The Delaware Way has been exposed in all its inglorious penny-ante glory, thanks to the even-by-Delaware standards excesses of Chris Tigani.
The Honorables have been reduced to claiming that they had no idea that they were being used by Tigani, they had no idea that picking up bundles of campaign checks at one of the Tigani warehouses could be ‘misconstrued’ as unethical, that they had no idea that free booze showing up at their fundraisers might violate state law (I guess the timeless legalism “Ignorance of the law is no defense” applies to everybody but the Delaware General Assembly), and best of all, that there is no way that they could possibly be swayed by the perks thrown their way by Tigani and his ilk. After all, John Atkins enjoying a ‘By Invitation Only’ Maxim free booze/soft-core porn party with scantily-clad female pillow fighters could never influence someone with Atkins’ already-burnished reputation for moral rectitude. And Melanie George no doubt brought her ‘own bagel’, her words, to that Eagles game.
To which I say, Tigani must have had the weight of superior arguments on his side during the past ten years or so when he never lost a battle on legislation of interest to him.
First, read this article from the News-Journal, which has done a first-class job, albeit a little late, on both Tigani and how lobbyists seduce the General Assembly. Then read this one, this one. And this one.
Then come on back. I can wait.
If that’s not bad enough, allow me to quote from my favorite political analyst, me. Remember the issue of beer showing up at fundraisers as well as in the President Pro-Tem’s office? And the, you know, illegal thingy? Guess what? Even in the wake of the Tigani scandal, the Generous Assembly (another direct steal from the great curmudgeon, Ralph Moyed) had the unmitigated gall to do away with the ‘illegal’ part of it:
*Hmmm, wonder if this bill’s passage became dicier in light of the Tigani developments. If not, it should. Something about this doesn’t smell or look right. Wouldn’t a wholesaler ‘donating’ alcohol to legislators’ favorite ‘not-for-profits’ be viewed as an end run around campaign contribution statutes? Or, at least, damned unethical? Be real careful here, ‘honorables’, this has future News-Journal exposes written all over it. You have been warned. In today’s Senate Administrative Services/Elections Committee meeting.
They were warned, they didn’t give a bleep. I’ll answer the rhetorical question for you. No, they don’t have any shame. At least the Sons of the Piedmont will be in good shape.
If you aren’t nodding your heads in agreement with my screed, you can stop reading now. If you’re convinced that there just might be a problem here, then follow along as I provide a road map to reform.
I’ll get to the ethics stuff soon enough, but let’s first address a blatant problem with Delaware law as it currently exists.
If we’ve learned nothing else during this sordid exercise, we have indeed learned that the so-called Division of Alcohol Beverage Control does not exist to protect the public, but exists to protect and and support a legalized monopoly within the State of Delaware. While I’ve always liked Jack Cordrey personally, there can now be no doubt that he has aided and abetted the Tiganis to the detriment of both consumers and the state. In fact, I maintain that Ruth Ann Minner, the most corrupt Governor in Delaware history, placed Cordrey in this job specifically to do Chris Tigani’s bidding. How else can you even begin to justify granting the already-disgraced Tigani a license to operate yet another distributorship? And to give him a ‘slap on the wrist’ penalty? Yes, I know all the legal hocus pocus that Cordrey threw out there to claim that he ‘had no choice’ but to grant Tigani his latest favors. Of course he had a choice. He could have placed all of this on hold until the legal issues surrounding Tigani were resolved. What was Tigani gonna do? Sue him?
Instead, Tigani requested a delay on his federal sentencing date. Only a true cynic would suggest that Tigani wants to pocket a few months’ more of his ill-gotten lucre before paying the piper. And I am just that cynic.
What should be done? I’d love to see the Governor shame the General Assembly into doing the following:
1. Completely overhaul this antiquated system that only serves to protect undeserving winners. There will always be distributorships, as many manufacturers don’t have their own distribution network. But those manufacturers who can deliver their own product should be allowed to deliver their own product. And the state should impose higher alcoholic beverage taxes to raise revenues (Tigani has successfully fought higher alcohol taxes for years), and to ensure that availability is not such that it encourages any increase in alcohol abuse. Prices would remain stable, and the state would have a new necessary source of revenue. Better the state should have it than the monopolists.
