The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Alabama Attorney General Troy King Continues to Defend Casino Gambling

Posted on | February 11, 2010 | 15 Comments

While I was in Alabama, the front pages of newspapers were dominated by reports of the state task force attempting to raid illegal electronic bingo operations. And the man being blamed for the confusion — which has sparked political and legal turmoil in the state — is Alabama’s Republican attorney general, Troy King.

On the day I left Montgomery, I heard talk-show host Mark Montiel on 104.9 FM call King the “best friend of the casino cartel,” a sentiment that seems to be shared by Alabama’s governor:

Gov. Bob Riley fired back at Attorney General Troy King . . . accusing King of continuing “to show more concern for the casino bosses in Alabama than for the enforcement of the law by dedicated law enforcement officials.” . . .
King had a letter delivered to Riley warning him that attempted raids of two Alabama casinos [Jan. 29] has exposed the state to lawsuits that could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. . . .
Riley, who originally appointed King attorney general in 2004 before King won a full term to the office in 2006, minced few words telling King how he feels about the advice the AG offered the governor in his letter.
“You seem to take more interest in parroting the talking point of the gambling bosses while giving short shrift to the law of Alabama,” Riley writes. “If we exhibit the ‘caution’ you suggest, then we will continue to allow the rule of law to be flouted in this state.” . . .
Riley rebukes King for his recommendation that the gambling issue be resolved at the ballot box.
“I am shocked to read your statement that the ‘proper course is to allow a vote of the people to resolve this.’ Mr. Attorney General, as your friend, I remind you that the people have already expressed their will in the Constitution of Alabama that this type of gambling is illegal. Rather than concern yourself with efforts to change the law, I suggest that your time would be better spent enforcing the law as written.”

Suspicion that King is in the pocket of the “gambling bosses” is rampant in Alabama, because (a) King is currently running for re-election, and (b) state law permits what are called “PAC-to-PAC transfers,” so that one poliitcal action committee can collect money from casino interests, then make donations to another PAC, which then donates it to a candidate.

The PAC-to-PAC process separates the recipient from the contributor in a way that makes transparency impossible, and yet Troy King’s actions are transparent enough, as the Truth on Troy blog explains:

Troy King has devised a way to support the expansion of gambling in this state when it comes to his supporters like Ronnie Gilley, but he continues to hide in his office at risk of exposing himself politically.

One of the casino operators, Milton McGregor, is now demanding that King halt the electronic bingo raids. But King is trying to stay “in the closet,” so to speak, on his de facto alliance with operators like McGregor. Meanwhile, the long-rumored sex scandal surrounding King is beginning to attract media interest in the state. While I was in Alabama, I heard from two different sources that local TV and newspaper reporters were asking questions. One of those sources claimed to have very specific direct knowledge about King aide J.W. Godwin which, if verified, will make for some very ugly headlines.

Despite all this — and despite the fact that King is the subject of a federal grand jury investigation in Montgomery — a recent poll showed King still leading his GOP primary opponent Luther Strange. That should worry Republicans in Alabama (and elsewhere), and Dan Riehl suggests that King should cancel his re-election campaign “before a King primary win could set up a GOP loss in November.”

Category: Alabama, Scandal

Comments

15 Responses to “Alabama Attorney General Troy King Continues to Defend Casino Gambling”

  1. FilmLadd
    February 11th, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

    The entire situation is completely silly. King is not performing his duties.

    As a libertarian I think government shouldn’t be regulating or banning gambling. But since it does, it should enforce the law evenly.

  2. FilmLadd
    February 11th, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

    The entire situation is completely silly. King is not performing his duties.

    As a libertarian I think government shouldn’t be regulating or banning gambling. But since it does, it should enforce the law evenly.

  3. Bob Thornwig
    February 11th, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

    This is silly – Bob Riley has gone nuts, joining with Mark Montiel. You are quoting the wrong people fella. Troy King might have become the most sane official in Alabama.

  4. Bob Thornwig
    February 11th, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

    This is silly – Bob Riley has gone nuts, joining with Mark Montiel. You are quoting the wrong people fella. Troy King might have become the most sane official in Alabama.

