Rep. Curry Todd has won honorable mention in the category of “Most Democratic Republican,” according to KnoxNews columnist Tom Humphrey.

In that sense, he’s certainly got my vote. And it explains why he was accidentally given the other party’s label in this March article.

Rep. Todd was edged out for the gold by Rep. Steve McDaniel; apparently it wasn’t enough to raise taxes, raise spending to unconstitutional levels, attempt to water down the ethics bill and dine at the expense of lobbyists, lash out at conservatives objecting to an “incumbent protection scheme,” waffle on wine sales, shut down inquiries into inappropriate government spending and attempt to ban secondary ticket sales like those on Stubhub.com.

I guess there’s always next term. Unfortunately.

It’s times like these that make me regret my decision not to run against him, despite the various reasons why the time wasn’t right. If Rep. Todd does win top honors next time around, the conservatives who counseled against my challenge, and against all similar primary contests, will deserve consideration for the “Supportive Role” sub-category.

Regardless of the tolerance and encouragement of his colleagues, this district deserves better representation.

The post by LeftWingCracker is correct — I have qualified as a Republican candidate for Tennessee House in District 95. I certainly wouldn’t be the first candidate in Memphis with a blog, but he may be right that I could be the first candidate who was a blogger first.

If I run, Republican voters in District 95 would be the only ones in Shelby County with a choice; every other Republican incumbent, and every other GOP candidate, will be running unopposed in the statewide office primary.

I say if I run, because I haven’t committed to launching a campaign just yet. The deadline to withdraw is April 10, so there is still a week left before the candidates are locked in.

Over the next few days, I will continue to talk it over with my family, seek input from my friends and associates, and check with my boss and co-workers to determine if such an effort could impose any sort of hardship on my job or on the organization. I will also continue to examine myself and consider how a political campaign might fit against my talents, my personality, my goals, my experiences and my career path. I will also be meeting with advisers and political friends to determine if I could put together a viable campaign. And last, but certainly not least, I will be praying for guidance and direction, as I do every day.

But I’m also very mindful of this district and the shameful way it has been represented over the past few years. As with Tom Leatherwood, I would be running as an underdog up against an entrenched incumbent. Leatherwood has characterized his race against U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn as not just climbing a steep hill, but rather walking “up to the face of the cliff.” My situation would be even more dire, however, given my status as an untested newcomer.

At this point, if you’re a new visitor, you may be wondering exactly who I am, and why I would seek to challenge a fellow Republican. If I decide to run, I will soon be launching a campaign website that will attempt to answer those questions. In the meantime, you are certainly welcome to browse this blog and sniff out my opinions on the issues, a few of which I will briefly touch on below.

As for the Admiral Stockdale question (who am I?), a summary bio is available on my About page, but the gist of it is that I’m basically an average guy, one who is increasingly outraged by our representatives in government. In addition, I am beginning to realize that significant elements of my party, the GOP, have lost sight of its platform and its responsibility to the citizens of this great land. They are getting too comfortable with power, too friendly with lobbyists and have twisted it into the Good-Old-boy Party.

Rep. Curry Todd is a symptom, if not an agent, of the disease. Why else is this 10-year incumbent with his $100,000+ war chest seeking to water down the ethics bill our state government passed only a few years ago, in the wake of the Tennessee Waltz FBI sting? Why does he think he deserves $75 meals from lobbyists, up to $1,000 per lobbyist, per year? What have our representatives been doing with their per diem allowance?

Why else did he support a plan the Commercial Appeal called an “incumbent protection scheme,” a deal that allowed individual legislators to hand out wads of cash (up to $300,000) to cronies in their district?

Why else did he back down when a special interest group recently lobbied against his sensible bill to allow Tennesseans to purchase wine over the internet?

If Rep. Todd hasn’t lost sight of the Republican party’s conservative principles, why is he supporting toll roads, tax increases and spending increases that violate the state constitution’s Copeland Cap? Why did he short-circuit an inquiry into the questionable financing of renovations to a public facility? Why does he want to criminalize the free market?

