Senator Ford (R-Hartford City) also has a blog.

Very timely since I mentioned his broadband bill yesterday. Not so timely since his most recent entry was in October and before that in May. I’ll just hope he maintains it more regularly during the session.

(h/t Rep. Dvorak.

My previous entry had to do with dirty political money. The Indy Star has a story entitled Lilly has ally, foe among Hoosiers in Congress. To be clear, there is no implication that any of the Lilly money is in any way tainted, except insofar as policies good for pharmaceutical companies may well prove to be bad for the rest of us.

The story focuses on Reps. Dan Burton and Steve Buyer. Buyer is a reliable vote for Lilly and the pharmaceutical industry. Burton is not. Buyer gets subtantial money from Big Pharma. Burton does not.

U.S. Reps. Steve Buyer and Dan Burton are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the pharmaceutical industry.
Buyer, Monticello, is a vigorous backer of issues important to the industry and recently helped Lilly protect mental health drugs from proposed Medicaid changes aimed at saving state and federal tax dollars.
Burton, Indianapolis, is one of the industry’s biggest critics in Washington and vigorously opposed granting liability protection for Lilly and other drug firms for a vaccine preservative that Burton thinks is tied to an increase in autism.
The industry’s campaign contributions reflect the lawmakers’ positions. Burton no longer is getting campaign checks from Lilly, while Buyer’s contributions from the company and the entire industry have risen, particularly after he got a seat on the House committee with jurisdiction over health issues.

Rep. Burton’s position obviously has a personal component.

Burton blames thimerosal, the mercury-based vaccine preservative Lilly created but no longer makes, for his grandson’s autism.
He was incensed when language was slipped into a 2002 homeland security bill that would have invalidated lawsuits against Lilly and other drug makers over thimerosal. The provision was repealed months later because of public pressure.
Burton also wants to allow prescription drugs to be imported from other countries, where they often sell for much less. He frequently mentions that he became aware of the disparity in drug prices when accompanying his wife to chemotherapy treatments before her death.

The story goes on to talk about the money received respectively by Rep. Buyer and Rep. Burton:

uyer was receiving campaign contributions from Lilly before he joined the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2001. But the company’s PAC started making the then-maximum $10,000 donation after that, and Sidney Taurel, Lilly’s chairman and chief executive officer, started writing personal checks.
In addition, Buyer’s political action committee collected $130,000 from the industry — including $15,000 from Lilly — in 2002, the last year lawmakers were allowed to collect unlimited contributions from corporations.

There is also a footnote to the article which may well explain a fair amount of Rep. Hostettler’s continued success despite being something of a, in my humble and totally unbiased opinion, political nutbag. He apparently doesn’t accept any PAC contributions. I’d be interested in knowing if that’s really true or just technically true, which is to ask whether he accepts money that doesn’t technically come from PACs but might just as well. If it’s “really” true, then my estimation of Rep. Hostettler just ticked up a notch or two.

Updated to reflect Rep. Chocola’s similar situation

According to the Courier Press, Rep. Sodrel will donate campaign money he received from Rep. “Duke” Cunningham who has been under investigation for the past year or so for taking bribes from defense contractors in exchange for using his pull to steer big government defense contracts their way. Sodrel received $2,000 in campaign money from Cunningham and, now that Cunningham has finally confessed to bribery charges, Sodrel will donate the $2,000 to a children’s home in Sellersburg and a homeless shelter in Bloomington.

In getting rid of the dirty money, Sodrel is doubtless caving to the enormous pressure of Taking Down Words November 30, 2005 blog post. Doubtless this means Rep. Sodrel will be coughing up his Tom DeLay money soon since he was taken to task in the same TDW post for failing to do so.

It would appear that the Ninth District’s beloved U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel has more tainted money in his campaign bank account.

In October 2004, Sodrel received a donation from the aptly named “American Prosperity” PAC, which belongs to now-former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who resigned earlier this week after pleading guilty to fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery and tax evasion.

Discerning readers may recall that Sodrel’s spokesman, Cam Savage, told the Seymour Tribune in October that the Congressman would not be returning money he received from indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay’s PAC because “[w]e believe in the presumption of innocence in this country, and we should wait to see what happens in this case. Congressman DeLay says he’s innocent and plans to fight it and wants his day in court.”

