believe that under this Ethics panel, a lobbyist or a paid surrogate can perform any sexual act desired in exchange for a lawmaker’s vote, or whatever the lobbyist wants in return without fear of running afoul of the law. Sell that in court. Sex is a thing of value in this context.

But, this was only the warm-up act for a nine-hour Burlesque show posing as a serious inquiry.

The Commission went into Executive Session to hear testimony and make its determination. They tried in vain to sneak in witnesses without the press discovering their identities. Why hide that Governor Robert Bentley, Secretary of State John Merrill, Seth Hammett, Spencer Collier, Ray Lewis and other were providing testimony? These are not delicate orchids, that wither at controversy.

The Commission’s efforts to hide these individuals included harassing APR’s Josh Moon and others who joined him in solidarity on the sidewalk at 100 South Union Street. Since when is a reporter told and threatened to be moved off a public sidewalk for covering a story?

Why did the Ethics Commission feel compelled to use Law Enforcement in such a way that almost ended in a reporters arrest for doing his job?

The Commission claims its hearing falls under the State’s Grand Jury Secrecy Act. Does it? Should it? Someone needs to ask Attorney General Steve Marshall for an opinion.

Commissioner Butch Ellis, a Bentley appointee, abstained from every vote, yet sat through the entire nine-hour Kabuki dance, aggressively questioning witnesses while steering the hearing with lawyerly slyness. Did Ellis only discover his conflict of interest after grilling all the witnesses or did he walk in the door knowing he was conflicted?

Judge Charles Price (another Bentley appointee) voted no on the issue of Bentley using his position for personal gain. Why?

And why did he and Ellis push for the alleged violation to be handed over to Montgomery District Attorney Daryl Bailey, when they knew that former Montgomery District Attorney Ellen Brooks is leading an Attorney General’s probe?

Bailey is understaffed for such an investigation. Montgomery County is so plagued with murder, gun violence, and crime that he’s even having trouble bringing a Capitol Murder case to a grand jury.

Then there’s the press release about the hearing. A preposterous piece of PR, which is beneath the office of a commission that is entrusted with the enforcement of law.

What was the need to state that they questioned forty-five witnesses or that they analyzed over 33,000 documents in the course of their investigation? This next sentence alone should get someone fired. It reads, “The staff of the Commission has worked tirelessly and thoroughly to investigate every Complaint that we received.”

Isn’t that their job?

And if that’s not enough to make you question the press release, it goes on to say, “I want to recognize my entire staff for their dedication to their public duty, especially [blah, blah, blah] as well as the Commissioners for faithfully executing a difficult and often thankless task they have undertaken, voluntarily in service to the State of Alabama.”

Gratuitousness and self-congratulatory PR is quite unbecoming.

But these hearing were never about Bentley; they were about the Ethics Commission ridding themselves of a hot potato while appearing to be doing their job.

These hearings were about politics, not justice or law. They were a sham in the worst way. Whether you like Governor Robert Bentley or not, or whether you think he is a dirty crook or an adulterer, he shouldn’t be removed from office because of this ridiculous show trial.

Of course the House report that comes later today will be scandalous enough that it will horrify even the most lascivious lawmaker. But in this instance the real porn will be the politics of it all.

The post Will the Ethic Commission’s political parlor tricks doom Bentley? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

New information about a reported agreement between convicted felon Mike Hubbard and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (PCI) came to light over the weekend. The Tribe has is believed to have agreed to pay all of Hubbard’s legal fees past, present, and future if the once-powerful Speaker of the House helps them elect a majority of like-minded lawmakers who will grant a Compact, giving them Vegas-style casino gambling rights in Alabama.

A spokesperson for the Poarch Creek Indians categorically deny this report.

Last week, PCI Vice Chair Robbie McGhee after receiving a call from Trip Skipper and associate of Hubbard’s close friend, US Rep Mike Rogers arranged a meeting with the Tribal council’s most influential leaders and gubernatorial hopeful (former Auburn coach) Tommy Tuberville.  It is believed that Hubbard wanted to give Tuberville a chance to make his pitch to be the Tribe’s candidate for Governor in the 2018 General Election.

But Hubbard, not being content to simply receive a pardon if Tuberville ascends to the Governor’s Office, wants to once again exercise his powerful grip over the State House by proxy according to a former Hubbard ally.

