Jackson Free Press

The Daily Journal in Tupelo continues to do Mississippians proud by calling on Gov. Haley Barbour to come clean about his financial ties to his (former?) D.C. lobbying firm. In an editorial Sunday, the Daily Journal wrote:

Questions raised about that blind trust - just how blind it is and what's in its holdings - haven't been satisfactorily answered. Barbour could end the speculation by cooperating, authorizing and offering more, definitive information. [...]

His current ownership, if any, is important because Barbour, Griffith and Rogers is a leading lobbyist for tobacco interests, business it had when Barbour made his reputation as one of the best lobbyists in Washington before he ran for governor. Further, Barbour has vetoed raising Mississippi's third-lowest, 18-cents-per-pack tax on cigarettes in a widely supported tax swap that would involve cutting the 7 percent sales tax on groceries.

Some believe that if Barbour has an interest in Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, which has legally continued its tobacco representation, an ethical conflict of interest exists with the governor. It's known that Barbour, Griffith pays Barbour $300,000 per year in what Barbour has said is retirement related to his previous ownership.

We believe Mississippians need to know income sources representing potential conflicts, especially in the context of a firm whose work relates, even if indirectly, to the formation of state policy.

Previous Comments

ID

114534

Comment

The Daily Journal is singlehandedly showing how bought, sold and oblivious The Clarion-Ledger is. This is a simple, yet vital, story. Barbour is not telling the whole story about his own financial stake on issues in which clients of his lobbying firm are benefitting. You can't get more cut and dried than this one. It's journalism 101 to call for full disclosure.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-09-10T10:32:07-06:00

ID

114535

Comment

I came across a best-of Paul Gallo show on 97.3 yesterday. In a nutshell, he was ranting about the media trying to make something out of nothing. I didn't listen anymore after that. 20 seconds was all I could take.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2007-09-10T10:40:27-06:00

ID

114536

Comment

That is the point where I lose total respect for people—when they are being blindly partisan. If a Democrat was doing this, the Republicans would, correctly, be having a conniption. I mean, look at what they're trying to do with the beef-plant debacle (although truth be known, that was a bipartisan screw-up; Barbour wrote a letter in support of it. But still.) Of course, the Dems do it, too. I think I started considering myself an Independent after hearing so many Democrats defend Clinton's sexual idiocy (on the nation's clock) and then lying like a lowdown lizard to try to cover it up. My standard has always been: Be outraged regardless of who, or what party, does it if the behavior stinks. I just don't get blind partisanship.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-09-10T10:45:05-06:00

ID

114537

Comment

If this is above board, what does Barbour fear? I understand that he has refused to debate Eaves and his commercials boast about things yet to be delivered or to be proud of. That Coast is a royal mess. I took absolutely no time to get those casinos up and running. I have no problem with gaming and know that these places provide jobs; however, I also know that it brings a lot of pain and suffereing for people who use the casino as a place of rest and relaxation (a crack like fix) to forget about the fema trailer and the loss of so much. Mississippi can do better.

Author

justjess

Date

2007-09-10T10:46:44-06:00

ID

114538

Comment

You're right, justjess. It's the classic question. If he doesn't have anything to hide, why not come clean and show the public he cares about accountability? Or, could it be that he didn't think anybody would ever ask?!? Especially here in his state where he has so many people (and journalists) hyponotized and snookered. I truly can't imagine a more horrifying scenario than covering up your financial association with your (former?) lobbying firm, and then using those connections to benefit the firm's clients when it comes to Katrina-related contracts. Oh, and all that as you were working to keep federal money from going to poor people. If he's not associated with the firm in any way, then he shouldn't hide the proof. Folks. Come on. Wake up. Demand accountability from our state's top lobbyist.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-09-10T10:50:49-06:00

ID

114539

Comment

Gotta love the, er, diversity at Barbour, Griffith, eh?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-09-10T11:39:10-06:00