  5. Cakeman
    February 11th, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

    I think maybe you talked about him, but Judge Roy Moore is running for Gov of Alabama and needs help. I saw him speak at TPN and he was awesome. Always will be remembered for the Ten Commandments Statue but he talks like the Founding Fathers write.

    http://www.moore2010.com/

  6. Cakeman
    February 11th, 2010 @ 4:17 pm

    I think maybe you talked about him, but Judge Roy Moore is running for Gov of Alabama and needs help. I saw him speak at TPN and he was awesome. Always will be remembered for the Ten Commandments Statue but he talks like the Founding Fathers write.

    http://www.moore2010.com/

  7. BhamforCam
    February 11th, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

    Roy Moore is a nutjob whacko who won’t win anything but the support of a few birthers and other rejects in Alabama.

    Conservatives not locked up in the loony bin are pulling for Tim James.

  8. BhamforCam
    February 11th, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

    Roy Moore is a nutjob whacko who won’t win anything but the support of a few birthers and other rejects in Alabama.

    Conservatives not locked up in the loony bin are pulling for Tim James.

  9. Grimcargo
    February 11th, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

    I agree that Roy Moore is a nut job.A self absorbed man who wants to control all he sees.
    And he won’t be elected. Why shouldn’t Alabama have casinos for GAWD sakes. Same thing happened with the alcohol issue in the past. All the states surrounding Alabama have lotterys which are good for the economy. People are fed up with that backward mentality.

  10. Grimcargo
    February 11th, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

    I agree that Roy Moore is a nut job.A self absorbed man who wants to control all he sees.
    And he won’t be elected. Why shouldn’t Alabama have casinos for GAWD sakes. Same thing happened with the alcohol issue in the past. All the states surrounding Alabama have lotterys which are good for the economy. People are fed up with that backward mentality.

  11. uberVU - social comments
    February 16th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by rsmccain: @LaddEhlinger @victoria_29 Alabama Attorney General Troy King Continues to Defend Casino Gambling: http://bit.ly/byBegL…

  12. Rob Shattuck
    May 30th, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

    Alabama attorney general race and the Gulf oil disaster

    The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico illuminates an important, but possibly not well recognized, issue in the Alabama Attorney General race.

    For Congressional candidates this year, the contemplation of the long term devastating consequences of the Gulf oil disaster has led to prompt reactions.

    Obvious issues that are presented include whether offshore drilling should be limited and whether increased regulation of oil industry operations is needed, and, further, a federal law passed after the Valdez oil spill that limits the liability of oil companies has become a Congressional election issue this year as a result of the disaster in the Gulf.

    Regardless of the policy outcomes that ensue from public and legislative debate about offshore drilling, regulation of the oil industry, and the federal law limiting liability, there is one thing that is very wrong related to the oil disaster for which Congress is responsible and which is relevant to the Alabama attorney general election.

    I think it is very wrong that hundreds of millions or billions of dollars are going to be paid to plaintiffs’ lawyers (and defense lawyers) related to the determination and finalization of BP’s liability and to whom the liability is owed.

    I don’t think it should cost more than $50,000,000 to determine the amount of the liability and to whom it is owed. Hundreds of millions or billions of dollars should not have to be paid to lawyers for their role, and most of those amounts would be much better spent as part of the compensation paid to persons who suffer losses from the oil disaster. The moneys could also be better spent by not being paid at all and being kept by BP (that had the misfortune of being a cause of the accident) and used in continuing its legitimate business of producing oil for the benefit of the county, providing jobs, and paying dividends to hundreds of thousands of stockholders, big and small, including retirement plans, who are dependent on and deserving of financial returns from their investments.

    How is this question about plaintiffs’ lawyers relevant to the Alabama attorney general election?

    State attorneys general, along with legislators, governmental regulators and prosecuting attorneys, work on behalf of the public to design, implement and enforce laws and regulations and a regime of legal punishments to protect the public from intentional corporate wrongdoing, negligence, and dishonest commercial activities. These public officials are compensated on a salary basis and they are not biased in in their work by their compensation being geared to the dollar amount of economic activity that their work affects (i.e., legislators and regulators don’t get paid millions of dollars because they put into effect large governmental budgets, levy commensurate amounts of taxes, and write and enforce laws and regulations that affect billions of dollars of economic activity and that impose and allocate large economic costs on and among businesses, consumers and other parties; further regulators, prosecutors and state attorneys general are not compensated based on the amount of fines and penalties they get imposed on wrongdoers).

