Cleo Fields Corruption Perception Index F (33%)

Cleo Fields Corruption decorative image

Cleo Fields’ Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is F (33%). It details him as highly corrupt based on current and past issues. For example, ethics fines, False Claims Act scrutiny, and allegations of insider trading are a few. Also, his gerrymandering effort benefited his 2024 congressional bid. Further, a historical 1997 FBI video of him accepting $20,000 cash from former Governor Edwin Edwards, is a suspected bribe. He also faced a State Supreme Court bar from running for reelection in 2007. 

CPI for Democratic Candidates Overview

Basically, this overview highlights where the Louisiana Democratic party is lacking by exposing networks that allow corruption. The average CPI score is a B (85%). While 14 candidates have scored A for their corruption levels, 4 candidates in leadership positions failed. They have stayed stagnant or got worse. One candidate scored a B.

Democrat candidates U.S. Senate, U.S. House 2026Corruption Score is based on three data sources. 5 total points possible for each one.
Data SourceMoney IssuedMoney ReceivedDisclosures or conflicts
5 total points possible for each one555
Total (cumulative):15
Candidate AverageB85%5.03.84.0
Nick AlbaresA100%555
Gary CrockettA100%555
Jamie DavisF56%51.42
Lauren JewettF56%51.42
Jim LongA100%555
Troy Carter SrF53%503
Renada CollinsA97%4.854.8
John DayB80%552
Tia LeBrunA100%555
Caleb WalkerA93%554
Conrad CableA100%555
Matt GromlichA100%555
Jessee FleenorA100%555
Larry FoyA100%555
Lindsay GarciaA100%555
Dan McKayA100%555
Tania NymanA100%555
Cleo FieldsF33%500

Cleo Fields Corruption Perception Index

Ethics Disclosures and Campaign Finance- Issues found

Ethics Fines

Recently, the Louisiana Ethics Board denied Cleo Fields’ appeal to waive fines related to missing campaign finance reporting deadlines. These fines stemmed from a 2019, 1997, and 1999 reports for his state senate campaigns.

Active Account: As of late 2023, the account in question still had $3,470 in remaining contributions. It also had over $300,000 in outstanding loans. 

Fields, CleoLOUISIANA BOARD OF ETHICSCampaign finance fine12/15/2025$2,510.00

Pandemic Oversight

The Fields Law Firm– No issues found

PPP Loans- Cleo Fields is being scrutinized for accepting donations from businesses that received taxpayer backed PPP disaster assistance. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the need for the loan.

False Claims Act

The investigation into loan fraud among disaster recovery recipients and Louisiana politicians highlights concerns about the legitimacy of taxpayer-funded assistance. Over 100 businesses donated politically after receiving nearly $200 million in federal funds. Calls for accountability include repayments from recipients who misused funds. Government scrutiny of fraudulent PPP loans persists.

Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

Receiving donations from a federal award recipient is generally not a direct legal conflict of interest for a Congressman. This applies as long as the funds are legal campaign contributions and not direct bribes. Still, it raises significant ethical concerns about the appearance of influence. If the donation is funded by the grant itself, it is prohibited lobbying.

For instance, in November of 2023, Cleo Fields accepted donations from Ray J’s College of Hair. Since then, from 2024-2026, the Department of Education issued over $570,000 in taxpayer funded federal awards to the college.

Fields, CleoRAY J’S COLLEGE OF HAIR, LLC11/21/2023$2,500.00

Join the Campaign for Judicial Integrity in Louisiana

Cleo Fields issued at least $10,000 to judicial campaigns. 

Marcelle, C. DeniseCLEO FIELDS CAMPAIGN FUND7/25/2019$250.00
Marcelle, C. DeniseCLEO FIELDS12/7/2018$500.00
Marcelle, C. DeniseCLEO FIELDS CAMPAIGN FUND10/20/2020$5,000.00
Fields, WilsonCLEO FIELDS6/23/2010$2,500.00
Fields, WilsonCLEO FIELDS1/25/2025$2,500.00

Insider Trading

Several media outlets have reported on the insider trading allegations involving Cleo Fields’s conveniently-timed stock trades.

