The Weblog For MrGOP.com

We all remember Boss Hog (or was it Hogg) from “The Dukes of Hazzard”.  Boss was a corrupt little man eager to get the arm of the law fully enforced on any minor (or supposed) infraction. At the same time he used his power to secure that he would never have any negative implications reflected on his own nefarious activities. To the surprise of very few, Oklahoma has its own “Boss Hog”.  What may not be known is the degree to which he has empowered himself to act with impunity while politically and legally persecuting those who dare to disagree with him. It will also be of no surprise to suggest that our own Attorney General Drew Edmondson is Oklahoma’s version of the overstuffed, height challenged, self-important hick from the back woods. Did you know that Drew Edmondson sits on the District Attorneys Council controlling the budgets of every one of the states District Attorneys?  That’s right; if a District Attorney were to have the gumption to act in accord with the intentions of his or her own constituents and the law; then the ‘Boss’ could be part of the scheme to cut the funding out from under them.  Under these circumstances, Drew Edmondson’s agenda must be honored.  DA’s should be independent from the AG. Did you know that Drew Edmondson has the power to enrich those attorneys that bow to his will through giving them a portion of the proceeds of settlements?  In the case of the monstrous tobacco company suit $250 million were awarded to outside attorneys at the whim of “Boss Hog” Edmondson.  Attorneys on salary for the State did much of the work while these outside attorneys only arrived in time to slop themselves at Drew’s trough of favor. Did you know that Drew Edmonson got his big brother put on the State Supreme Court?  That’s right, if Drew needs something to help his personal cause or to help a crony he can go to the judge who is his own brother!  Clearly it is a conflict of interest for the AG to argue before his own brother.  While few would pull the judge out of his current job the proper thing to do is for Drew to recuse himself (and his office) from any cases before that court.  If the District Attorneys were truly independent and not beholden to the AG then perhaps they could take the case, but we already see the problem with that. Did you know that Drew Edmondson is empowered to spend our money on out of state court cases that have no direct bearing on this state? He can even file his “friend of the court” briefings when they are contrary to public policy of the state as ought to be defined by the legislature!  We all remember Drew’s efforts to force the Boy Scouts to accept queer leaders in New Jersey.  Well, “Boss Hog” Edmondson needs to be reigned in. Perhaps a different Attorney General would not abuse his office but in the interim we need the legislature to pass what I will call the HOG Act.  HOG stands for Honest, Open Government. The office of Attorney General needs to be reformed in the following ways.  First, the Attorney General needs to be removed from the District Attorney’s Council to give the proper degree of autonomy to these fine locally elected officials.  Second, the authority to hire outside attorneys on a contingency basis should be greatly curtailed. Third, close family members of the AG serving as judges should not be hearing cases brought by the office of the Attorney General.  Fourth, a process needs to be established to secure that any “Friend of the Court” briefing filed with a court not having direct jurisdiction over the state of Oklahoma be within the parameters of public policy as determined by the Legislature.  Finally, the AG (or those beholden to him) need not bring politically based charges.  Repeatedly we see Drew pursuing political enemies like Tim Pope who was the Campaign Manager for Drew’s last opponent, Brent Rinehart who challenged Drew’s buddy Jim Roth, and the three petition gatherers whose petition would have put limits on the office of Attorney General.  While attacking his political enemies the Federal government has had to step in and do Drew’s job by uncovering the ghost employee scandal at the state Health Department, former Rep. Mike Mass, former Sen. Gene Stipe and most recently the indictment of state Auditor & Inspector Jeff McMahan. Fortunately, help is on the way.  Rep Charles Key (R-OKC) has filed a bill to change the makeup of the District Attorney’s Council.  The bill is as yet unnumbered and unnamed but it is a step in the right direction in that it gives autonomy to the District Attorneys by removing the Attorney General from their Council.  While I support Key’s efforts to nibble at the pig’s feet I would really prefer the whole HOG.

By Richard Engle

It is said that a camel is a horse designed by committee.  Most often our laws are like the camel in that they are a compromise designed by persons of variant goals.  Sadly, over time new ‘committees’ engage themselves in fixing the problems created by the previous.  Seldom are efforts engaged to scrap the oft-remodeled camel and get a horse.

