Louisiana regulators have decided to appeal a ruling in favor of casket-making monks that found a state law unconstitutional in giving funeral directors exclusive rights to sell caskets. The law has been criticized as a case of a powerful lobby getting politicians to snuff out their competition. Louisiana legislators caved into demands for the protective measures, but Judge Stanwood R. Duval, of the U.S. District Court in New Orleans found that the legislation did not even satisfy the low rational basis test. The regulators are now appealing to the Fifth Circuit.
The monks of the St. Joseph Abbey of Covington have made simple wood caskets to the chagrin of the funeral home lobby. For full disclosure, we buried my father in a casket made by monks on the East Coast. As a lifetime and accomplished wood worker, the simple but elegant casket was much preferred over the garish and gaudy things sold by funeral directors. It was a beautifully hand-made wooden coffin.
Duval saw the law as little more than a monopoly secured from politicians yielding to a well-heeled lobby. He found that “there is no rational basis for the State of Louisiana to require persons who seek to enter into the retailing of caskets to undergo the training and expense necessary to comply with these rules.”
In St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, Duval noted
With the advent of the internet, consumers can now buy caskets from retailers across the country including Wal-Mart and online retailers such as Amazon.com. (T.T. at 67). This fact is salient in that Louisianians can indeed purchase from these out of state retailers who are not subject to the Act. Indeed, with the exception of an April 13, 2009 Cease and Desist Order issued to National Memorial Planning, the EFD Board has not issued any other Cease and Desist orders to out-of state casket retailers in the last ten years. (Doc. 73, Pretrial Order, Uncontested Material Fact M, at 12). Thus, it is clear that Louisiana consumers are able to buy caskets from anyone out of state—from individuals that are not licensed funeral directors and companies that are not state-licensed funeral establishments. Equally clear is that they do not enjoy this right with respect to in-state retailers. In addition, the cost of these out of state caskets can be substantially less than most caskets offered by licensed funeral directors.
Now, the Louisiana Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, indicated that his clients will appeal. Of course, any physical requirements for caskets are spelled out by regulation and can be further articulated in code. However, the regulators insist that you need professionals in dealing with people who are grieving. Yet in his stinging decision, Judge Duval noted that “the only persons being protected are the funeral directors of Louisiana and their coffers.”
Source: NOLA
Jonathan Turley
I should have phrased that better “I have no proof that Roco doesn’t also blame businesses.”
Also I lost my bet. Oh well.
@GeneH
“I know the difference between lobbying and campaign contributions. Both are graft. Both are out of control. Both are dominated by corporate interests.”
I agree with this.
“You’re the one trying to make graft by any other name acceptable, but that’s just par for your corporatist apologist course.”
This you are just making up.
OS,
Thanks for the defense. He’s more or less right though. I have no reason to think that Roco doesn’t also blame businesses. In fact, I bet that by the time I post this he’ll already have said something about wanting to hold them accountable too.
Luckily enough, logical fallacies are really only damaging when you’re relying on them to prove a point. Which I wasn’t. Consider it an experimental explosion trying to divert the path of this particular asteroid.
Or better yet, read it yourself . . .
“maybe if politicians didnt give favors out to friends, non-friends wouldnt have to pay money to other politicians for protection. I.E. your contention that industries make their own rules. Maybe they are just trying to level the playing field that their competitors inclined.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/07/is-an-economic-revolution-possible-in-the-united-states/#comment-257877
All those naughty pols with favor to sell! Who’s to blame if corporations buy it to level the playin’ field. lol
I am confused. Gyges argument, in toto, was:
That statement is a truth, couched in sarcasm. How is that a strawman, or has snark suddenly become a logical fallacy?
“Roco’s comment suggested that “it’s entirely the government’s fault” when businesses lobby. Clearly, it takes two: one to give the graft (the lobbyist) and another to accept it (the elected government official).”
Don’t tell Roco that. He thinks graft is a crime committed by a single person. Just ask him.
No, kderosa. I know the difference between lobbying and campaign contributions. Both are graft. Both are out of control. Both are dominated by corporate interests. You’re the one trying to make graft by any other name acceptable, but that’s just par for your corporatist apologist course.
OS, it is a strawman because nothing in Roco’s comment suggested that “it’s entirely the government’s fault” when businesses lobby. Clearly, it takes two: one to give the graft (the lobbyist) and another to accept it (the elected government official).
Kd, that was NOT a strawman argument by Gyges. It is well reasoned and to the point. I fail to see how you see it as a strawman–just calling something a name does not make it so. I can call a rose a turd, but by doing so will not make it smell less like a rose.