News website NOTUS reported that Cleo Fields purchased nearly $300k of Oracle stock. This occurred in the days leading up to the public announcement of Oracle’s acquisition of Tik Tok. Fields’s membership on the House Committee on Financial Services has raised further red flags. Thus, leading some to believe that Fields violated Congressional “insider trading” laws (i.e. purchasing a company’s stock based on non-public information).

US Congressmen are prohibited from engaging in “insider trading” under the STOCK Act (2012).

Gerrymandering

Cleo Fields colluded with Republican Governor Jeff Landry in 2024 to create a gerrymandered US Congressional map that benefited Fields. One day after Landry signed the new law, Fields announced his bid for the 6th US Congressional district for 2024.

Background

In 1997, the FBI released video footage of Democratic congressman, Cleo Fields accepting $20k cash from former Governor Edwin Edwards. In the FBI tape, Governor Edwards talked about a deal for a casino license.

Edwards said, “You need to make sure that everyone involved is careful about how that’s passed out.” Fields had just run unsuccessfully for governor and said he had a $180,000 campaign debt.”

Further, the State Supreme Court barred Fields from running for reelection in 2007. This was due to questions about his official residency during his 2019 run for the State Senate.

How is the CPI measured? 

The CPI index ranks candidates on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). For consistency, the total scores were based on these three principles:

  1. Campaign contributions issued (5 points)
  2. Campaign contributions received (5 points)
  3. Disclosures/conflicts of interest (5 points)

Only when candidates scored 15 for the whole package did they score 100 percent. 

Campaigns are dynamic, so we welcome your feedback. If you see a candidate’s position has changed, send us an email to info@motiontoquash.org with the new information.

Recognized by the NWC, Tracie Burke is author of Motion to Quash. M2Q supports the Whistleblower Protection Act. If you would like to support journalism in the public interest, click here to donate. Motion to Quash ISSN 2644-1594 is the copyrighted property of Motion to Quash LLC .

internal link
external link
Dr. Frederick Graves d/b/a Jurisdictionary authorized this ad.
external link

$500 can get you two banners for an entire month. This includes ads across the M2Q website using both branding and call-to-action. Click here to buy ads or use the QR code. Thank you!

CPI for Democratic Candidates U.S. Senate, U.S. House

This CPI scores the Louisiana Democratic candidates in the 2026 U.S. Senate and House elections. It highlights a decline in Democratic leadership’s commitment to tackling corruption in Louisiana. The overview notes that while 14 candidates scored an A, four candidates in Louisiana Democratic leadership positions failed the corruption test.

internal link

This corruption perception index (CPI) focuses on the Louisiana Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives for the 2026 elections. M2Q (Motion to Quash LLC) uses the CPI to measure how corrupt candidates are perceived to be, according to experts. Presently, the CPI is the most widely used corruption ranking in the world.

According to the CPI, we’re seeing a decline in Louisiana Democratic leadership to tackle corruption. Specifically, some DPEC leaders persistently try to prevent journalists and whistleblowers from challenging abuses of power. Thus, reducing transparency and accountability. Standing against corruption in Louisiana is hard to achieve, but we won’t give up- and you shouldn’t either!

CPI for Democratic Candidates Overview

This overview highlights where the Louisiana Democratic party is lacking by exposing networks that allow corruption. The average CPI score is a B (85%). While 14 candidates have scored A for their corruption levels, 4 candidates in leadership positions failed. They have stayed stagnant or got worse. One candidate scored a B.

CPI for Democratic candidates decorative image
Democrat candidates U.S. Senate, U.S. House 2026
Corruption Score is based on three data sources.
5 total points possible for each one.
Data SourceMoney IssuedMoney ReceivedDisclosures/ conflicts
5 total points possible for each one555
Total (cumulative):15
Candidate AverageB85%5.03.84.0
Nick AlbaresA100%555
Gary CrockettA100%555
Jamie DavisF56%51.42
Lauren JewettF56%51.42
Jim LongA100%555
Troy Carter SrF53%503
Renada CollinsA97%4.854.8
John DayB80%552
Tia LeBrunA100%555
Caleb WalkerA93%554
Conrad CableA100%555
Matt GromlichA100%555
Jessee FleenorA100%555
Larry FoyA100%555
Lindsay GarciaA100%555
Dan McKayA100%555
Tania NymanA100%555
Cleo FieldsF33%500

M2Q offers data driven insights on corruption. In particular, we work toward systematic change in anti-corruption. We generally focus on issues with the greatest impact on Louisiana citizens. Additionally, we hold the powerful to account for the common good and build coalitions to change the status quo.

