A Tale of Two Maherns
It was the best of Maherns. It was the worst of Maherns. Okay, that’s probably a bit much.
You probably read my blog yesterday about City-County Councilor Dane Mahern reportedly going to abstain from a vote on a stricter smoking ban because his father Ed Mahern is a lobbyist for the tobacco companies and is throwing him a fundraiser. Proponents of the smoking ban argue Dane shouldn’t vote on the ban because “big tobacco” is tied to his fundraising.
I am wondering out loud if they anti-smoking crowd will ask the other Mahern, Brian, to do the same thing and abstain since he has also taken money one could argue that has ties to big tobacco as well. Ed Mahern has donated about $2,000 to Brian’s political campaign, according to campaign finance records. And since one Mahern is abstaining from voting because of “big tobacco” shouldn’t the other follow suit. Please note, my sources tell me Brian Mahern has no intention of abstaining.
Feel free to put that in your hookah pipe and smoke it.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Bait that hook and commence trawling to see what bites…
October 20th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
John,
You sound almost cynical. :-)
October 20th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
It will be hard to believe this, but I am a Democrat. When I first heard that Dane Mahern has or is taking money from tobacco companies, I thought he should not vote.
But when I heard that Brian Mahern takes tobacco money and is going to vote for the ban, I thought Dane should vote against it.
The Maherns are honorabel people. You would think that Brain would be as honorable as Dane.
Does anyone else (Democrat or Republican) think that politics is crazy?
We are for the working man. Why are we trying to put the little guy out of business?
All Democrats should be against this ban.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:15 am
So, when Dane announces his intent to abstain, he should maybe phrase it something like this…
“…since my cousin, Councilor Brian Mahern, and I have both received campaign contributions from my father who has a lobbying relationship with the tobacco industry, I believe it is appropriate for me to abstain to avoid any perceived conflict of interest associated with those funds influencing my vote one way or another. Whether that be a vote against the proposal or even for it in either a purposeful or sub-conscious attempt to avoid the insinuation of influence.”
…to try and make the point that in trying to avoid being influenced, the money could just influence someone to go the other way on the vote. If one abstains, they both should and there should be more pressure on Brian to recognize this and do the honorable thing.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:19 am
Ha ha ha ha so when in the world does it matter if any of these council people have any conflict of interests. What fantasy world do you hang out in Abdul? You been in Indy long enough and been covering the council for years to know this is a issue that rarely ever even thought about.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:45 am
That said I can never figure out why the government should regulate when an adult can use a legally sold product. As long as there are no kids harmed who gives a rats ass! Sometimes I think the insurance company's are behind all of this silliness.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:14 am
Just a reminder of the sources of the bans, the RWJ Foundation, owned by big pharma, and the coalitions, more concerned with “social change” than the bans themselves:
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the “inside -out”, provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. You may need to CTRL and scoll to enlarge it.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Here's the “model ban” from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the “smoking ban for dummies” It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community.
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229
October 21st, 2009 at 10:10 am
It will not stop here. I bet in our lifetime you will see passed, no smoking in cars where your own kids are. I still want to know who is going to take that 70 year old man 25' from the nursing home door so he can smoke on of his last cigarettes. Then you have the new fat tax that many states have been talking about adding to all sodas that have sugar above a certain level. Looks like mommie and daddy is going to take care of us for some time to come.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Just a reminder of the sources of the bans, the RWJ Foundation, owned by big pharma, and the coalitions, more concerned with “social change” than the bans themselves:
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the “inside -out”, provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. You may need to CTRL and scoll to enlarge it.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Here's the “model ban” from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the “smoking ban for dummies” It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community.
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229
October 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
It will not stop here. I bet in our lifetime you will see passed, no smoking in cars where your own kids are. I still want to know who is going to take that 70 year old man 25' from the nursing home door so he can smoke on of his last cigarettes. Then you have the new fat tax that many states have been talking about adding to all sodas that have sugar above a certain level. Looks like mommie and daddy is going to take care of us for some time to come.