Hopefully there is nothing in the Sodrel bank account from “Scooter” Libby, Karl Rove, or Bill Frist.

Update A reader was kind enough to forward me this link to a story by James Wensits for the South Bend Tribune entitled “Campaign Gift going to Charity: Chocola won’t return Cunningham’s $6,000 donation.”

Chocola spokesman Brooks Kochvar said Chocola received a $5,000 campaign contribution from Cunningham in 2002 and a $1,000 contribution in 2003. A $1,000 contribution has already been given to the South Bend Center for the Homeless, Kochvar said Friday.

Donations totaling $5,000 will be given shortly to the We Care organization in Kokomo and to the Women’s Care Center in South Bend, according to Kochvar, who didn’t specify how those donations will be split.

Personally, I think all of these donations should be returned to the United States Treasury which is, after all, the origin of the donations: the lobbyists arrange some donations to politicians, the politicians arrange fat government contracts funded by our tax dollars for the lobbyists’ interests, and the lobbyist arranges more donations. Round-and-round we go.

The Indy Star has an article entitled Daniels: Prayer ruling ‘regrettable’. I agree with Daniels when he says, “the dispute over overtly Christian prayers in the Indiana House would have been better resolved “by private and voluntary agreement.” However, his decision to blame the court for that not happening is silly. Daniels says, “It’s in a long line now of, I think, confusing and sometimes clumsy attempts by the courts to insert themselves into this issue.”

Courts don’t “insert themselves.” Somebody invokes the jurisdiction of the court — in this case a Quaker lobbyist, among others, who felt excluded by the revival-style prayer — the court doesn’t invite itself. Predictably, I’d put the blame that this wasn’t resolved privately on the shoulders of Speaker Bosma. Had he simply enforced the requests he made in his letter of invitation to the ministers, I don’t think we would have seen the lawsuit. The letter of invitation said:

The invocation is to be a short prayer asking for guidance and help in the matters that come before the members. We ask that you strive for an ecumenical prayer as our members, staff and constituents come from different faith backgrounds.

It appears that Rep. Steve Heim (R-Culver) has a blog. It apparently started last night with an entry on the House Prayer issue.

I took issue in particular with this paragraph:

I am very disappointed by the judge’s ruling because it is wrong to censor what a visiting cleric may say. Censoring prayer is a violation of freedom of speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. I’m sure our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves after this decision.

He also indicated the possibility of civil disobedience. I responded on his blog by repeating themes I’ve been talking about here. But, I’m not one to shy away from some repetition:

With all due respect, Representative Heim, I believe your post misses the distinction between government speech and private speech. Because the Speaker of the House controlled access to the Speaker’s podium and that podium is not, in fact, open to the public, the speech from the ministers from that podium was government speech, not private speech. This is a vital distinction, one which Speaker Bosma conceded in the court proceedings but apparently forgets or ignores in his public statements.

The First Amendment does not create a limitation on private speech. It does, however, impose a limitation on government speech, which is all the Court did.

It would be unfortunate to perpetuate a myth that the Court is attempting to regulate private speech. All the Court has done is engage in the limitation of government speech. Limitation of government is the First Amendment’s purpose, and that is how it has been used in this instance.

I think the public would be well served if those of you in the legislature consider Judge Hamilton’s words when he wrote:

“When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude.”

I thought there was yet more wisdom in Judge Hamilton’s statement:

“We cannot adopt a view of the tradition of legislative prayer that chops up American citizens on public occasions into representatives of one sect and one sect only, whether Christian, Jewish, or Wiccan. In private observances, the faithful surely choose to express the unique aspects of their creeds. But in their civic faith, Americans have reached more broadly. Our civic faith seeks guidance that is not the property of any sect. To ban all manifestations of this faith would needlessly transform and devitalize the very nature of our culture. When we gather as Americans, we do not abandon all expressions of religious faith. Instead, our expressions evoke common and inclusive themes and forswear, as Chesterfield has done, the forbidding character of sectarian invocations.”

Finally, I’d suggest Rep. Bosma in particular use caution when deciding whether to engage in civil disobedience as to Judge Hamilton’s ruling. Speaker Bosma is a citizen, a legislator, and a lawyer. The first two have some considerable discretion with respect to civil disobedience. Lawyers, on the other hand, have a greater duty as officers of the court to obey judicial orders.