How is the CPI measured? 

The CPI index ranks candidates on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). For consistency, the total scores were based on these three principles:

  1. Campaign contributions issued (5 points)
  2. Campaign contributions received (5 points)
  3. Disclosures/conflicts of interest (5 points)

Only when candidates scored 15 for the whole package did they score 100 percent. 

Campaigns are dynamic, so we welcome your feedback. If you see a candidate’s position has changed, send us an email to info@motiontoquash.org with the new information.

Recognized by the NWC, Tracie Burke is author of Motion to Quash. M2Q supports the Whistleblower Protection Act. If you would like to support journalism in the public interest, click here to donate. Motion to Quash ISSN 2644-1594 is the copyrighted property of Motion to Quash LLC .

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

external link
Dr. Frederick Graves d/b/a Jurisdictionary authorized this ad.

$500 can get you two banners for an entire month. This includes ads across the M2Q website using both branding and call-to-action. Click here to buy ads or use the QR code. Thank you!

Troy Carter Corruption Perception Score F (53%)

Troy Carter Corruption Perception Score decorative image

Troy Carter Sr. earned an F (53%) Corruption Perception Score based on the M2Q (Motion to Quash) index. Each election, M2Q assesses public sector corruption practices like bribery, misuse of public funds, and abuse of office. The scorecard highlights several issues, including ethics fines, a donation to the One Community Foundation, and donations from gaming. It also highlights donations from the pharmaceutical industry. Additionally, Carter received donations from businesses that received PPP loans, raising concerns about ties to loan fraud and political contributions.

decorative image
Democrat
candidates
U.S. Senate,
U.S. House 2026

5 total points possible for each one
Data SourceIssuedReceivedDisclosures
conflicts
5 total points
possible
for each
555
Candidate
Average
B85%5.03.84.0
Nick
Albares
A100%555
Gary
Crockett
A100%555
Jamie
Davis
F56%51.42
Lauren
Jewett
F56%51.42
Jim
Long
A100%555
Troy
Carter
F53%503
Renada
Collins
A97%4.854.8
John
Day
B80%552
Tia
LeBrun
A100%555
Caleb
Walker
A93%554
Conrad
Cable
A100%555
Matt
Gromlich
A100%555
Jessee
Fleenor
A100%555
Larry
Foy
A100%555
Lindsay
Garcia
A100%555
Dan
McKay
A100%555
Tania
Nyman
A100%555
Cleo
Fields
F33%500

Troy Carter Corruption Perception

Ethics Fines

In 2019 and 2021, Troy Carter paid $6,500 to the state for docket proceedings and for Ethics fines.

Carter, Troy AnthonyLOUISIANA STATE TREASURERCampaign Report Late Fees3/25/2021$4,000.00
Carter, Troy AnthonyTREASURY OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANADocket Proceeding7/25/2019$2,500.00

Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

One Community Foundation- Active

Troy Carter’s campaign donated $2,000 to the organization, solely owned by Carter. Additionally, no Form 990N was found for One Community Foundation. This requires due diligence. 

One Community Foundation has received 2 grants from 2 grantmakers totaling $9,100 according to the most recent available data.

Carter, Troy AnthonyONE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION11/21/2017$2,000.00

Troy Carter Corruption Perception

Gaming

Troy Carter received at least $6,500 from the gaming industry. M2Q considers it unethical for politicians to accept money from the gambling industry. This is primarily due to concerns over conflicts of interest, the influence of special interests on public policy, and addiction. In essence, these donations often act as “legalized bribery,” where corporations buy influence to shape regulation.