2. Allow Delaware producers like Dogfish Head and Nassau Vineyards to distribute their own products. These excellent local producers lost their right to do so when the General Assembly, at the urging of Chris Tigani, required these companies to go through a distributor. And why did Tigani do this? Because (a) Delaware was facing a Federal restraint-of-trade challenge to allow out-of-state wineries to ship directly to consumers, and (b) because he’s a greedy bastard. The only way the state could avoid this was to require in-state producers to go through a distributor as well. In other words, screwing Delaware businesses to help protect a monopoly. Which brings me to: (3) Allow for the direct shipment of wine from out-of-state producers to Delawareans. If you do #2, you’re gonna have to do #3.
4. Place the Division of Alcohol Beverage Control under sunset review. You can do 1, 2, and 3 even before you get to #4. But if it’s not already clear to you that a one-man judge, jury and executioner, one with close ties to Delaware’s Most Corrupt Administration and to Chris Tigani, does not benefit the people or the State, then nothing I write will convince you. And by Sunset review, I mean with the very real possibility that this Division will be sunset, aka eliminated. After all, it shouldn’t be difficult to relocate the alcohol control officers to another law enforcement agency.
5. As part of, or perhaps, apart from, #4, the Governor and General Assembly should reexamine the entire issue of availability, distribution and regulation of alcoholic beverages. How much regulation is necessary, and how should a post-Division Delaware provide for the distribution and sales of alcohol? For example, and I admit I have a dog in this fight, why shouldn’t supermarkets be allowed to sell beer and wine in a controlled setting? High license fees and increased taxes on alcohol would generate significant revenue for the state while not raising the costs of the product beyond reasonable reach. Another question, does it really make sense to have price-fixing on products, as we do now? That price-fixing is one of the de facto results of having a distributorship monopoly in which only one distributor can peddle a particular product. Like, say, Bud.
The redundancy in these bullet points is deliberate. I want elected officials to think of all the possibilities that removal of an archaic, ineffective, and corrupt system could entail.
Let’s now address the greatest single oxymoron in Delaware today: Legislative Ethics.
Here’s what you don’t do: Appoint a working group including legislators and lobbyists to ‘make recommendations’ to the General Assembly. In fairness to those legislators who introduced such a bill this session, they didn’t have the benefit of the post-Tigani fallout. Now they do. And now they should do something. Here’s what they should do:
Push for the Delaware equivalent of the Maryland statute now. In contrast to Delaware, Maryland has one of the most rigorous statutes in the country. Disclosure means disclosure, not the three-card-monte game that passes for ‘public integrity’ in Delaware. In Maryland, lobbyists cannot buy dinner for legislators and can’t shower them with all sorts of other favors.
The landscape has changed. Reform-minded legislators can and should now take the initiative to put the entire General Assembly’s feet to the fire. There’s an election coming up next year. It shouldn’t be too difficult to ask the question: “Do you stand for reform, or do you stand for continuation of this sad exercise in tawdry greed?”
The alternative of a working group that would make recommendations after the election would be a disaster. The very idea of Bobby Byrd or Rich Heffron helping craft such laws goes beyond fox/henhouse metaphors. Let me lay out exactly what would happen: Because most reform-minded legislators have pointed to the Maryland statute, that would invariably be the starting point for deliberations. With lobbyists then helping to craft the final package, the deliberations would be nothing more than chipping away at the Maryland statute. In other words, you start with an admirable model, and then make it weaker. Which is precisely what the lobbyists and, I suspect, many legislators, want. I mean, just read what Bobby Byrd said:
“This is an issue where there are a lot of investigations going on in a lot of states,” Byrd said. “There have been a couple of ‘stings’ across the country, and I think for the good of the order and to give the public more confidence in what we’re doing, we need to make some changes.”
Got that? All Bobby Byrd cares about is that they might become targets of investigations. Nothing about doing what’s right. This is eyewash, nothing more.
“For the good of the order” is synonymous with “for the preservation of the Delaware Way”.
Don’t allow Bobby Byrd and his henchpersons to drives this complimentary and catered bus.
Force the ‘Honorables’ to either support or oppose legitimate reform and let them know that they will be held accountable by the voters.
The people have been awakened, the press has been awakened. Public officials will not have the luxury of evading their decisions.
The time is now. The circumstances are right. Just. Do. It.