The Alabama Legislature overrode Gov. Riley’s veto yesterday to pass a new incumbent protection bill. The bill will allow each House member to hand out at least $100,000 in pork money, while each Senator will get at least $300,000.
Also Monday, the House voted 64-8 and the Senate voted 25-7 to override Riley’s objection and pass into law a new process that could let each House member hand out more than $100,000 and each senator hand out more than $300,000 in special “pork” projects at schools in their districts before the Nov. 7 general election.
Our incumbent-heavy legislature nearly wet its collective pants last year when the Supreme Court ruled the old pork law unconstitutional. The problem was the legislators were not only handing out big grants but then designating how they were to be spent, a power reserved for the executive branch. This time, a committee will make the spending decisions. So it’s back to business as usual here in Alabama. None of that icky reform for us. And no new legislators either.
After all, we hate our Legislature, but our local guy — well, he really brings home the bacon, and we like that.
OK, don’t take my yellow dog credentials away, but I am not opposed to pork/community service grants. Couple of reasons: 1-there are lots of small projects in communities that are legitimate uses of state funds but are too small to go through the regular budget process. 2-all legislators get the grants. It doesn’t matter who holds the office. 3-when you say that this is an “incumbent protection bill” then you’re saying that voters are stupid (although actually in Alabama you might not be too far from the truth). Most voters know that their legislator did not “get” the money for them, and they know that whoever is in office will get the same amount. The most it does for an incumbent is enable them to get their picture in the paper a little more.
I have some experience in this matter, having served as assistant to a Birmingham City Council member for eight years. We had a similar program, with a specific amount allocated for each Council district. The funds could only be used for legal purposes – in other words, it had to be something that city funds were allowed for.
Another point is that for every one group we made happy with a grant, three more were pissed because they didn’t get the money they requested. The same thing happens in legislative districts, and that basically evens things out.
So flame me if you must, and realize that I’m not entirely trusting of some of our legislators, but the basic concept of pork/community service grants is not that bad, and the voters make their decisions on other things besides whether their school band got some new instruments.
Lisa, I bow to your greater experience on this. The only question I have is whether voters are really aware that anyone who holds the office gets the funds. I’m pretty well informed on Alabama politics, and I didn’t know about it till the Supreme Court declared the old system unconstitutional.
I don’t know about the new rules, but (at least according to the news coverage) under the old rules, senior members of the legislature did get more funds, so it did tend to benefit incumbents. That may not be the case in the future.
As with any issue, there are pros and cons Re: community service grants.
Doubtless, many of the projects legislators support with these grants are needed and worthy, but some are not. Those that are could, and should, have been addressed in the budgets.
Some serve, mainly, the singular purpose of helping an incumbent remain in office, thus they are truly “Pork”, and some of the legislators who voted for this bill wear panties, even if under their pants.
But no matter how worthy, the proposition of allowing legislators to do what is, under our state constitution, reserved for the executive branch is not right, no matter how thinly anyone wants to slice the bacon.
Riley was correct to veto the bill, and the legislature was wrong to override his veto, in my humble opinion.
Truth be known, perhaps most voters are not stupid, as Roy Moore either said or implied, but they are too apathetic to take the trouble to be informed.
Look for this issue to be back in the Alabama Supreme Court. Mark Montiel, the attorney who got a decision from the court that stopped this until the legislature cunningly came up with this new pork platter, and who is running to be the Republican nominee for Attorney General, I believe, has said he will file another suit to stop it again.