In a January 2004 editorial defending Haley Barbour’s “blind trust” in his lobbying firm, The Clarion-Ledger editorial board declared that it was hunky-dory because he no longer owned stock in the firm that had bought the firm:
“He had already sold the firm, including the name, and it’s owned by Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., a publicly traded company. … He has no ownership or stock.”
But with the Bloomberg stories this month showing that there is more to that trust than met the eye, it turns out that more than the trust was blind:
“The blind trust document he signed about six weeks later says that on Jan. 13, 2004, the day he took office, Barbour still had a stake worth $786,666 in the publicly traded parent company of Barbour Griffith & Rogers Inc. (Interpublic), as well as pension and profit-sharing plan benefits from the lobby firm.”
— Bloomberg News story, run on Clarion-Ledger page 1, Aug. 30, 2007
The question, of course, is who told The Clarion-Ledger that Barbour had no stock in Interpublic? And did they confirm that information before they wrote the editorial?
(Why does the whole premature death of KKK-er James Ford Seale that they reported come to mind here?)
Previous Comments
Oh, so Barbour is trying to change the subject by trying to smoke out the person who looked the information that he should have been telling the public the whole time!?! Nicccceee. This is just going to bring more attention to the fact that he still owns stock in his lobbying firm: The Mississippi Ethics Commission will investigate who gave confidential details of Gov. Haley Barbour’s blind trust to the media, the commission said in a statement Friday night. Under state law, it is a misdemeanor to leak such information. Bloomberg News Service reported this week that Barbour still had a stake worth $786,666 in the parent company of his former lobbying firm when he formed a blind trust after taking office in 2004. Barbour receives $25,000 a month, or $300,000 a year, from the Washington, D.C.-based firm that still bears his name, the news service reported, citing a document obtained through a source who requested anonymity. The document, along with an Ethics Commission opinion sought by Barbour in January, was to have remained confidential. State law forbids the discussion of such an opinion unless the official seeking it makes it public. Someone should also investigate who told Clarion-Ledger the apparently false information above that they editorialized about in January ’04. Who was THEIR source?
#114324 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Sep 1 2007
In other words, it makes one look more guilty to whine about someone leaking the information that makes you look bad. Oh, and more media are swarming. You get the feeling that we’re going to know a whole lot more about him in upcoming months here in the state of Mississippi.
#114325 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Sep 1 2007
Is it still not true that someone at the State Ethics (sic) Commission is guilty of leaking privileged (political) information? I guess it’s OK if you don’t like the folks whose “civil rights” were violated. Eloise Plaza
#114326 | Author: **Previously Banned Member** | Date: Sep 2 2007
for another angle on the saga go to the tupelo journal and read its story on saturday that jim hood told barbour a year ago that the blind trust did not satisfy the ethics laws. maybe someone else with more blogging skill can link the article.
#114327 | Author: chimneyville | Date: Sep 2 2007
As a journalist, I appreciate the power of leaks; the American public would be kept in the dark constantly were it not for whistleblowers and other concerned citizens “leaking” information. It’s not as if Barbour himself is above leaking info to reporters. In this case, Eloise, a potential violation of a law that is strong enough to keep the citizens informed of vital info about our public servants is certainly not *as* important as the bigger issue of (a) how much does Barbour still financially benefit from a company that is lobbying on the Coast and (b) who lied to The Clarion-Ledger in 2004 about his stock? They should tell us, but they probably won’t. Thanks goodness some sunshine is starting to shine on this topic. And while we’re at it, let’s go to work strengthening our ethics laws so that trickly politicians can’t drive secret trucks through the holes in the laws.
#114328 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Sep 3 2007
Here’s a link to the Daily Journal piece. I noticed Hood’s correspondence with him referred in that story in The Clarion-Ledger a day or two ago (AP?), but thought it was funny that it was first we’d heard of it. What DO their Capitol reporters do, anyway? I wish we’d been heaver on The Barbour Chronicles in recent months, but the city nightmares have kept my staff away from the state more than we’d like. The state’s largest newspaper, with its resources, should be ashamed.
#114329 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Sep 3 2007
maybe adam ought to call each of the members of the ethics commission and ask which one of them disregarded the advice of the attorney general to vote that the blind trust is lawful.BTW the commission is comprised of two appointees each from the gov,lt gov,suprreme ct chief justice and the speaker.one of the lt govs appointees is the former chairman of the miss republican party
#114330 | Author: chimneyville | Date: Sep 3 2007
