Abstain On Your Record
There is talk tonight that City-County Councilor Dane Mahern may abstain from voting on the proposed smoking ban at Monday night’s meeting because a news story scheduled to break later this week that Mahern’s father, Ed, is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry and is holding Dane a fundraiser, his vote might be tainted.
Dane reportedly opposes the smoking ban and his abstention would make it easier for proponents to win what will already be a close vote. I think Dane should abstain from voting, but only if one of the chief sponsors of proposal 371 does the same.
According to campaign finance records, Angela Mansfield has taken at least $700 in contributions from anti-smoking advocates. So if there is an impression that Dane maybe in the pocket of the tobacco lobby, surely Angela would not want the same impression and the last thing she would ever be guilty of is hypocrisy.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
the devious misdeeds and malfeasance that has been a core part of Big Tobacco's public relations and government relations plans for so many years as they seek to continue to deceive the public and policymakers so the tobacco companies, whose own internal documents show knew that their products and the secondhand smoke from them were causing people to get sick and die, could continue to make a bazillion dollars for the corporate leader at HQ in richmond or north carolina or wherever.
compare that with concerned citizens with a mission to improve the health, business climate and quality of life for the people from Indianapolis.
Everyone has a right to get involved in the political process, but when an industry is as shady as the tobacco industry has been for so many years and its products are causing significant health and economic damage to the people and businesses in this city, then it's worth noting which policymaker wants to slip in bed with them and which policymakers the tobacco industry sees as their standard-bearer.
Also, regardless of the who it is, how appropriate is it to solicit or accept campaign cash from a person, industry or business just days before that policymaker will vote in final action on an ordinance affecting that person, business or industry.
I'm not saying it is because I don't know the details, but to a casual observer, it looks like a shakedown and that the timing of the fundraiser is exactly tied to the upcoming council vote. That may not be the case at all, but it look weird.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
the devious misdeeds and malfeasance that has been a core part of Big Tobacco's public relations and government relations plans for so many years as they seek to continue to deceive the public and policymakers so the tobacco companies, whose own internal documents show knew that their products and the secondhand smoke from them were causing people to get sick and die, could continue to make a bazillion dollars for the corporate leader at HQ in richmond or north carolina or wherever.
compare that with concerned citizens with a mission to improve the health, business climate and quality of life for the people from Indianapolis.
Everyone has a right to get involved in the political process, but when an industry is as shady as the tobacco industry has been for so many years and its products are causing significant health and economic damage to the people and businesses in this city, then it's worth noting which policymaker wants to slip in bed with them and which policymakers the tobacco industry sees as their standard-bearer.
Also, regardless of the who it is, how appropriate is it to solicit or accept campaign cash from a person, industry or business just days before that policymaker will vote in final action on an ordinance affecting that person, business or industry.
I'm not saying it is because I don't know the details, but to a casual observer, it looks like a shakedown and that the timing of the fundraiser is exactly tied to the upcoming council vote. That may not be the case at all, but it look weird.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
The devious misdeeds and malfeasance that has been a core part of Big Tobacco's public relations and government relations plans for so many years as they seek to continue to deceive the public and policymakers so the tobacco companies, whose own internal documents show knew that their products and the secondhand smoke from them were causing people to get sick and die, could continue to make a bazillion dollars for the corporate leader at HQ in richmond or north carolina or wherever.
compare that with concerned citizens with a mission to improve the health, business climate and quality of life for the people from Indianapolis.
Everyone has a right to get involved in the political process, but when an industry is as shady as the tobacco industry has been for so many years and its products are causing significant health and economic damage to the people and businesses in this city, then it's worth noting which policymaker wants to slip in bed with them and which policymakers the tobacco industry sees as their standard-bearer.
Also, regardless of the who it is, how appropriate is it to solicit or accept campaign cash from a person, industry or business just days before that policymaker will vote in final action on an ordinance affecting that person, business or industry.
I'm not saying it is because I don't know the details, but to a casual observer, it looks like a shakedown and that the timing of the fundraiser is exactly tied to the upcoming council vote. That may not be the case at all, but it look weird.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“Weird” is the pretense of purpose assumed by those telling legally consenting adults what they can and can't do. Grow UP!
We've got REAL PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY, outside the tenuous yet not apparent to clueless ninnies, liberties of frivolity; afforded the soft bellied, distracted & inexperienced, in challenges of the core.
Your mission isn't about health, it's about TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO. Drop the flakes & reach for the protein- you're suffering a deficiency.
Have tobacco companies pulled stunts? Sure they have. Who doesn't know that? When you set your alarm tomorrow, try waking up!
October 19th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Nothing has stopped Steve Buyer from voting for tobacco interests after hundreds of thousands in contributions from big tobacco. What's the difference if City-County Councillors do the same for anti-smoking interests.
I don't see you up Buyer's butt about it.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
lindsayG – Are you saying you have never been paid to talk / write / campaign for smoke free policies? Hard to believe, or maybe Lifetime Nonsmoker is right.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Abdul, your cynicism knows no bounds.
Angela is a great councilwoman. She and I may disagree on some issues, but she serves her constituents well.