Interesting. The presence of the Indiana Blog Review makes me less likely to do “round up posts.” But, in this case, I’m going to go ahead and do one about the ICLU v. Bosma prayer decision. My technorati search of the blogosphere reveals:

X-tra Rant doesn’t believe the prayer decision goes far enough. As an atheist, he says having prayer as part of House business seems unnecessary, but if you’re going to do it, “there are ways of doing it that don’t turn the Indiana Statehouse into a baptist revival meeting complete with singing and praisin’ Jeebus.”

Dogwood files has three. #1 argues that a literal reading of the First Amendment would not support a conclusion that prayer constitutes establishment of religion. #2 argues that the language of the First Amendment indicates an application to Congress, not to the State of Indiana. #3 opines that the ruling constitutes a loss to the First Amendment because “the Speaker of the House will be forced to censor the prayers of invited clergy.”

Godless Wonder’s headline pretty much says it all: Indiana Judge Tells Lawmakers: Pray on Your Own Time; Lawmakers Now Pray for Heathen Judge’s Death.

The M. Sheldon Show calls the federal judiciary the “Anti-Christ” because of this decision.

Indiana Politico reads the decision and hopes George Will’s column that Indiana politics is the way of the future is true. As the Politico puts it, “Our courts were successful in conveying this message: Jesus is not the official sponsor of the Indiana House of Representatives.”

Zen and the Art of Obsession takes Bosma and Bible Radio to the woodshed for deliberately ignoring the distinction between government speech and private speech. Those sources keep making statements implying that the Court has somehow restricted private speech.

Keith Milby appears to be one of the folks ignoring the distinction between government and private speech when he says “This has to be a case now of the government dictating how a religious person can pray to his God.”

Advance Indiana hails Speaker Bosma’s newly attained status as a Christian Martyr. St. Brian?

Jim Pfaff wails that the “anti-liberty forces score another victory.” (The long suffering of the ever-victimized religious super-majority is truly heart rending.)

As I mentioned, the Indiana Blog Review has a round up which includes a lot of links I omitted here — they didn’t pop up on my quick technorati search, and I’m running out of time.

My support of this decision is evident. But, I respect those who make a good faith legal argument about what the First Amendment does or doesn’t require. Dogwood Files, for example, has fallen into this category, even if I disagree with the legal analysis. The folks who really get under my skin are those who misrepresent what the court decision said: Speaker Bosma and his deliberate lumping together of government and private speech, as if there is no distinction between judicial regulation of one but not the other. I’m also irritated by the all to common theme of victimization I hear from certain segments of the religious community. (A theme that Rep. Bosma exploits by failing to distinguish government speech from other sorts of speech.)

As I predicted, Speaker Bosma deliberately ignores the distinction between government speech and private speech with respect to the Court’s decision on sectarian prayer as official business of the House of Representatives.

Bosma conducted an afternoon news conference, repeatedly calling the edict intolerable.

“I am honestly shocked,” he said. “Every man and woman of faith … should be allowed to pray in accordance with their own conscience. I think that’s the American way.”

He also said that prayers have been offered representing many faiths, and he said in a written statement that “it is intolerable that a court in this free society would ask a person to censure the prayer they offer in the tradition of their faith.”

Speaker Bosma is a smart guy who knows the law pretty well. He was one of the instructors for the bar exam review course I took. So, his “misunderstanding” isn’t honest. He’s just being disingenuous by ignoring the critical distinction between government speech and private speech. The article linked above quotes one of the Court decision passages on this point:

All are free to pray as they wish in their own houses of worship or in other settings. The individuals do not have a First Amendment right, however, to use an official platform like the speaker’s podium … to express their own religious faiths.

Speaker Bosma’s reaction to the court decision demonstrates that he is not above using religion to inflame the passions of the public to divide us for political gain, providing a convenient demonstration of why the Establishment Clause is so important to our democracy.

Judge Hamilton in the Southern District has issued his order (pdf) in Hinrichs, et al. v. Bosma, 1:05-CV-813 (S.D. Ind. 2005). This is the case brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union requesting that sectarian prayers be prohibited as official business of the Indiana House of Representatives.

The short anwer is this:

Plaintiffs have standing as Indiana taxpayers to bring their claims, and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. This relief will not prohibit the House from opening its session with prayers if it chooses to do so, but will require that any official prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian, and not advance one particular religion.

(emphasis in the original.)