ID

114540

Comment

Look at this bio of one of the principals: Expertise: International Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill joined Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR) in November 2004 after serving as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning under President George W. Bush. In this position, Ambassador Blackwill was responsible for government-wide policy planning to help develop and coordinate the mid- and long-term direction of American foreign policy. He also served as Presidential Envoy to Iraq, was the Administration's Coordinator for U.S. policies regarding Afghanistan and Iran, and traveled on Air Force One with the President in the latter stages of the 2004 Presidential campaign. Ambassador Blackwill went to the National Security Council after serving as the US Ambassador to India, 2001-2003, and is the recipient of the 2007 Bridge-Builder Award for his role in transforming US-India relations. BGR is a premier strategic consulting and government affairs firm in the United States and worldwide. Current BGR international clients include the Governments of India, Qatar and Serbia; the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq; Citigroup India and Citigroup Russia; Oracle; Amway; Alfa Bank (Russia's largest private bank); Rusal (Russia's largest aluminum company); the Indonesian National Shipowners’ Association; Lockheed Martin; Reliance Industries (India's largest company); NASSCOM (India's National Association of Software and Service Companies); and Rompetrol (Romania's second largest oil company). Prior to reentering government in 2001, Blackwill was the Belfer Lecturer in International Security at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. During his 14 years as a Harvard faculty member, he was Associate Dean of the Kennedy School, taught foreign and defense policy and public policy analysis, and was Faculty Chair for executive training programs for business and government leaders from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and Kazakhstan, as well as military General Officers from Russia and the People's Republic of China. From 1989 to 1990, Ambassador Blackwill was Special Assistant to President George H.W. Bush for European and Soviet Affairs, during which time he was awarded the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit by the Federal Republic of Germany for his contribution to German unification. Earlier in his career, he was the U.S. Ambassador to conventional arms negotiations with the Warsaw Pact, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. The author and editor of many books and articles on Transatlantic relations, Russia and the West, the Greater Middle East and Asian security, he is Counselor to the Council on Foreign Relations; a member of the Executive Committee, a Trustee and on the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies; a member of The Aspen Strategy Group; a member of the Trilateral Commission; and on the boards of the Nixon Center and Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-09-10T11:42:03-06:00

ID

114541

Comment

BTW, all, I've been going through the stories on the Barbour blind trust, and I have a question. Who said that a member of the Ethics Commission leaked the information about the trust? Folks are going around using the passive "implicated" to imply that Tom Hood or someone else on the commission did it, but I don't see how that necessarily follows. Having been a reporter for a long time, and the recipient of all kinds of "leaks" and tips, I can tell you this: They come from the unlikeliest of places. A secretary. A family member. A disgruntled employee. Even from inside someone's office. Journalists can't make uninformed assumptions. (Often, there are reasons for leaks that would surprise the uninitiated. For instance, public officials will often leak stuff themselves to one outlet if they hear an outlet they don't like is doing something. Or they'll leak it to someone they expect to give it a cover spin. Or, they will leak it in order to discredit the information at a time of their choosing instead of a more pivotal time. Or, they will leak it to provide cover for something much worse than can pass under the radar. I've had journalism mentors who would tell me to look everywhere else when a big story breaks to see what is really going on. It's a crazy business, and it's usually much more nuanced than the blogger playing a journalist on the Internet can understand.) At the very least, it's really bad journalism, not that most of the people saying it would know the difference, to state without a doubt that a member of the commission leaked this information unless they have proof. I'd even venture to say that it's unethical. Just thought I would point that out amid all the finger-pointing and attempts to obfuscate what this is really about: Barbour's accountability and honesty. If a public figure has done something questionable, and the leaked information is honest, then the source of the leak is a helluva lot less important than its content.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-09-10T20:09:49-06:00

ID

114542

Comment

OK, this one is Sid's worst attempt to spin for Barbour, yet: Here's a little news flash for those on both sides of the political fence who suddenly want to talk seriously about ethics laws and the enforcement of them on Mississippi elected officials and candidates: Neither Democrats nor Republicans in the Legislature have had any recent interest in the topic that wasn't fueled by partisan political considerations. This is a major logical fallacy. He's simply trying to change the subject by attacking the people asking the questions. (So, where does Bloomberg fall on his "both sides of the political fence" analogy.) This crap is not fit for someone who calls himself a journalist to write. I'm amazed. Salter is actually sitting there saying that the public should not be concerned about ethics problems because it's an election year and because, now that Barbour's pants are down, there are others in the other party pointing at his butt cheeks. Journalists care about ethics on the part of our elected officials all the time. Not just during election year. AND during election year. Salter is clearly out of good arguments on behalf of Barbour, and he is reaching down and pulling this stuff out from between those cheeks. Journalists from Neshoba County can do better. Do it for Turner, Sid. This is absurd. Bobby Harrison is wiping up the sidewalk with you and your paper right now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-09-10T20:20:48-06:00

ID

114543

Comment

Gotta love the, er, diversity at Barbour, Griffith, eh? Hmph. Most firms usually have one token to save face. They didn't even try. Dang. Well, at least they're up front about it, huh?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-09-10T21:39:26-06:00