Oklahoma’s campaign finance laws are no exception, and lately the public have been inundated by the media with purported, significant and even a few fabricated campaign finance violations.  The call has now gone out for the state legislature to ‘fix’ our campaign reporting laws to prevent the abuses. 

What exactly are the abuses?  Well, we are faced with straw donors, where a ‘fat cat’ evades the limits by getting others to accept and then donate money at their direction.  We also find excessive influence by PAC’s and their lobbyists.  Overall the process seems murky at best when transparency would be preferred.

Rep. David Dank (R-OKC) is proposing the Oklahoma Clean Campaign Act of 2008.  “Clean Campaign” laws in other states have been a variety of government expansion and even public funding.  Evidence is scant of any of them reducing government, increasing personal liberty, or creating a system that is truly accountable to the public.  Dank’s proposal increases the size and scope of government, reduces the liberty of individuals, and does not create a system (on the donation side at least) that is transparent.

Nonetheless, Rep. Dank’s efforts at reform seem well intended and for the most part would not be harmful to the situation, but some are concerned that his proposal would not actually solve any problems and there is significant reason to believe that it would be found unconstitutional. 

Keith Gaddie, University of Oklahoma Political Science professor expressed such concerns in an editorial for the October 3, 2007 Oklahoma Gazzette.  He articulates that, “The basic problems in campaign finance are not fixed by limiting money in politics, but in ensuring that the process is transparent.”  He continued, “People don’t trust what they can’t see, especially when it comes to slick politicians with complex explanations for why they did something that looks wrong.” 

Gaddie goes on to suggest a simple solution, “Disclosure works”!

Gaddie is not the first and this article will not be the last of the innumerable calls for a reduction in campaign finance limitations to be replaced with full disclosure.

Let us examine the likely effects of a full disclosure law in Oklahoma.  PAC’s will diminish in influence, as donors will not need to give through a PAC what they could give directly.  Straw donors become a thing of history as soon as the Governor signs the bill. Most importantly, the process becomes amazingly transparent as the full disclosure law lets every voter see every donation without having to cut through a maze of organizations to discover the source of the funds.  The less funded campaign will have the opportunity to advertise openly that their well-heeled opponent is “bought and paid for” by a certain industry or super-rich individual.  The reality is that limitations on the wealthy of their political activities (like giving or spending money) are not constitutional and can’t be enforced.  All we do by creating the limitations we now have is give those same people a myriad number of ways to hide their influence. 

Even under Oklahoma’s current system we do have some limits on the donor. Limits which would likely fall in a court challenge if a donor chooses to pursue such a course.  With only 149 (101 in the state house and 48 in the state senate) legislative races a very wealthy person is limited to $745,000 per year.  That is $5000 per candidate per year.  Not many donors are ready to give that much anyway.  However, at the current undisclosed $50 limits, I could give $14,900 per 2-year election cycle to legislative candidates of my choice and probably an equal amount to PAC’s that support my candidates. And I could do so without anyone (other than the candidates and PAC’s) knowing I even gave a dime! 

A full disclosure law would require every donor at every amount be reported.  And to make sure that the voters have an opportunity to turn down a politician who is excessively influenced by a special interest, I would suggest a limit of ten days or so prior to an election during which campaigns would be prohibited from receiving any additional funds from any source.

Such full disclosure can be required to be instant for larger amounts and within a very short timeline for smaller and aggregate amounts.  Placing such reporting of campaign funding on an Ethics Commission website would be a great public service. 

Oh, there will be those who have grown attached to the camel and don’t want the efficiency, speed or beauty of a thoroughbred horse.  Fortunately, we have 49 other states with campaign law experience to compare ourselves to.  It is simple to look at those states and see if greater liberty and smaller government have had ill effects.

It will surprise few to learn that only a handful of states have more restrictions on campaign fundraising than Oklahoma does.  This according to www.fec.gov, the Federal Election Commission government website. It further shows that 14 states do not limit individual contributions at all.  Nearly every other state (44) has more liberty for candidates and campaigns than does Oklahoma.  Families of candidates are freer to give as they choose in 21 states.  There is greater freedom regarding party giving in 24 other states.

Corporations are free to participate on behalf of their stockholders in 30 states, 5 of which are completely unlimited.  PAC’s have no limits in 14 other states.