And if you're so “into” hypocrites: take a look at this–isn't it true that Barnes & Thornburg has been paid to carve out special cigar bar exemptions on this ordinance? And isn't Majority Leader Vaughan a partner at B&T? And didn't he personally lobby council members on this ordinance and the potential exemptions>
Your witness, Counsellor.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Just like Joanne and her union ties. Your witness.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:23 am
I could also argue that all God's part-time Councilors have a potential conflict of interest. Until you get a full-time Council, this is the price you pay for the government you got.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Excellent retort. We morning sharpsters are a rare breed. I start to disintegrate by 2 PM, but that's another story.
Part-time council members (Lord how I hate the term “Councillors”) have many mouths to feed, and more to listen to…
It was your sharp cyncism about Angela that set me off. Uncalled for. Whether you disagree with her or not, there are far too few of her kind on the council. And for that we're all at a loss.
But the overall point is genuine, and fair. Thanks.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:47 am
2 cents by way of tobacco (industry settlement) money?
Anyway, aren't we all still waiting for actual bar patrons and workers to organize and demand this heavy-handed smoking ban stuff en masse? As near as anyone can tell it is still outsiders with an agenda for others organizing (anyone getting paid to organize? most of the opposition are true volunteers or people actually affected by this legislation) against the rights of property owners and freedom of association amongst adults.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Hey, your comments make the blog worthwhile. If we were in public office you would make a great leader of his majesty's loyal opposition.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:48 am
I don't follow the argument that there is a lower ethics standard for part timers than full timers. They swore to the Constitution and if there is a provable quid pro quo, then abstention is in order; maybe worse.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Dane was already opposed to the smoking ban, so your quid pro quo is vestri argument cado campester in suus visio.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Your arguments falls flat…what? in his likeness? My Latin is too rusty.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Interestingly, Dane's cousin Brian is for it. Should Dane's cousin abstain also since his uncle is (reportedly) lobbying? Is it only a conflict of interest if you intend to vote against the ban?
October 20th, 2009 at 9:27 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
October 20th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Think Again – I noticed your assertions are in the form of questions, so I'll take the opportunity to answer. Barnes & Thornburg has not been paid to lobby the Council for a special cigar bar exemption in this ordinance. I am not the Majority Leader, I'm the Vice President. I am not a partner at Barnes and Thornburg, I'm an associate. Finally, I have not lobbied council members on this ordinance or any potential exemptions. In fact, I was approached (like all Councillors have been) by the sponsors asking for my support. I listened to the arguments and stated very clearly that I would not support the ordinance if it resulted in businesses in my district having to close their doors. I am satisfied that the exemption drafted and passed in committee cures that issue and as long as that exemption remains I intend to support the proposal. I have also made it clear to the sponsors that I do not oppose other reasonable and well crafted exemptions. As always, if you have questions about my votes or representation of my constituents feel free to call my cell phone: 437-7701.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:55 am
FYI, Ed Mahern gave $2,000 to Brian Mahern. If Dane Mahern can't take money raised by his Dad, then logic dictates Brian Mahern should abstain for taking money from his Uncle Ed. Oh what a tangled web we weave!
October 21st, 2009 at 6:43 am
Angela Mansfield is a great Councilor? She is so far left that most of the Democrats do not want her.
Anyway what workd is LindsayG living in? Go to a socialist/coomunist country so you can impose your will upon them. They are use to it. Not in America. Adults can make adult decisions.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:35 am
As I understand this exemption only protects certain “special cigar bars” You have until December to apply for these permits at a cost of $250 for the app free then $1000 for the permits. After December there will be no more permits. Could you understand this protects only certain companies or people. If I wanted to open a new cigar bar after December, I could not allow smoking in my own building. I would love to take this case to court because is discriminates against new business. Your statement “I would not support the ordinance if it resulted in businesses in my district having to close their doors.” What about that neighborhood bar that just may close due to the no smoking policy that mommy and daddy put us under? It seems that only a few will benefit from this ordinance exemption.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
IndyRacer57 – You've fairly summarized the exemption other than the fact that it applies to “specialty tobacco bars” not “specialty cigar bars.” Admittedly, the only difference is the inclusion of Hookah tobacco with cigars. I also agree that this exemption “protects” only certain companies. That is in fact the nature of an exemption. In order to have an exemption you have to have a clearly defined “group” that is exempted from whatever regulation it is that is being enforced. The current law has many exemptions. In fact, most every regulation in our code has some type of exemption. I disagree, however, that this exemption creates some right of action under the law. First of all, an entity that doesn't exists, doesn't have standing to sue. Second, there are currently examples of limited licenses / permits that are valid and enforceable. For example, there are a limited number of alcohol beverage license, taxi licenses and permits to operate adult establishments. The second part of your comment goes to the economics of the argument. There will certainly be winners and losers under this proposal (independent of the exemption) as there are with every regulation. There were winners and losers when the current law passed. For my part, I've contacted many of the businesses in my district that opponents of the ban claim would be negatively affected by the ban. Overwhelmingly, their responses back to me indicated that they would prefer to compete for customers on a level field of non-smoking as opposed to being forced to make an economic choice of smoking or not; thereby, dividing their customer base. The minority opinion was to leave the existing ordinance in place. As always, I'm happy to discuss further via e-mail or phone.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
How can there be a conflict of interest (for Brian Mahern)? Is there a better rebuttal against an alleged conflict of interest than to take somebody's money and then vote against them?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:24 am
How can there be a conflict of interest (for Brian Mahern)? Is there a better rebuttal against an alleged conflict of interest than to take somebody's money and then vote against them?