“This is becoming like a true mob enterprise where Mike with the aid of the Tribe’s billions will run the State House even from jail,” said the former ally. “He believes with their [PCI] money he can help his people win enough seats that he can be back in power. I know, I know it sounds crazy, but you have to give the man credit for having a plan.”

But this is not the first time McGhee and his lobbyist Allison and Phillip Kinney have employed Hubbard’s services. During the 2016 Regular Session, before Hubbard’s conviction, they met regularly with him to solicit his help in negotiating a compact with then Gov. Robert Bentley.

In a text message inadvertently released as a part of the House Impeachment findings, a text message from Hubbard to Bentley intercepted by Dianne Bentley shows Hubbard telling the Governor, “Great I hope they meet with PCI lawyers. I gave them David’s number.” David is believed to be Bentley’s former in-house counsel, David Byrne.
SEE TEXT MESSAGE

During this time frame, Tribal Chief Stephanie Bryan also met with Hubbard privately. There were no witnesses on hand to say exactly what they discussed.

Recently Hubbard and longtime confidant Billy Canary, CEO of the formidable Business Council of Alabama (BCA) joined Charles Nailen, President/owner of BBG Specialty Foods Inc., of Dothan, and BCA treasurer met at one of his country estates for a spiritual retreat. Those with knowledge of the trip, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal, say Hubbard claimed to experience a spiritual awakening during his time at Nailen’s. And, he extended his circle of friends who are ready to usher in his shadow government, should the Tribal casino owners back his grand scheme.

Hubbard’s closest friend, the wealthy lumber magnate Jimmy Rane, has reportedly set aside $5 million to defeat Senator Luther Strange’s bid to be elected US Senator in the 2018 Special Election. Rane allegedly wants retribution for Strange not helping Hubbard escape prosecution while he was Alabama’s Attorney General.

In what is being described by insiders as a weird twist of fate with Hubbard’s alliance with the PCI, which includes Canary and his former enabler Bob Riley and his machine, will find themselves on the outside looking in should Hubbard successfully gain full support from the Tribal gaming interests.

The post Will Poarch Creek casino money return Hubbard to power? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Chief Justice Roy Moore has now served 11 months of his suspension—longer than any other judge in the history of the State of Alabama—without a ruling from the specially selected Supreme Court.

Moore waived his requests for oral arguments and asked for an expedited ruling in late February, 2017, and the Court granted these requests two weeks later. Despite these efforts to facilitate the process, Moore’s fate remains in limbo because the Special Supreme Court has failed to act.

Why the delay?

Those who agree that Moore conviction was properly adjudicated and those who believe that his prosecution was politicly motivated should all agree that Judge Moore deserves basic fairness afforded to all Americans: an answer from the court.

The only ruling yet to come from the Special Supreme Court. It is a terrible one that sets the precedent that all JIC findings remain secret, even after they are adjudicated. This violates every principle of an open and honest system of justice and casts a pall over the entire process that removed the Chief of the State’s highest court.

All of the briefs in Moore’s case were filed in January. All the judges need do is read the briefs and rule.

The members of the selected supreme court are:

Judge James Reid, Baldwin County
Judge Billy King, Crenshaw County
Judge Sonny Ferguson, Jefferson County
Judge Robert Cahill, Jefferson County
Judge John Coggin, Cherokee County
Judge Lynn Bright, Montgomery County
Judge Ed McFerrin, Butler County

Each one of these judges is retired and presides over no other cases.

One case, one ruling yet months have passed without action from these appointed justices.

Why?

Chief Justice Roy Moore appealed the Court of the Judiciary’s decision in October 2016 to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The justices of that Court recused themselves and Lyn Stuart, the acting chief justice, chose the specially selected Supreme Court.

Moore has been without pay for over six months—longer than any other judge in the history of the State of Alabama. Even the Tallapoosa County Probate Judge, who was suspended for six months without pay for sending pictures of his genitals to a former litigant in his courtroom, is back on the bench today.

Is it possible that the Special Supreme Court does not know what to do? Could it be that the sanctions imposed, which amounts to removal from office (2 years, 4 months suspension), is an illegal sanction because it required a unanimous vote by the Court of the Judiciary, which did not happen?