@Gyges
“Remember folks, when a business gets the government to protect its interests, it’s entirely the government’s fault. Just like when when I hire an arsonist to torch my competitions’ warehouses, only the arsonist is responsible.”
A beautifully constructed strawman.
Gyges, excellent point. Well said.
@GeneH
“Before 2000, our civil rights were pretty much intact.”
No they weren’t. Not even close.
“The “Billy Did It Too” defense doesn’t work in this instance but especially when you’re almost doubling the sample space of data. Comparing a 13 year period previous to a 21 year period previous is simply bad statistical practice. ”
You are confusing and conflating, as usual, the definitions of lobbying spending and political donations. Political donations are “campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates.” Lobbying spending is:
“In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.”
These are separate efforts. Big Labor is buying their politicians directly through enormous campaign contributions. Companies are hiring expensive lobbying firms and the like to get their agenda passed indirectly.
There’s no need to do a direct comparison to show the problem. Once again, you’ve attempted to refute the argument you wished I mads, instead of the argument I actually made. Nice try though.
“Many times government regulation is not about keeping the public safe but about keeping business safe from competition. And people wonder why i say the only monopoly are those created by government.”
Remember folks, when a business gets the government to protect its interests, it’s entirely the government’s fault. Just like when when I hire an arsonist to torch my competitions’ warehouses, only the arsonist is responsible.
To which I also respond “So what?”, kderosa. Before 2000, our civil rights were pretty much intact. Living in the past won’t get you the result you want, even if it’s the 80’s.
But to answer your question about “why lobby when you can buy” I say why not do both and cloak it in secrecy instead of doing the proper public filings . . . such as Pro-Romney Super PAC Mystery Donor Comes Forward a.k.a. former Bain Capital managing director and Romney business partner, Ed Conard.
The “Billy Did It Too” defense doesn’t work in this instance but especially when you’re almost doubling the sample space of data. Comparing a 13 year period previous to a 21 year period previous is simply bad statistical practice. That’s quite relevant given that the steady erosion of civil rights has come during the last 10 years since Bush. During the period I quoted when corporations were the major donors. If the game is pay to play, who had more input in destroying civil rights? Corporations over the last 13 years or unions over the last 21 years and who are now the minority players in the graft game and have been for the last 13 years? The one and only correct answer is corporations.
You talk a good game about individual rights, but in the end, you’re still just a corporatist apologist. Your abuse of sample spaces for comparison purposes is proof of your disingenuous nature. Then again, it’s not like anyone who has been watching you up to this point is taking you seriously.
Roco, we are better off with licensing boards than without them, but when dealing with a licensing board just keep in mind the underlying motive for the majority of the members is economic self interest.
As far as the only true monopoly being created by government, that is incorrect. Take a look at the banking industry and the health insurance industry. They have us over a barrel and both we and they know it. And those industries in particular are hell bent on consolidating their control over our economic and social system. As for the Koch brothers, they are in a class all by themselves with their increasingly concentrated power in this country.
From the court decision:
These allegations arise from the terms of the Act under which it is unlawful for anyone to conduct the business of funeral directing or to engage in the business of funeral directing as defined in La. Rev. Stat. 37:831 unless such business is conducted by a duly licensed funeral establishment. La. Rev. Stat. 37:848 (A) and (C). “Funeral directing” is defined in relevant part as “the operation of a funeral home, or, by way of illustration and not limitation, any service whatsoever connected with the management of funerals, or the supervision of hearses or funeral cars, the purchase of caskets or other funeral merchandise, and retail sale and display thereof, . . . .” La. Rev. Stat. 37: 831(35)
Now you can be sure that the Funeral Director’s lobby lobbied hard to get these laws passed. But, who is it that actually passes these laws? Anyone?
Here’s a hint.
@Roco, as a general rule of thumb you can safely assume that GeneH is always wrong. The more he protests to the contrary, the more you can be assured that the assumption is true.
kderosa:
out of the top 20 donors, 12 are unions giving exclusively or almost exclusively to democrats.
Help me out here, wouldnt that make puzzling right and Gene H wrong? Seems like it to me.
Otteray Scribe:
you are right about that. they also try and keep practioners from other states out as well.
Many times government regulation is not about keeping the public safe but about keeping business safe from competition. And people wonder why i say the only monopoly are those created by government.
As Rich pointed out, most state regulatory boards consist of members of the “regulated” profession. As boards, one of their primary interests tend to be economic–as in protecting the economic interest of themselves and their profession. Most such boards may have a token “public” member, but my experience has been that the public member knows little about the profession and tends to go along with whatever the majority wants when it comes to a vote.