I have not yet had time to read the 60-page opinion, but I expect to see a lot of hand-wringing about how an “activist” judge has continued the “War on Faith” by prohibiting our elected officials’ right to pray — or some such. And, if anything like that comes out of somebody’s mouth, they’re just full of crap (unless the rest of the opinion deviates radically from the passage quoted above.)

Update: Some thoughts and relevant quotes below the fold.

Update #2 I wanted to put the specific injunction on the front page in addition to some very thoughtful comments by the Court with respect to the Establishment Clause.

The injunction:

If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal.

And, Judge Hamilton’s reflection on the establishment clause:

When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude.

Like I said, more thoughts and quotes from the decision below the fold.

The ICLU appears merely to have been asking that Rep. Bosma enforce his own policy. The letter to the “Minister of the Day” states:

The invocation is to be a short prayer
asking for guidance and help in the matters that come before the members. We
ask that you strive for an ecumenical prayer as our members, staff and
constituents come from different faith backgrounds.

Not terribly important to this matter, but this caught my eye: “The cost for the streaming video in 2005 was $112.85 per hour”

In 2005, 53 opening prayers were conducted. Of these, 41 were done by Christian clergy, 9 by Representatives, 1 by a Muslim imam, and 1 by a Jewish rabbi.

Transcripts are available for forty-five prayers. Of these, twentynine were offered in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, the Savior, and/or the Son. . . . The substantial majority of prayers offered during the 2005 session were explicitly Christian in content. Several examples illustrate the point. The prayer of January 4th concluded: “In the Strong name of Jesus our Savior, Amen.” . . . The January 19th prayer concluded: “We ask You to bless these leaders in the name of Jesus, Your Son, and our Lord who reigns forever and ever. Amen.” . . . “We look forward to the day when all nations and all people of the earth will have the opportunity to hear and respond to messages of love of the Almighty God who has revealed Himself in the saving power of Jesus Christ.” . . .

After the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, Speaker Bosma reintroduced Reverend Brown, saying: “I understand he has a wonderful voice and he is going to bless us with a song.” Reverend Brown proceeded to sing “Just a Little Talk with Jesus.” A number of the legislators, staff, and visitors present in the chamber stood, clapped, and sang along at the invitation of Reverend Brown. This event prompted at least some members of the House to walk out because they believed the sectarian religious display during the legislative session was inappropriate.” . . . In addition to the many explicitly Christian prayers, the prayer for February 21st was generally inclusive but contained a feature especially offensive to Jews.
The prayer used the Hebrew name for God, known as the Tetragrammaton, which Jews do not mention aloud.

After reviewing all available transcripts of
prayers from the House sessions in 2005, the court finds that, the actual practice
amounts on the whole to a clear endorsement of Christianity, sending the message to others that they are outsiders and the message to Christians that they are favored insiders. No other specific religious faith was endorsed or invoked.

One of the litigants, Anthony Hinrichs, was a lobbyist for the Indiana Friends Committee on Legislation but was fired because of his role in the litigation.

Speaker Bosma apparently spent a good deal of effort challenging the standing of the litigants to bring the suit. At least the Court spends a good deal of time addressing Bosma’s arguments in this regard, but concludes:

In short, under the Speaker’s theory of standing, a taxpayer would never be able to challenge, on the basis of taxpayer standing, a government practice that endorsed a religion if it could also be conducted – at the same cost – without violating the Establishment Clause. Contrary to the Speaker’s view of taxpayer standing, courts have not required taxpayers to show that their taxes would decrease if the challenged practice were enjoined.

As a matter of law, the Speaker conceded that prayers from the podium are government speech because the Speaker controls access to the podium. I doubt we’ll see the government speech distinction from those who will criticize this decision. The Court says:

There is “a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

I predict the crucial difference between government speech and private speech will also be routinely ignored.

The crux of the Court’s decision comes after a review of the Supreme Court’s decision in Marsh v. Chambers:

From the Court’s opinion in Marsh v. Chambers, this court draws the
following guidance. First, the fact that prayers are offered to open legislative
sessions does not, without more, violate the Establishment Clause. Second, the fact that prayers are offered “in the Judeo-Christian tradition” also does not violate the Establishment Clause, at least where the prayers are not explicitly Christian or explicitly Jewish. Third, however, there are constitutional limits to legislative prayer. The clear implication is that where “the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief,” official legislative prayers would violate the Establishment Clause.