The party leaders I’ve heard from should be asking these questions about Rep. Todd, rather than asking me to drop my name from the ballot. They may be rightly concerned that a primary challenge will eat up resources that could be diverted to districts Republicans may have a chance to flip, while strengthening the hands of incumbents who will support a member of the party as speaker in the event of securing a majority in the House. But they seem generally unconcerned with what type of majority that might be, and what kind of legislation would result.

If a majority led by Rep. Curry Todd would mean tax increases, out of control spending, over-regulation of small businesses, slush funds, weaker ethics and doing the bidding of special interests, that would be a Pyrrhic victory for the Republican party.

So the question now is if it’s worth it for me to stick my neck out and stand up to the face of the cliff. Is it worth it for me to ask my family and my employers to bear that burden? Is it worth it for me to ask my friends to hit the streets, grab the the phones, contribute and volunteer?

Those are questions I can’t answer right now. But I would appreciate your feedback. And your prayers. Thanks very much.

UPDATE: There is also a Democrat running this year; I suspect this is the correct Christopher Taylor. He was a big Ed Stanton supporter, apparently.

The House of Representatives has unanimously passed a bill aimed at scalpers who sell or use software designed to circumvent the “security measures” and “control systems” of online ticket vendors. HB 2420, as amended, would make such activity a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $500, or “any profits made or tickets acquired in the course of the violation,” whichever is greater.

The legislation is a ham-handed response to complaints from parents who balked at the market value of tickets to Hannah Montana’s concert tour last year, exacerbated by some resellers’ high-tech “ticket sniping,” bypassing Ticketmaster’s queue.

While it may provide some psychological comfort to a few middle-class malcontents, the bill’s dubious necessity is matched by its uncertain enforceability. The issue is already being confronted by Ticketmaster, both internally and in court. And since the bill can only be enforced with the assistance of Ticketmaster and other ticket vendors, the state’s involvement makes little difference. Not to mention the fact that the majority of its targets operate outside of the state, and may quite possibly reside in other countries.

Fortunately we appear to have dodged, at least for now, a much worse version of the bill, which would have made it “unlawful for any person to sell or offer to sell any ticket to any music entertainment event at a price above” face value. That version appears to have failed in the House on a 49-39 vote, largely along party lines. My representative, Curry Todd (R-Collierville), sided with the Democrats and voted for both versions, as expected.

Meanwhile, Rep. Todd is sponsoring another bill that would allow cities and counties to regulate and restrict ticket sales; HB 2612 would require a $200 quarterly or $500 annual license in order to resell tickets, and would confine such transactions to a “Reselling Zone” defined by local governments.

Another bill, HB 3099, would limit the sale of tickets to face value and also make it a criminal offense to sell more than 10 tickets to any single public event.

Thank you, big government.

I’ve made no secret of my displeasure with Curry Todd, my state representative. And now, just when it seemed he was turning the corner by supporting a sensible bill relaxing restrictions on the sale of wine, pressure from a special interest group has caused Rep. Todd to back off:

Prospects for passage of legislation allowing Tennesseans to buy wine over the Internet may have diminished because of an organized attack from a group that is apparently sponsored by wine and liquor wholesalers opposing the bill.

…

Under current state law, all wine and liquor must go through wholesalers to licensed retail liquor and wine stores. Tennessee citizens cannot legally receive shipments of wine from other states; only wholesalers.

There are two bills to change that. One is sponsored by Jackson and Rep. Doug Shepard, D-Dickson, and the other by Sen. Paul Stanley, R-Germantown, and Rep. Curry Todd, D-Collierville.

…

The Stanley-Todd bill includes a provision declaring that a person accepting delivery of a wine shipment must provide a driver’s license or other photo identification. Jackson said a similar provision would be included in the bill he sponsors.

Todd said faxes and e-mails sent to his constituents by the new organization said juveniles would be allowed to purchase wine with “no ID required” if the bill passes, and “that’s a bald-faced lie.”

Todd said he now intends to abandon efforts to pass the Internet wine sales bill.