Indeed there are 5 states in which political funding is basically unrestricted in every way.  In Illinois the only limitations have to do with the judiciary.  In Utah campaign finance is unlimited except for Insurance corporations.  There are no limits whatsoever in New Mexico, Oregon or Virginia.  North to South, East to West, large and small states have greater liberty than does Oklahoma.  Yet so many look to greater government control as a fix.

I do not hold so poor an image of the voter that I presume they must be protected from themselves by a paternalistic government agency with rules they have not the funding nor the inclination to enforce in an honest and even handed manner. 

 The time has come for full and unlimited campaign finance disclosure.

by Richard Engle

“The Legislature hereby finds that the production of films in Oklahoma not only provides jobs for Oklahomans and dollars for Oklahoma businesses, but also enhances the state’s image nationwide. Recognizing that the high costs of film production are driving motion picture and television production out of the country, most notably to Canada, and that the film industry is always seeking attractive locations that can help cut the costs of production, the Legislature further finds that the State of Oklahoma, with the appropriate incentive, can become an attractive site for film production and that Oklahoma is presently among several states with minimal incentives to attract the film industry. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature that Oklahoma provide an incentive that will stand out among those of other states and increase film production in this state.”

Thus begins a section in an Oklahoma law called the “Compete with Canada Film Act.” This is just one of the many sections tucked away in the thousands of pages of Oklahoma statutes providing a way for one specific group of people to assert a claim to the state treasury at the expense of the taxpayers. Specifically, this law provides a taxpayer funded rebate to Oklahoma’s film producers.
I, like most Oklahomans, was mostly unaware of this particular misuse of tax dollars until this year when the Legislature was faced with taking action to make it much easier for those who produce films to lay claim to this rebate.
Established in 2001, the “Compete with Canada Film Act” was touted as being ‘cutting edge’ by those who supported it. In fact, some in the Oklahoma Senate claimed that the act would be triple the highest incentive of any state in the country. The bill’s author insinuated the bill would create a new industry in Oklahoma, thus enhancing job opportunities for Oklahoma students. It was  and said that the bill’s passage would produce results similar to the state getting a professional sports franchise.
The law provides a 15-percent cash-back incentive on money spent in the state for movie or television production. In other words, the taxpayers would pick up 15% of the film production company’s costs of doing business so long as that money was spent in Oklahoma. In order to qualify for that rebate, film makers had to have a budget for their film of at least $1 million.
Believe it or not, despite the successful passage of the legislation and the grandiose claims of the new law’s author, there was not a significant increase in the number of high quality films being made in Oklahoma. This was despite the fact that $375,000 was placed into the state film commission’s account for the obvious purpose of encouraging film production. Not only was the Oklahoma program largely unsuccessful, but other states began the process of passing their own legislation providing government largess to film makers as a way of enticing films to be created in their respective states. This led to a race among the states as they fought to be first in line when it came time to dole out the biggest benefits to film makers.
Instead of seeing the program as a failure, the Oklahoma rebate supporters began lobbying the Legislature to set aside a sizable block of funding for the rebate. In supporting this action, the director of the Oklahoma Film and Music Commission stated that “four or five films were ready to come into Oklahoma,” and a $5 million expenditure would more than cover the rebate money for those films.
In lobbying for the expenditure of more money, the argument was used that because other states were now competing with Oklahoma, it was important that a significant amount of money be set aside for this purpose. A group known as  “The Oklahoma Film Project,” led by a trio of Tulsa citizens aligned with Hollywood movie executives, studio experts and technical companies announced that they were ready to disclose comprehensive plans to make Oklahoma one of the world’s leading film centers. The group held a Capitol press conference saying they would announce a comprehensive plan to lure domestic and international film makers to Oklahoma, if the Legislature voted to better fund the 15% film incentive rebates that were approved in the “Compete with Canada Film Act.”
In 2005 the legislature gave in to these arguments and set aside $5 million of our taxpayer dollars in a revolving account that would be replenished each year. The money was placed on a first-come, first-serve basis for the expected flood of film makers who would want to claim the funds. At the same time, the Legislature required that instead of a $1 million budget, the film company would need a $2 million dollar budget with $1.25 million of that to be spent in Oklahoma in order for them to claim the rebate.