SourceDateAmount
METRO GAMING & AMUSEMENT COMPANY2/16/2016$500.00
REDMAN GAMING OF LOUISIANA, LLC2/22/2016$1,000.00
METRO GAMING & AMUSEMENT COMPANY3/6/2018$500.00
ADVANCED GAMING DISTRIBUTORS, LLC3/2/2020$1,000.00
METRO GAMING & AMUSEMENT COMPANY3/3/2020$1,000.00
POWER GAMING, LLC2/26/2020$500.00
CHALMETTE AMUSEMENT CO. INC.3/3/2020$1,000.00
RIVERBEND TRUCKSTOP & PALACE CASINOS, INC2/22/2016$1,000.00

Pandemic Oversight

Basically, investigations into loan fraud among disaster recovery recipients and Louisiana politicians highlights concerns about the legitimacy of taxpayer-funded assistance. Specifically, over 100 businesses donated politically after receiving nearly $200 million in federal funds. This calls for accountability, including repayments from recipients who misused funds.

During the pandemic, Troy Carter received thousands of dollars from businesses after they received PPP loans. Actually, this is only a partial list taken into account for Carter’s corruption perception score.

GORDON MCKERNAN INJURY ATTORNEYS, LLC3/2/2020$500.00
METRO GAMING & AMUSEMENT COMPANY3/3/2020$1,000.00
CHALMETTE AMUSEMENT CO. INC.3/3/2020$1,000.00
ADVANCED GAMING DISTRIBUTORS, LLC$1,000.00
ADAMS AND REESE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE2/13/2020$500.00
GORDON MCKERNAN INJURY ATTORNEYS, LLC3/2/2020$500.00

These taxpayer backed funds were meant for struggling businesses. Issuing generous campaign contributions after receiving PPP loans raises concerns about the legitimacy of the need for assistance.  

Troy Carter Corruption Perception

Pharmaceutical Industry

When politicians accept significant funding from the pharmaceutical industry, it creates a conflict of interest. It makes it questionable whether they can impartially deliberate on legislation for drug pricing or regulation.

PFIZER INC9/26/2019$500.00
PHRMA12/15/2020$750.00
PHRMA2/29/2020$500.00
PHRMA2/28/2018$500.00
PHRMA11/13/2017$500.00
PHRMA12/22/2016$500.00

Act Blue- Online platforms are scrutinized for giving bad actors a medium to make illegal campaign contributions.

How is corruption perception measured? 

The index is published before elections by Motion to Quash since 2019. It ranks candidates on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). For consistency, the total scores were based on these three principles:

  1. Campaign contributions issued (5 points)
  2. Campaign contributions received (5 points)
  3. Disclosures/conflicts of interest (5 points)

Only when candidates scored 15 for the whole package did they score 100 percent. 

Campaigns are dynamic, so we welcome your feedback. If you see a candidate’s position has changed, send us an email to info@motiontoquash.org with the new information.

Recognized by the NWC, Tracie Burke is author of Motion to Quash. M2Q supports the Whistleblower Protection Act. If you would like to support journalism in the public interest, click here to donate. Motion to Quash ISSN 2644-1594 is the copyrighted property of Motion to Quash LLC .

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

external link
This ad is authorized by by Dr. Frederick Graves d/b/a Jurisdictionary

Advertise with Motion to Quash LLC

Troy Carter corrption perception external link

$500 can get you two banners for an entire month. This includes ads across the M2Q website using both branding and call-to-action. Click here to buy ads or use the QR code. Thank you!

Jamie Davis Corruption Perception Score F (56%)

This index focuses on Louisiana DPEC members and U.S. Senate candidate Jamie Davis, who earned a corruption perception score of F (56%), indicating he is perceived as more corrupt than not. The low score is attributed to issues surrounding the False Claims Act and nefarious campaign finance activity. M2Q suggests support for H.R. 6893-SCAM PAC Act to address such issues.

Jamie Davis Corruption Perception Score decorative image

With a corruption perception score of F (56%), Louisiana DPEC member Jamie Davis is perceived as more corrupt than not. Specifically, the Democratic Candidate for the U.S.Senate earned a low score for issues surrounding the False Claims Act. Additionally, his nefarious campaign finance activity strengthens the need to support H.R.6893 – SCAM PAC Act.*

What is the M2Q Corruption Score? The Motion to Quash (M2Q) Corruption Score is an index of multiple sources. These sources are combined to produce an overall score.**

decorative image

Corruption Perception Scores for Democratic Candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House