Of course, Rep. Todd wouldn’t want to alienate the special interest groups, the very folks he hopes will provide him with $75 meals once he reverses the ethics law, but it does give a whole new meaning to the term “wine and dine.”

It also suggests that curry goes with chicken just as well as it does with pork.

My only question is about the “D-Collierville;” has Rep. Todd actually switched parties, or was that just a Freudian slip?

This morning my mother in law sent me a political email that’s been making the rounds; it’s titled, “The Haircut,” but amazingly enough it’s not about John Edwards. I’ve copied it below the fold, followed by another great Joe Citizens video on the same general topic. Both fit in nicely with my earlier post about Rep. Curry Todd and his free lunch plan. (more…)

I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with my state representative, Curry Todd (R - Collierville). In 2006, Rep. Todd ran unopposed, and I voted for him. But since that time, however, he has charged full speed in the wrong direction; he has raised taxes, limited our freedoms, inflated government spending and failed to advance our Second Amendment rights. Now he wants to peel away the ethics laws passed just two years ago, in the wake of Operation Tenn. Waltz.

More on all these issues below, but first let’s discuss his proposed changes to the ethics law.

Bloggers who have already written about this issue include Ben Cunningham (who also posted this video), Adam Groves and Jim Grinstead.

The first hints that some legislators wanted to weaken the new ethics law came in October, when a confused Rep. Todd was quoted saying, “No one knows what they can do.”

Funny that, how our representatives in Nashville could vote to pass a bill they didn’t understand in the first place.

But comprehension doesn’t appear to be the real issue. Our lawmakers seem all-too aware of just how much they can get, and from whom.

As the Commercial Appeal reports in an editorial today, “the state’s ethics law generally prevents lobbyists from buying meals for lawmakers…, limits groups or individuals who employ lobbyists from spending more than $50 per legislator per meal…, and doesn’t apply to individual constituents or groups that don’t employ lobbyists.”

“If the law really needs to be clarified, that’s fine. But clarity shouldn’t come at the expense of perpetuating the perception that Tennessee state government is for sale.”

It’s not clarity that Rep. Todd is seeking, but rather $75 meals, totaling up to $1,000 per lobbyist, per year.

So if there are at least 600-700 lobbying clients in Tennessee, a busy legislator could receive over half a million dollars in food and beverages each year.

The Tennessean reports that, “many legislators say the ban is too restrictive, cutting them off from constituents and one another,” and some are “annoyed by the notion that [they] could be bought for a biscuit.”

All this prompts a number of questions:

• Are lobbyists now considered “constituents” by our legislators?
• Are our legislators unable to meet with constituents without receiving free food?
• What are our legislators doing with their per diem money?
• Do biscuits cost $75 in Nashville these days?
• If $75 is the proper limit, does that imply their votes can be bought for $76?

Also, if our lawmakers are not paying for their own meals, how exactly would they be collecting all the receipts, in order to turn them into the Ethics Commission?

What happens if the lobbyists’ paperwork doesn’t match the legislators’ paperwork? How many more bureaucrats will need to be hired in order to tabulate the numbers and investigate any discrepancies?

But perhaps the most important question is this: if Curry Todd is simply a representative serving his constituents, in a democracy where the voters in his district hold the power, and drawing his salary from their tax dollars, why should he be the one getting the free lunches? (more…)

Here’s some video I shot at the East Shelby Republican Club last week. In it, State Rep. Curry Todd explains that Tennessee is “flush with cash,” and that with the surplus, everyone wanted a “piece of the pie.” Rep. Todd signed on to a plan for each of the legislators to take a piece of this pie and feed it to his constituents, thus currying favor (pun intended) with the electorate, a process The Commercial Appeal labeled an “incumbent protection scheme.”

Rep. Todd’s pork request is here, made available online by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His particular slice of the pie was designated for the Shelby County Schools PTA and Education Foundation. Of course, there’s certainly nothing wrong with state money going to schools. The problem is how the money gets there. First, these expenditures need to be part of the overall budget process, so that the money is distributed fairly and appropriately among all programs and areas, in accordance with our priorities. If the budget for schools was too low, that’s a problem Rep. Todd and friends should have fixed on the front end. Second, individual legislators must not be allowed to sprinkle tax dollars wherever they please, effectively buying votes in the process. After all, how do you think the beneficiaries will vote next time around?