    The work of plaintiffs’ lawyers in class action lawsuits and other litigations is also effectively part of the design, implementation and enforcement of legal punishments to curtail commercial and other wrongdoings. Their compensation is huge and geared to the amounts of economic activity that the plaintiffs’ lawyers work affects and to the economic costs they get shifted around among various parties; the larger the scope of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ lawsuits and the greater the dollar amount of the costs they can get shifted around, the greater their compensation. This manner of compensation of plaintiffs’ lawyers creates very powerful incentives for them to seek the objectives of (i) expansion of harms or detriments for which a payment should be made, (ii) higher rather than lower amounts that should be paid, (iii) expansion of liability where there is no fault, (iv) disregard of distinctions between intentionally culpable, negligently culpable and faultless parties, especially in the context of corporations comprised of a conglomeration of employees, shareholders and customers, (v) disregard of culpability of plaintiffs in their own injuries and harms, (vi) not having clear rules in advance about what is wrongful and what is not wrongful, so that a person does not know what is wrongful and cannot make a decision not to do a wrongful act, and exposing every decision and action to an ex post facto determination that it was wrongful and for which there is liability, (vii) disregard of rational cost/benefit principles, (viii) the invocation of junk science, and (ix) usurpation by plaintiffs’ lawyers and the courts of the powers of the legislative branch and the executive branch regulatory apparatus.

    State attorneys general should understand the unsalubrious effect that plaintiffs’ lawyers may have on the public good through their class action and other junk lawsuits, their lobbying in Washingon DC and state capitols (including Montgomery), and their procuring of the complicity of state attorneys general to, among other things, retain the plaintiffs’ lawyers on a contingent fee basis to represent the state in litigation against businesses.

    The candidates in the Alabama attorney general election owe it to the voters to state their views on these issues concerning plaintiffs’ lawyers. As horrendous and saddening as the Gulf oil disaster is, and as important as it is for there to be focus on how to plug the leak and on the undertaking of the arduous and very protracted recovery efforts ahead, now is also the time to put a spotlight on plaintiffs’ lawyers for the public to consider the good they do, or they do not do, in protecting the public from intentional wrongdoings, negligence, and dishonest commercial activities, and in obtaining proper and just compensation for harmed members of the public.

    There are only two days until the primary election. To the extent Troy King, Luther Strange, James Anderson, Michel Nicrosi and Giles Perkins have told the voters their views on the foregoing issues concerning plaintiffs’ lawyers, I compliment them. If I, as a citizen, can do anything to call these issues to the attention of voters prior to Tuesday, I compliment myself.

    Sincerely,
    Rob Shattuck
    3812 Spring Valley Circle
    Birmingham, AL 35223
    (205) 967-5586

  13. Rob Shattuck
    May 30th, 2010 @ 8:16 am

    Alabama attorney general race and the Gulf oil disaster

    The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico illuminates an important, but possibly not well recognized, issue in the Alabama Attorney General race.

    For Congressional candidates this year, the contemplation of the long term devastating consequences of the Gulf oil disaster has led to prompt reactions.

    Obvious issues that are presented include whether offshore drilling should be limited and whether increased regulation of oil industry operations is needed, and, further, a federal law passed after the Valdez oil spill that limits the liability of oil companies has become a Congressional election issue this year as a result of the disaster in the Gulf.

    Regardless of the policy outcomes that ensue from public and legislative debate about offshore drilling, regulation of the oil industry, and the federal law limiting liability, there is one thing that is very wrong related to the oil disaster for which Congress is responsible and which is relevant to the Alabama attorney general election.

    I think it is very wrong that hundreds of millions or billions of dollars are going to be paid to plaintiffs’ lawyers (and defense lawyers) related to the determination and finalization of BP’s liability and to whom the liability is owed.