Democrat candidates U.S. Senate, U.S. House 2026
Corruption Score is based on three data sources in row 2.
5 total points possible for each one in Row 3.
Scores are calculated in columns C/D
Data SourceMoney IssuedMoney ReceivedDisclosures or conflicts
5 total points possible for each one555
Total (cumulative):15
Candidate AverageB85%5.03.84.0
Nick AlbaresA100%555
Gary CrockettA100%555
Jamie DavisF56%51.42
Lauren JewettF56%51.42
Jim LongA100%555
Troy Carter SrF53%503
Renada CollinsA97%4.854.8
John DayB80%552
Tia LeBrunA100%555
Caleb WalkerA93%554
Conrad CableA100%555
Matt GromlichA100%555
Jessee FleenorA100%555
Larry FoyA100%555
Lindsay GarciaA100%555
Dan McKayA100%555
Tania NymanA100%555
Cleo FieldsF33%500

Source data

We capture expert assessments of various public sector corruption practices, like bribery, campaign finance abuse, and misuse of public funds.

The M2Q corruption perception index is a powerful representation of the stand against corruption in. It serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and honesty in our political system. Specifically, the scorecards offer precise and reliable judgment in the stand against corruption.

*Includes contributions from gaming interests, pharmaceuticals, or conflicts. It also includes any entity that received federal money in the form of contracts, grants, loans, or other financial assistance. Candidates are not penalized for funding their own campaigns. 

**You can find the Ethics Disclosures and campaign finance reports on either the Louisiana Ethics Board or FEC websites. Also, you can find Federal Award profiles at USA Spending.

Jamie Davis Peception Score F 56 external link

Jamie Davis Corruption Perception Score F (56%)

Ethics Disclosures– Issues found

Campaign Finance Abuse-Issues found

Pandemic Oversight

The federal government continues a quiet but active campaign against Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) recipients believed to have committed fraud. It continues to focus on civil False Claims Act cases.

According to M2Q, Jamie Davis is being scrutinized for receiving donations from PPP loan participants. Actually, this is only one example. Check back occasionally for updates, as more info becomes available.

Davis, JamesB.A. ADAMS8/11/2023$1,000.00

During the pandemic, these taxpayer backed funds were meant for struggling businesses. Thus, issuing generous campaign contributions after receiving PPP loans raises concerns about the legitimacy of the need for assistance.  

Simply receiving donations is not enough to prompt an investigation under the False Claims Act. But, generous political contributions from PPP disaster recovery recipients are open to question. Thus, donations linked with reports of Ethics complaints, or IRS violations are enough evidence to lead to criminal prosecution.


Re: Petition for the Issuance and/or Amendment of Rules Regarding Contributions from Untraceable Electronic Payment Methods


Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)– Issues found

Filer NameSourceDateAmount
Forestry Political Action Council
(FORPAC)
JAMES “JAMIE”
DAVIS, JR
11/15/2023$1,000.00

H.R.6893 – SCAM PAC Act


Method

How do we measure corruption scores? 

Since 2019, Motion to Quash has published this index before elections. Basically, it ranks candidates on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). For consistency, it measures the total scores based on three principles:

  1. Campaign contributions issued (5 points)
  2. Campaign contributions received (5 points)
  3. Disclosures/conflicts of interest (5 points)

Only when candidates scored 15 for the whole package did they score 100 percent. 

Campaigns are dynamic, so we welcome your feedback. If you see a candidate’s position has changed, send us an email to info@motiontoquash.org with the new information, or use the contact form below.

Recognized by the NWC, Tracie Burke is author of Motion to Quash. M2Q supports the Whistleblower Protection Act. If you would like to support journalism in the public interest, click here to donate. Motion to Quash ISSN 2644-1594 is the copyrighted property of Motion to Quash LLC .

Jamie Davis Corruption Perception F 56 internal link

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

external link
Dr. Frederick Graves d/b/a Jurisdictionary authorized this ad.
external link

Advertise with Motion to Quash LLC

$500 can get you two banners for an entire month. This includes ads across the M2Q website using both branding and call-to-action. Click here to buy ads or use the QR code. Thank you!

external link

Lauren Jewett Corruption Perception Score: F (56%)

Lauren Jewett Corruption Perception Score: F (56%)

lauren jewett corruption perception decorative image
decorative image

This focus is on the alleged corruption surrounding candidate for U.S. House Dist.1, Lauren Jewett. She scored an “F (59%)” Corruption Perception Score from Motion to Quash (M2Q). This index assesses public sector corruption and campaign finance abuse. Additionally, M2Q criticizes KIPP in New Orleans, which operates within a controversial charter system. M2Q labels it a programmatic failure due to allegations of special education law violations. Other issues include, “abhorrent conditions,” improper disciplinary practices, high teacher turnover, and low college persistence rates.