And if Rep. Todd can’t find $50,000 in the regular budget for the Shelby County PTA, and that money is needed, perhaps he should donate the $50,000+ he raised to run unopposed in the last election (see FAQ 19, F for proof that it can be done).

Meanwhile, although the state is “flush with cash,” Rep. Todd says “maybe that’s alright” that we have “one of the highest sales taxes in the nation,” and that he is “in favor of the tax” increase on cigarettes. That just doesn’t add up. If the state is flush with cash, then we don’t need to be raising taxes. Instead, we should be cutting taxes.

If, on the other hand, the state government needs all this extra cash, it ought to be budgeted in a responsible way. It was more than exasperating to see the state scramble to double-check our bridges after the one in Minnesota collapsed, and now to hear them call for putting in tolls. It’s time for our legislators to stop passing out animal crackers and start putting together real budgets that address real needs, and make a plan for how they will prevent and prepare for emergencies.

While we’re on the subject, let me note my displeasure with Rep. Todd on some other matters.

The first of these is the smoking ban he voted for. Like with the money for schools, there’s nothing wrong with protecting people from the dangers of second-hand smoke. But there is a problem with second-hand government taking away our liberties. Not only is the smoking ban an assault on our freedom, it’s also wholly unnecessary, for at least two reasons: 1. if you want to protect yourself from cigarette smoke, all you need to do is simply stop visiting establishments that allow smoking; 2. several businesses had already declared themselves smoke-free just prior to the smoking ban vote. Of course we need to protect ourselves from things that will harm our health, but we don’t need government to do that for us. What’s more dangerous than second-hand smoke is a government that continues to take away more and more of our freedoms. And the next wave is going to be food, with the government telling us what we can and can’t eat. Thanks, but I think we can take care of ourselves.

Now for the ironic grace note: while Rep. Todd was out taking away freedoms from business owners and their customers, he was also sponsoring a bill that would lift the mandatory motorcycle helmet law. So it’s ok for the government to stamp out our cigarettes, but the state can’t keep us from splattering our brains on the street?

Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

And, finally, there’s the issue of guns, and our Second Amendment rights, which has been perceived to be one of Rep. Todd’s greatest strengths among conservative Republicans in his district. Rep. Todd sponsored H 411, which allows permit holders to take their firearms into restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages. But when he was “approached by another legislator about a push to allow handguns on college campuses,” he said, “I don’t know if this is the proper time to do that,” following the Virginia Tech shootings.

If it’s not a proper time to affirm the right of students to defend themselves in the aftermath of a psychopath’s rampage (who by the way murdered his victims in a “gun free zone”), when is there a proper time?

I don’t think [Commercial Appeal reporter] Jon [Sparks] did it on purpose, but what I was saying to him was “I was not judging whether it was right or not, I wanted to be sure Bartlett had it shot at the money if it became available”.

- Bartlett Mayor Keith McDonald, responding to a question about his recent comments in the CA: “If it’s the right way or not… we want our shot at it.”

“It” would be the slush money allotted to each member of the Tennessee Congress under a proposed way to manage Tennessee’s budget surplus.

Rep. Brian Kelsey is getting criticism from all sides for his stance on the plan, which he considers to be an ethically dangerous pork process. Republicans Jim Coley and Curry Todd have been particularly abrasive.

Rep. Todd, who happens to represent my district, would be well advised to avoid the ad hominem arguments from here on out.

Notes and commentary: Bill Hobbs, Rep. Susan Lynn, Frank Cagle, Ben Cunningham.

AND: Commercial Appeal: [Rep. Kelsey] is correct to expose the lack of accountability in the plan and the government waste that it is likely to produce. In the wake of the Tennessee Waltz corruption investigation, legislators should be moving toward more transparency, not less.