    I don’t think it should cost more than $50,000,000 to determine the amount of the liability and to whom it is owed. Hundreds of millions or billions of dollars should not have to be paid to lawyers for their role, and most of those amounts would be much better spent as part of the compensation paid to persons who suffer losses from the oil disaster. The moneys could also be better spent by not being paid at all and being kept by BP (that had the misfortune of being a cause of the accident) and used in continuing its legitimate business of producing oil for the benefit of the county, providing jobs, and paying dividends to hundreds of thousands of stockholders, big and small, including retirement plans, who are dependent on and deserving of financial returns from their investments.

    How is this question about plaintiffs’ lawyers relevant to the Alabama attorney general election?

    State attorneys general, along with legislators, governmental regulators and prosecuting attorneys, work on behalf of the public to design, implement and enforce laws and regulations and a regime of legal punishments to protect the public from intentional corporate wrongdoing, negligence, and dishonest commercial activities. These public officials are compensated on a salary basis and they are not biased in in their work by their compensation being geared to the dollar amount of economic activity that their work affects (i.e., legislators and regulators don’t get paid millions of dollars because they put into effect large governmental budgets, levy commensurate amounts of taxes, and write and enforce laws and regulations that affect billions of dollars of economic activity and that impose and allocate large economic costs on and among businesses, consumers and other parties; further regulators, prosecutors and state attorneys general are not compensated based on the amount of fines and penalties they get imposed on wrongdoers).

    The work of plaintiffs’ lawyers in class action lawsuits and other litigations is also effectively part of the design, implementation and enforcement of legal punishments to curtail commercial and other wrongdoings. Their compensation is huge and geared to the amounts of economic activity that the plaintiffs’ lawyers work affects and to the economic costs they get shifted around among various parties; the larger the scope of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ lawsuits and the greater the dollar amount of the costs they can get shifted around, the greater their compensation. This manner of compensation of plaintiffs’ lawyers creates very powerful incentives for them to seek the objectives of (i) expansion of harms or detriments for which a payment should be made, (ii) higher rather than lower amounts that should be paid, (iii) expansion of liability where there is no fault, (iv) disregard of distinctions between intentionally culpable, negligently culpable and faultless parties, especially in the context of corporations comprised of a conglomeration of employees, shareholders and customers, (v) disregard of culpability of plaintiffs in their own injuries and harms, (vi) not having clear rules in advance about what is wrongful and what is not wrongful, so that a person does not know what is wrongful and cannot make a decision not to do a wrongful act, and exposing every decision and action to an ex post facto determination that it was wrongful and for which there is liability, (vii) disregard of rational cost/benefit principles, (viii) the invocation of junk science, and (ix) usurpation by plaintiffs’ lawyers and the courts of the powers of the legislative branch and the executive branch regulatory apparatus.

    State attorneys general should understand the unsalubrious effect that plaintiffs’ lawyers may have on the public good through their class action and other junk lawsuits, their lobbying in Washingon DC and state capitols (including Montgomery), and their procuring of the complicity of state attorneys general to, among other things, retain the plaintiffs’ lawyers on a contingent fee basis to represent the state in litigation against businesses.

    The candidates in the Alabama attorney general election owe it to the voters to state their views on these issues concerning plaintiffs’ lawyers. As horrendous and saddening as the Gulf oil disaster is, and as important as it is for there to be focus on how to plug the leak and on the undertaking of the arduous and very protracted recovery efforts ahead, now is also the time to put a spotlight on plaintiffs’ lawyers for the public to consider the good they do, or they do not do, in protecting the public from intentional wrongdoings, negligence, and dishonest commercial activities, and in obtaining proper and just compensation for harmed members of the public.

    There are only two days until the primary election. To the extent Troy King, Luther Strange, James Anderson, Michel Nicrosi and Giles Perkins have told the voters their views on the foregoing issues concerning plaintiffs’ lawyers, I compliment them. If I, as a citizen, can do anything to call these issues to the attention of voters prior to Tuesday, I compliment myself.

    Sincerely,
    Rob Shattuck
    3812 Spring Valley Circle
    Birmingham, AL 35223
    (205) 967-5586

  14. joe
    July 4th, 2010 @ 4:34 pm

    nice posting. very useful for me. thanks!

  15. joe
    July 4th, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

    nice posting. very useful for me. thanks!