Is the Alabama Supreme Court, using the specially selected Supreme court, trying to force Moore to retire so they do not have to rule on the sanctions?

Whatever the reasoning for the delay the case against the State’s Chief Justice now appears more political and less in furtherance of justice and fairness.

It would appear that in the shadows of the Supreme Court and in the backrooms of political dealmaking, some are deeply afraid of Roy Moore.

The post Who’s afraid of Roy Moore? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Within 72 hours of taking the oath of office, Governor Kay Ivey met with the press fielding questions and expressing her determination to restore Alabama’s reputation and bring back a rule of law based government. It was obvious to those of us who’ve watched her over the years that she was confident, well prepared, ready and able to “right the ship of State” as she has promised to do.

Gov. Ivey displayed an “Alabama First” attitude that has been missing from the Governor’s office for far too long.

However, less than 36 hours after taking office, Gov. Ivey received a call from US Senate Majority Leader Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, according to multiple sources in Montgomery and Washington, DC. McConnell is believed to have asked the Governor to not reschedule the date for the US Senate Special Election to fill the seat left vacant by former Senator Jeff Sessions (when he assumed the role of US Attorney General).

This is not the only time McConnell has shown preference for who represents our State in the Senate. After it became apparent that Sessions would be Attorney General for the Trump administration, McConnell met with then Governor Robert Bentley to press him to appoint a moderate Republican to the seat, preferably a woman, according to DC and Montgomery insiders. The implication coming from Washington was Rep. Martha Roby was the first choice to replace Sessions. However, Bentley allies say the Governor’s alleged lover, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, nixed appointing Roby straightaway. McConnell also urged Bentley not to appoint a “Freedom Caucus” type lawmaker. Bentley delivered for McConnell and now the Senate Majority Leader wants Gov. Ivey to show him the same deference.

In February, Bentley appointed Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, a moderate Republican, to Sessions’ post. He then set the Special Election some two years later to coincide with the 2018 General Election. This action betrays the will and intent of the Alabama 1901 Constitution which declares that the election is to be held, “Forthwith,” which the State’s Secretary of State said means immediately or as soon as possible. Now comes the most powerful Senator in Washington, DC, and other powerbroker asking our new Governor not to adhere to the clear meaning of our State’s Constitution.

The matter of the Special Election, allowing the people of our State to determine who will represent them in the US Senate is of such grave concern, that it was the first question asked of Gov. Ivey during her meeting with the press.

On last Thursday, Gov. Ivey told gathered reporters, “There has no doubt been a dark cloud hanging over our great State,” Ivey said. “People all over the world, much less the nation, have all their eyes on Alabama, and it’s not for the right reasons. That’s very troubling. People have lost trust in their government leaders.” On Bentley’s appointment of his nemesis, Strange and the date set some two years out, the Governor said she had “concerns about the whole situation.”

Ala. Code 36-9-8 reads in part, “Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of Senator of and from the State of Alabama in the Senate of the United States more than four months before a general election, the Governor of Alabama shall forthwith order an election to be held by the qualified electors of the state to elect a Senator of and from the State of Alabama to the United States Senate for the unexpired term.”

We have adopted a saying here at The Alabama Political Reporter: “Not only must it be right, it must look right.”

Why?

Actions taken by officeholders within a constitutional government should be above suspicion. The elevation of Strange to the US Senate, along with giving him two years to gain incumbent status not only looks wrong, it is wrong, according to State Law.

While we have no doubt that Gov. Ivey will do what’s right, there are powers afoot with impure intentions.

There is a very brief window for the Special Election to be rescheduled. The dates have been outlined by Secretary of State John Merrill and can be seen here at APR.

Gov. Ivey acknowledged this limited period of time and the cost of holding a Special Election at Thursday’s presser saying, “There’s a limited time available to make a reasonable decision on that,” she said. “If we move the date, it will cost about $15 million that will come straight out of the General Fund Budget. So, while I have some concerns about the whole situation, I have to also be very mindful of the impact it will have.”

Gov. Ivey’s concerns are valid, but there is also a lawsuit pending over the matter of Bentley’s interpretation of State Law, and the Ivey administration will have to defend Bentley’s actions. Gov. Ivey, as a former educator, certainly knows what the word “forthwith” means and modifies in the context of the simple language of the State Constitution.