Applying the law to the facts at hand, the Court concluded:

the current legislative prayer practices of the Indiana House, as shown by evidence from the 2005 session and when viewed as a whole, are well outside the boundaries established by the Supreme Court in Marsh v. Chambers.
A substantial majority of the prayers were explicitly Christian, offered in the name of Jesus Christ or with similar phrasing. Several used repeated references to specifically Christian beliefs and doctrine, and some can fairly be described as proselytizing efforts. On the whole, the legislative prayers were used to advance
the Christian religion.

Speaker Bosma argued essentially that the invited clerics couldn’t help but advance their religion or proselytize. In response, the Court dropped a very insightful footnote:

Clerics of religious minorities often have substantial experience in getting along with a majority who believes differently and in avoiding giving offense to that majority in a public setting. Perhaps it is not mere coincidence that the only transcribed prayer in the 2005 session from someone outside the Christian religion, that of the imam, was inclusive and non-sectarian.

A good quote highlighting the value and possibility of non-sectarian prayer:

We cannot adopt a view of the tradition of legislative prayer that chops up American citizens on public occasions into representatives of one sect and one sect only, whether Christian, Jewish, or Wiccan. In private observances, the faithful surely choose to express the unique aspects of their creeds. But in their civic faith, Americans have reached more broadly. Our civic faith seeks guidance that is not the property of any sect. To ban all manifestations of this faith would needlessly transform and devitalize the very nature of our culture. When we gather as Americans, we do not abandon all expressions of religious faith. Instead, our expressions evoke common and inclusive themes and forswear, as Chesterfield has done, the forbidding character of sectarian invocations.

A “love it or leave it” message from the Court to clergy professing an inability to offer non-sectarian prayer:

The court recognizes that the relief granted in this case might make it difficult or even impossible for some clergy or believers to offer official prayers. All are free to pray as they wish in their own houses of worship or in other settings. The individuals do not have a First Amendment right, however, to use an official platform like the Speaker’s podium at the opening of a House session to express their own religious faiths. Those who wish to participate in a practice of official prayer must be willing to stay within constitutional bounds, as spelled out in Marsh and its progeny. The alternative under the Constitution would be a complete prohibition on legislative prayer.

I got a good chuckle out of this bit by one Mike Sloothak in the Purdue Exponent:

I wish to thank Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma for his expression of support for one of the fastest growing religions in America � Pastafarianism � which includes the view that the universe was created by His Noodliness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In the past, the Pastafarian view has been cruelly suppressed, but now that we have an advocate for the truth at the highest levels of state and federal government (President Bush is also a supporter) facts about the correct origins of the universe can now be taught openly to our children. Speaker Bosma’s daring message, “I think it’s fair to allow and perhaps require students to be taught that there may be more than one explanation for the creation of the world,” ushers in a new era of intellectual and spiritual development for our state. Once all creation theories are required to play on a level field, Pastafarians are confident our view will prevail, and Indiana can only benefit from taking the lead.

But within Speaker Bosma’s message is a warning: If Purdue doesn’t act fast and conform voluntarily, Speaker Bosma may require Purdue to modernize and teach the Pastafarian view of creation (among others). I publicly call on Dean of Science Jeff Vitter to require the teaching of Pastafarianism in science classes, so as to avoid any ugly confrontation with our primary source of funding, the state legislature.

Mike Sloothaak

The Indy Star’s editorial board follows up on its series of stories on how private entities pay for members of Indiana’s Congressional delegation to take trips. The editorial is entitled Someone must pay for pols’ ‘free’ trips. The Indy Star makes the excellent point that it is not necessary to impugn the politicians’ integrity to conclude that this arrangement is a bad idea. The simple fact is that the corporations and special interests paying for these trips aren’t stupid. They must be getting some return on their investment, even without any quid pro quo a la California Representative Duke Cunningham who just plead guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes. Even if members of Congress are not intentionally acting more favorably toward the private interests because of the free trips they are receiving, the private interests are getting something in return for their largesse.

And it’s pretty easy to figure that whatever those folks are getting in return is not benefitting the average Hoosier. The Indy Star suggests that it’s probably cheaper in the long run for those trips to be paid for with tax dollars if it means that far larger government expenditures can be curtailed that benefit those interests currently paying for the trips.