What is the M2Q Corruption Score? The Motion to Quash (M2Q) Corruption Score is an index of multiple sources. These sources are merged to produce an overall score.*

Democrat candidates U.S. Senate, U.S. House 2026
Corruption Score is based on three data sources in row 2.
5 total points possible for each one in Row 3.
Scores are calculated in columns C/D
Data SourceMoney IssuedMoney ReceivedDisclosures or conflicts
5 total points possible for each one555
Total (cumulative):15
Candidate AverageB85%5.03.84.0
Nick AlbaresA100%555
Gary CrockettA100%555
Jamie DavisF56%51.42
Lauren JewettF56%51.42
Jim LongA100%555
Troy Carter SrF53%503
Renada CollinsA97%4.854.8
John DayB80%552
Tia LeBrunA100%555
Caleb WalkerA93%554
Conrad CableA100%555
Matt GromlichA100%555
Jessee FleenorA100%555
Larry FoyA100%555
Lindsay GarciaA100%555
Dan McKayA100%555
Tania NymanA100%555
Cleo FieldsF33%500

 Source data

The goal is to capture expert assessments of various public sector corruption practices. This includes bribery and misuse of public funds. It also involves abuse of public office for personal gain.

The M2Q corruption perception score is a powerful representation of the stand against corruption in Louisiana. It serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and honesty in our political system. The scorecards offer precise and reliable judgment of campaign finance abuse. They give sound judgment particularly for those interested in elections and the stand against corruption.

**M2Q obtained campaign finance reports from the Louisiana Ethics Board website. Federal Award profiles were found at: https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient

USA Spending external link

Lauren Jewett Corruption Perception Score: F (56%)

Ethics Disclosures– Issues found

Campaign Finance– Issues found.

Pandemic Oversight

The U.S. Government is quietly but actively pursuing a campaign against Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) recipients believed to have committed fraud. The government is expected to continue to pursue civil False Claims Act cases.

Essentially, these taxpayer backed funds were meant for struggling businesses for disaster assistance. So, issuing generous campaign contributions after receiving PPP loans raises concerns about the legitimacy of the need for assistance.  

Receiving donations is not enough to prompt an investigation. But, generous political contributions from PPP disaster recovery recipients offer enough evidence to lead to criminal prosecution.

The investigation into loan fraud among disaster recovery recipients and Louisiana politicians highlights concerns about the legitimacy of taxpayer-funded assistance. Over 100 businesses donated politically after receiving nearly $200 million in federal funds. Calls for accountability include repayments from recipients who misused funds and government scrutiny of fraudulent PPP loans persists.

False Claims Act

Lindsey Cheek

In 2020, Lindsey Cheek received a taxpayer backed PPP loan of 73,035. Later, Cheek issued $500 to help finance Lauren Jewett’s campaign.This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the need for disaster assistance. These funds were meant for struggling small businesses, not for political contributions. 

Jewett, LaurenLINDSEY CHEEK8/25/2023$500.00

David Levy admitted, “My business got, I think $350k in PPP loans, and I donated more to the Jewett campaign.” M2Q found that PETROTECHNOLOGIES, INC received $186,035 including interest in forgivable loans in the first round in 2020. In the second round in 2021, PETROTECHNOLOGIES, INC received $172,115. That is a significant amount of money. Fraud schemes like these are costliest for taxpayers.


MUR 7062

Numero, Inc– The Federal Election Commission (FEC) conducted a matter (MUR 7062) involving Numero, Inc., which was finalized around 2020 about potential campaign finance issues.


Re: Petition for the Issuance and/or Amendment of Rules Regarding Contributions from Untraceable Electronic Payment Methods


Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

KIPP- A Programmatic Failure and “abhorrent conditions” 

KIPP in New Orleans faces criticism as a programmatic failure, contributing to a broader, unstable, and inequitable charter system. In particular, allegations include violating special education laws, improper student disciplinary practices, and low college persistence rates. Further, the network has struggled with high teacher turnover, inadequate support for vulnerable students.