Unfortunately, Bentley’s lawyers don’t see it that way and argue that “forthwith,” in the statute, modifies the word “order” not the word “held.” Thus, they do not consider that the plain language of the statute that requires the Governor to issue his or her order “forthwith,” rather than hold the election “forthwith.”

Gov. Ivey will be tested many times over the next two years, this is one of those times.

The post Alabamians have the right to elect their Senators, not Bentley, Washington insiders appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

A crusade of sorts will play out in committee meetings this week, as a select group of Republican lawmakers has joined in common cause with social reformers to pass legislation that will severely limit lower income families, single mothers, and minorities from borrowing small loans, under the banner of protecting these individuals from themselves.

Senator Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) has championed the push to cap all loans in Alabama at a 36 percent interest rate.

In the House, Rep. Bob Fincher (R-Woodland) is sponsoring a Constitutional Amendment that would cap “certain” loans at 36 percent interest as well. Orr and Fincher, both Republican, have joined forces with Arise Citizens’ Policy Project, Alabama Appleseed, the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, the Alabama Citizens’ Action Program, and the Southern Poverty Law Center to end payday and other small lenders in the State.

In a State virtually dominated by Republicans, it is unusual to see an alliance between those who claim a conservative mantle and liberal progressives who would perpetuate the Welfare State. But, this is what Orr, Fincher and some of their Republican colleagues are doing.

One Republican insider speaking on background said, “Conventional political logic would indicate that an SPLC lobbyists would find it very difficult, if not impossible to get meeting after meeting with GOP legislators; yet it is happening almost daily” [at the State House]. He said. “Conventional political logic would say that a GOP-sponsored bill encouraged by the SPLC would be as rare as Bigfoot in a supermajority-controlled legislature in the reddest state in the Union, but it is actually as common as a mosquito at this point.”

Fincher has compared payday lending to sharecropping, a practice that is synonymous with the plight of poor African-Americans after the end of the Civil War. “By the early 1870s, the system known as sharecropping had come to dominate agriculture across the cotton-planting South. Under this system, black families would rent small plots of land, or shares, to work themselves; in return, they would give a portion of their crop to the landowner at the end of the year.”

The religious fervor fueling these bills has also attracted the likes of Birmingham-based “Evangelist for the 21st century” Scott Dawson. Dawson recently purchased space for an opinion piece in Yellowhammer News.

Under the section labeled “sponsored content,” Evangelist Dawson writes, “The Bible is very clear when it comes to lending, interest rates, debt, and how we treat the underprivileged.”

But a simple Google search to find scriptural clarity on lending, interest rates, and debt returns a complex array of varying quotes and interpretations from the Old Testament and the New. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret as a condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence.”

At the website, Canon Law Made Easy, they say there is no current Canon Law on usury.

It appears, from a Biblical perceptive, that borrowing and lending is a mixed bag of ideologies. But beyond the competing Biblical interpretations is the odd alliance between known adversarial groups. As one Republican insider asked, “Why is the [Republican] supermajority so willing to allow a Soros-funded ultra liberal group dictate so much of their legislation.”

Orr, while championing a cause supported by the State’s leading liberal groups, is, on the other hand, routinely fighting to place restrictions on programs such as SNAP, Food Stamps, and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), which help the most destitute Alabamians.

But these bills to limit lending to 36 percent interest began with baseless claims of support among Republicans, by paid political operatives, registered and unregistered, citing old resolutions and outdated press reports.

The post Strange bedfellows huddle to “protect” lower income families, single mothers, and minorities appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

If there was any question that the removal of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was politically motivated, the ruling by the Special Supreme Court’s 45-minutes before his press conference last Wednesday should remove all doubt.

Mere minutes before Moore’s press conference where he intended to shame the Special Supreme Court for not deciding his case in a timely fashion, the Court blindsided the Chief Justice by upholding his suspension.

In January, the Special Supreme Court, comprised of retired judges, received the briefs in Moore’s case. All the judges needed to do was read them and rule. Are we to believe this court of retired judges just happened to release its findings 45-minutes before Moore was to hold a press conference? Or is this yet another example of “Welcome to Montgomery: The Heart of Corruption” where there are few coincidences and one man’s plan is another man’s plot?