So, what was the result of this action?
The $5 million of tax rebates have yet to be used! Not one dollar has been paid out.
Once again, the exciting claims of those seeking to tap the taxpayer dollar proved to be false. Perhaps this was the best possible outcome to this situation, as the taxpayers’ costs appear to have been mostly limited to the bureaucracy involved in overseeing a failed program and not incurred in paying out these targeted corporate welfare benefits.
Instead of acknowledging that the program was a failure, the Legislature decided to tweak the law by approving Senate Bill 623. The legislation will go into effect in August and will make it easier for the film industry to take the money. Instead of requiring the film production company to spend at least $1.25 million in Oklahoma, the law will now only require that $300,000 be spent. The barrier requiring that the subsidized film be part of a recognizable distribution agreement will be lifted in some cases. And, requirements that the film production company hire Oklahomans have been lessened.
In arguing for the lessening of these restrictions, the Director of the Oklahoma Film Commission stated that Oklahoma should no longer try to focus on recruiting big name productions, but should instead focus on “small independents.”
So, for a third time, those wanting taxpayer subsidies for film producers have a new opportunity to take our money. Hopefully the program will once again be unsuccessful and the Legislature will take the common sense step of closing the program down.  More likely, the fact that throwing our money at something didn’t work will result in a claim that we didn’t throw enough money at it, and that we must advertise the availability of “Free Money.” Perhaps we will subsidize the joker who does the commercials for his “Free Money” books and he will say something like, “Get money to video your kids in the backyard!”
It is immoral for big government to use its power to take from us through high taxes and fees and give to other individuals and corporations. But the consequences and moral arguments don’t stop there.
Perhaps you are wondering why someone in the film industry would have any more right to force the taxpayers to pick up 15% of the cost of their business than those who work in any other industry. Most small business owners would certainly attest to the fact that they would greatly benefit if the state were to pick up 15% of their cost of doing business. As for myself, I own an independent telephone directory publishing business.  Telephone directories are the only medium subject to sales tax (for advertising sales) in the state.
Why should local publishers subsidize Hollywood morals, or lack thereof? Rep. John Wright (R-Broken Arrow) suggested to me that subsidizing movies such as the Christian movie “Through the Gates of Splendor” produced by the billionaire owners of Hobby Lobby and Mardel would be a good thing. OK, when is the state going to erase the tax on my medium and subsidize my business? When I am a powerful billionaire? I won’t hold my breath.
Not all subsidized movies will be Christian or even good. Indeed as revealed by Rep. Paul Wesselhoft (R-Moore), who supported the new even worse bill, an unelected commission has been established to ensure that illegal obscenities and illegal child porn will not be eligible for the subsidy. No such protection against legal pornography, or other immoral leaning films.
One could even suggest that the porn industry is exactly the target of these subsidies.  Pornographic films make up the lions share of movie titles produced, yet create hardly a blip on the radar screen when it comes to production costs.  While no exact figures seem to be available, some estimates are as much as 70% of films produced have strong sexual content. Most porn films are made by the targeted “small independents.”
Instead of trying to grow the economy by subsidizing what the Legislature deems to be in our best interest, Oklahoma’s lawmakers should allow us to decide who is successful through our power as consumers. The proper focus of Oklahoma legislators should be lowering taxes and government regulation. This would enable those in all occupations to have a greater chance at success.
Most disappointing is the fact that only six state senators and three state representatives had the character to oppose this boondoggle. We should all express our appreciation for those nine lawmakers.  Representatives Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie), Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City), Mike Reynolds (R-Oklahoma City) and Senators Randy Brogdon (R-Owasso), Bill Brown (R-Broken Arrow), Todd Lamb (R-Edmond), Owen Laughlin (R-Woodward), Anthony Sykes (R-Moore), and Kathleen Wilcoxson (R-Oklahoma City) voted in opposition. Otherwise, our efforts which elected a GOP majority to the Oklahoma House and created an even split in the Senate are not represented here.

Richard Engle is the President of BellWest America, and of the Assembly Education Fund. He serves as Oklahoma’s Commissioner of Archives and Records and is the Immediate Past President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. Engle may be reached via email at Engle@MrGOP.com