Recently, KIPP neglected to offer required services for an impaired student, which ultimately led to legal disputes with the district. It also caused operational disputes. Additionally, KIPP suspended or expelled students without proper due process, in violation of state laws.

Despite a, “college for all” mission, KIPP New Orleans has struggled with college persistence rates, notes NPR.

Further, KIPP is the largest charter operator in an “all-charter” system. Yet, it operates within a framework criticized for causing high school turnover. This framework also disrupts education for students, say The Progressive and Diane Ravitch’s blog.

Finally, the network has faced criticism for high turnover rates, which impacts the consistency of the educational program, notes EXPOSEDbyCMD

Lauren Jewett Corruption Perception decorative image
Lauren Jewett Corruption Perception decorative image

Method

How do we measure corruption scores? 

Since 2019, Motion to Quash has published this index before elections. Basically, it ranks candidates on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). For consistency, it measures the total scores based on three principles:

  1. Campaign contributions issued (5 points)
  2. Campaign contributions received (5 points)
  3. Disclosures/conflicts of interest (5 points)

Only when candidates scored 15 for the whole package did they score 100 percent. 

Campaigns are dynamic, so we welcome your feedback. If you see a candidate’s position has changed, send us an email to info@motiontoquash.org with the new information, or use the contact form below.

Recognized by the NWC, Tracie Burke is author of Motion to Quash. M2Q supports the Whistleblower Protection Act. If you would like to support journalism in the public interest, click here to donate. Motion to Quash ISSN 2644-1594 is the copyrighted property of Motion to Quash LLC .

Sign up for M2Q updates by using the contact form. If you want, you can unsubscribe anytime.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

external link
This ad is authorized by by Dr. Frederick Graves d/b/a Jurisdictionary

Advertise with Motion to Quash LLC


Get two banners in front of your target audience for an entire month. An effective advertising campaign will include placing ads across the Motion to Quash website using both branding and call-to-action messages. Click here to buy ads or use the QR code.

external link

Candidate Scorecard 7th Senatorial District

By Tracie Burke | Motion to Quash LLC | May 26, 2021

Candidate Scorecard 7th Senatorial District external llink

Integrity is a top issue facing Louisiana voters. Unfair business practices and long standing financial connections are breeding grounds for corruption. This scorecard focuses on the 7th Senatorial District. Download the spreadsheet to see how candidates scored on integrity this election.

We based the candidate integrity scores on these three principles:

  1. Campaign Contributions Issued
  2. Campaign Contributions Received
  3. Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

Click here to view the SCORECARD. You can download and print the complimentary spreadsheet. Click on the grades tab to view each Candidate’s folder.

METHOD

M2Q method grades candidates based on the number of critical issues for anti-corruption. These issues are listed in the candidate scorecard and divided into three overarching principles. We believe all of these issues are crucial for candidate integrity. 

For consistency, we assigned a total possible score of 5 for each principle. For the sake of consistency, we treat individual issues equally. Calculating fewer of these critical issues gets candidates a higher score. Only when they score 15 for the whole package do they score 100 percent.

We compiled candidate information from their campaign websites, in interviews, or from public and private sources. 

Campaigns are dynamic, so we welcome your feedback. If you see a candidate’s position has changed, send us an email to info@motiontoquash.org  with the new information.

Louisiana State Senate District 7, Special Primary

June 12, 2021

Note: This Special Primary Election is an all-party primary, in which all candidates from each party compete to receive a majority vote. If no candidate receives 50% of the total votes cast, the top two vote recipients will advance to a Special General Election on July 10, 2021.

Early Voting for Primary Election- Friday, May 28, 2021 – Saturday, June 5, 2021

Primary Election Day- Saturday, June 12, 2021

General Runoff Date (if applicable)- Saturday, July 10, 2021

Important Links:

https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_State_Senate_District_7

https://senate.la.gov/

https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Pages/default.aspx/

Recognized by the NWC, Tracie Burke is author of Motion to Quash. M2Q supports the Whistleblower Protection Act. If you would like to support journalism in the public interest, click here to donate. Motion to Quash ISSN 2644-1594 is the copyrighted property of Motion to Quash LLC .