Whether you love Moore or loathe him, the lingering questions surrounding his removal are greater than the man himself or popular opinion. The real issue here is justice and how a flawed system of judicial review has forever recast the people’s right to know how judges are removed from the bench in the State of Alabama.

These secret proceedings that removed Moore from office for life have undermined the state’s constitution requiring a honest and transparent hearing of facts that is open for public review. In this case Moore has been denied equal protection, the same offense his detractors accused him of trying to do to same-sex couples.

On October 19, 2016, The Alabama Political Reporter filed a Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Records in the Moore case. Chief Justice Moore joined in APR’s suit. Moore was the only party who could say he would be harmed by releasing the documents. But on February 3, 2017, the Special Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, denied the motion.

Four out of the seven-judge panel upheld the argument made by Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) attorneys John L. Carroll, Rosa Davis and R. Ashby Pate: “The presumption of open court proceedings and the Chief Justice’s own consent to lifting the seal, are insufficient to overcome the Alabama Constitution’s strict confidentiality mandate that [a]ll proceedings of the [JIC] shall be confidential, except the filing of a complaint with the [COJ].”

With those few words, the JIC lawyers confirmed that, in fact, the JIC is a “Star Chamber” court beholden to no one; above the law that demands an open and transparent process. Those who defend the JIC’s actions are surly, corrupt actors, who view the law through the narrow lens of petty partisan ideology and repulsive self-interest. The statute that gives the JIC confidentiality does not apply broadly to the entire proceeding, and certainly is not applicable after the matter is adjudicated.

What was the unethical conduct that led to Moore’s suspension for the remainder of his term?

In February 2015, Moore issued an Administrative Order stating that the opinion issued by US District Judge Callie V. Granade, in Obergefell v. Hodges, regarding the State’s marriage only applied to the parties in that case and that the probate judges, as non-parties to that case, were bound to follow Alabama law. In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the probate judges to cease issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In January 2016, the Chief Justice issued a second Administrative Order, reminding the probate judges that the March 2015 Order remained in effect, pending further action by the Alabama Supreme Court.

Moore contends the charges against him were not about ethical misconduct, but instead, were an attack on his statements and administrative orders about the legal status of Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage laws.

However, Richard Cohen, SPLC President said, “Justice Moore has apparently not read the ethics complaints that we have filed against him. Those complaints focus not on his judicial opinions, but on his extrajudicial actions and statements, urging defiance of the rulings of the US Supreme Court.”

The SPLC complaint was not surprising. That’s what they do; they file lawsuits. However, what followed in the Moore case has far reaching consequences that threaten the very essence of justice for everyone in our State.

The calloused indifference to the law shown by the JIC, COJ, the Alabama Supreme Court and the Special selected Supreme Court, should leave every law abiding Alabamian with gut-wrenching nausea that comes from witnessing injustice. Instead of standing for the law each one of these entities bowed before a court of public opinion, whose fierce indignation was clearly heard by the individuals on the panels that tried and convicted Moore.

But it is wise to remember that public opinion is a fickle mistress, that often turns on the ones she seduces.

Those judging Moore acted politically, not wholly according to the Black letter of the law. Unfortunately, the public may never know the truth about how and why a popularly elected Chief Justice was removed from the bench.

Moore’s case was meant to be about one man’s actions, but it became an example of the corruption that permeates State politics. And while Moore was found guilty under a cloud of suspicious judicial review, it was the bold lynching of justice itself that will be the legacy of this very sordid affair.

Even those who believe Moore’s guilty, and are satisfied with his punishment should agree that unsealing the case documents necessary to ensure the process was a fair and just.

The post Politics, public opinion permeate Moore suspension appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

The Alabama Senate passed Senate Bill 24, which would allow Alabamians, who are lawfully permitted to own a firearm, to carry them concealed on their person without having to purchase a concealed carry permit (sometimes popularly called a “pistol permit”) from their Sheriff’s Office. However, the Alabama Sheriff’s Association is fighting hard against this bill claiming it will jeopardize the public’s safety.

Anyone who has attended public hearings or has heard arguments from lobbyists knows that separating fact from fiction can be a challenging task that requires doing research on the legislation.

Most people born in the South cling to God, guns, and State’s rights to paraphrase former President Barack Obama.

In Alabama, 2nd Amendment Advocates, Constitutionalists, the NRA, Bama Carry, Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale, and others support SB24. On the other side sit the Alabama Sheriffs Association, the SPLC, ACLU and those who would strip Alabamians of all their guns. Surprisingly, this strange coalition has joined forces to kill what has come to be known as “The Gun bill.”

Sheriffs, as well as all Law Enforcement officers, should be respected, and when their association lobbies the Legislature, it should do so with the same honesty and integrity that is the underpinning of an officer’s oath of office.

As Sergeant Joe Friday said on the TV series Dragnet, “Just the facts, ma’am.”

SB24 will be in House Committee on Wednesday. So, for those who don’t have time to scourer the bill, here are the facts:

The “Gun Bill” is not groundbreaking Legislation. States as diverse as Vermont and Wyoming have passed similar bills. Other states that have comparable statutes include:

Arizona
Idaho
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Dakota
West Virginia
Oklahoma

The foundational argument being made by the Sheriffs’ Association is that passage of SB24 would pose a grave threat to officer safety. Yet, states that have passed similar Legislation have not seen an uptick in violence against police officers. Statistics from Officer Down Memorial which tracks data concerning officer-involved homicides found that Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming, states that have enacted laws similar to SB24, have not seen an increase in gun violence against Law Enforcement.

Officer Down Memorial. Org PDF

But, there are many more so-called “facts” being cited by the Sheriffs Association and its allies opposing the Legislation that have little or nothing to do with the actual bill at all.

Sen. Gerald Allen who sponsored the bill in the Senate has tried to separate the truth from fiction surrounding other parts of the Legislation: “Under this proposal, the requirement for a permit would be repealed, but Alabamians could still apply for a pistol permit in order to carry a gun in states that have reciprocity laws with Alabama.”

The Sheriff’s Association has alleged that SB24 eliminates the ability for Sheriffs to issue permits. But Allen’s statement and the bill itself makes clear that Sheriffs will still need to sell conceal carry pistol permit to carry a firearm across state lines.

SB24 does not, in any way, eliminate the ability for Sheriffs to issue permits. In fact, states with similar laws have seen an increase in permit sales, not a decrease.

Crime Prevention Research Center PDF

Arizona which passed similar legislation in 2010 has seen an upswing in permit sales, not a decrease, as predicted by the Alabama Sheriff’s Associations. Not only has Arizona enjoyed an increase in permit sales, so has Kansas, Alaska, and Wyoming. So, the facts contradict the assertion that permit sales are in jeopardy.

Another fact versus fiction item is the notion that SB24 eliminates background checks on people who purchase firearms. Under Alabama law, anyone who buys a handgun has to complete a thorough background check. SB24 does not change that provision of the law. Even after the passage of SB24, every person who walks into a gun shop to make a legal purchase will have to pass the same background check that they do now.

“Currently, Alabama conceal-carry permit holders can carry guns in Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida, among other states, due to State reciprocity laws,” said Senate sponsor Allen. “You will still need a permit if you’re going to legally carry a gun in other states, so I anticipate that a large majority of gun owners in Alabama will continue to purchase a permit from their local Sheriff.”

In fact data from other states with similar laws shows that those states have not experienced a decrease in permit purchases. Many states have seen their permit sales increase. Therefore, funding for local Sheriffs’ operations is not negatively impacted by SB24.

The Sheriffs Association has also intimated that SB24 eliminates an important tool for the apprehension of criminals. However, most criminals do not seek concealed carry permits. Only a fool would apply for a pistol permit from their local Sheriff before going on a crime spree. But why let a good argument stand in the way of facts.

Here again, Allen addresses the issues saying, “My goal is to remove unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens who own and carry guns since most criminals and thugs don’t bother applying for a permit anyways.”

Integrity, honesty, and candor are important traits for the women and men in Law Enforcement who serve and protect the citizens of our State. The same goes for their lobbyists.

The arguments against passing SB24 are not grounded in facts as proven by historical data and research. The people of Alabama and their elected officials deserve facts, not fiction. Legislators need to be able to trust that those representing men and women in uniform are being fully truthful. They deserve data-driven answers and not hype. Empirical evidence leads to better policy and in a matter as important to the people’s right to bear arms, there should be no question about the facts. Let’s hope that those representing the opposition to this bill remember that the men and women in uniform that they represent need to them to stick to the facts and nothing but the facts.

The post Separating fact from fiction about “Gun Bill” appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

In this Legislative Session, the fight to further restrict payday and other small lending operations began with half-truths, false claims of support, and conservative lawmakers making common cause with the State’s most liberal organization.

Under the notion of protecting lower income families, single mothers, and minorities from themselves, a campaign called, Alabama’s Toxic Problem was launched featuring Dr. Neal Berte, President-Emeritus, Birmingham-Southern College. Dr. Berte solemnly recounts what he see as the horrors of payday lending. Perhaps the irony of a former banking board member and president of a private university who lives at a “tony” Mountain Brook address championing the cause of those who need a $500 loan is lost on the well-heeled who are paying for the ads, extolling the many pitfall of small borrowing for necessities. The irony is not lost on the individuals who need a small loan.

In the infomercial, Dr. Berte says his group is concerned about the interest rates on payday loans, and are “concerned about people having to put their cars up for collateral for title loans.”

While there’s no doubt Dr. Berte’s heart is in the right place it is somewhat disingenuous to claim the haut monde of Birmingham fully grasp the daily problems of lower-income Alabamians. But, like those who have used false arguments, old resolutions and past news reports to bolster their case against small loans, facts are sacrificed under the noble obligation to protect the working poor of Alabama from themselves.

Where is Dr. Berte’s indignation against credit card companies that charge 79 percent interest rates, or banks that charge exorbitant NSF fees? As a board member of Superior Bank, did he advocate lower interest rates on car loans for individuals with bad credit, or lower NSF fees for those who were forced to overdraft their checking account to pay the electric bill?

The people who Dr. Berte and other socially progressive groups want to help are those with few credit options.

Like other advocates who want to restrict payday lending at 36 percent, Dr. Berte and others claim payday borrowing inevitably leads to financial distress for the typical borrower and that lenders take advantage of that desperation and send consumers into an inevitable “cycle of debt.”

There is scant empirical data to support these claims. Vanderbilt University Professor Paige Marta Skiba, in an extensive review in 2012, found “there is little evidence that payday loans per se are unequivocally bad for borrowers or that consumers overall are better off without access to payday loans.”

According to a report on Economics and Institutions, “a substantial subset of payday borrowers are high-risk credit consumers, some of whom may be experiencing financial distress quite apart from their payday loan experience.”

A report on the liberal-leaning Reason TV argues the pros and cons of the issue. The report cites a study by Morgan and Strain which found, “Georgians and North Carolinians do not seem better off since their states outlawed payday credit.They have bounced more checks, complained more about lenders and debt collectors, and have filed for Chapter 7 (no asset) bankruptcy at a higher rate. The increase in bounced checks represents a potentially huge transfer from depositors to banks and credit unions. Banning payday loans did not save Georgian households $154 million per year, as the CRL projected, it cost them millions per year in returned check fees.”

Is there a need for further reform to small lending? Of course, there is, but like so many things in public policy, changes should be measured, fact-based, and passed without emotion, much less the sympathies of the wealthy.

Sadly, many times such battles are about money and not people. Payday lenders want to make a profit and non-profits want donations.

Dr. Berte is a board member of the Greater Birmingham Community Foundation which, according to its 2015 report, has $248 Million in total assets. The organization has $357 Million in grants awarded to the community since its founding in 1959. These good works are commendable, but the money that funds such institution comes from those who have been rewarded by the free market economy. It is the success of those who profit in under a free market system that allows for charitable organizations to do good works for the community.

Helping the State’s lower income families, single mothers, and minorities is a good thing. But, if payday and other small borrowers are denied access to storefront operations, the needy will turn to the unregulated online lenders. The online lenders will be more than happy to take advantage, and Dr. Berte and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) can do little to stop them.

Comedian John Oliver said of payday loans, “That’s why they are so dangerous: people actually need them.”

There are few things in a free society more dangerous than do-gooders who want to force their ideas down people’s throats for their own good.

For those of us who’ve known poverty and the silent despair that accompanies living from payday to payday, we can appreciate the sympathies that must pull at their Gucci-adorned heartstrings but most of us would just as soon you leave us along we have work to do.

The post The real danger for small loan borrowers appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.