Skepticseye.com

. . . the next time an advocate for clean elections funding argues that the qualifying small donations aren’t an impediment to challengers.

He’s openly admitted he prefers “clean elections” to liberty.

The Midas Watch column in this week’s New York Observer argues that corruption could kill the dollar in international capital markets:

In time, the dollar became essentially the only game in town. It still is—and I expect it will remain that way until something drastic happens to alter perceptions of this great Republic.
What might that be? Obviously, a significant alteration in the American political landscape, a sharp veer in the direction of class-war anti-capitalism led by a person on a white horse. … What’s going to bring this about? In one word: corruption. Sure, we need to get our fiscal house tidied in the ways the pundits prescribe—higher savings rate and all that—but what my common sense tells me is that the great threat to our dollar hegemony, and thus to our economic comfort if not survival, is the corruption that has permeated Washington and Wall Street in the past decade.

Permeated . . . relative to where?

I enjoyed yesterday’s conference sponsored by the University of California-in-Washington and the Election Law Journal. Though it did seem to me that the theme of the day, ostensibly the regulation of lobbying, was really more “Gee, sharp elbows are one thing, but when Republicans play rough . . . well, it just doesn’t seem quite right.” Rep. David Price pined for the days of “responsible parties” and the lockbox. (No, really).

Sensibly, Price and most other panelists that talked about the issue felt uncomfortable with fobbing ethics regulation off on some independent commission, preferring a reinvigorated congressional ethics process. Some of the vocal attendees in the audience, however, were not persuaded.

Several panelists commented that the “ethics” problem is likely not correctable with more rules and reports, but will only be solved when Members and other Hill types personally commit to ethical behavior. Which is true, but now ethics have become just another regulated area, I think that’s unlikely. You might hope that ethics rules would be a floor and that people would willingly adopt higher standards out of personal pride. Instead, the rules are standards, and just as few people willingly pay more taxes than they owe or drive below the speed limit, folks hew to the standard rather than exceeding it. Politics is very competitive, and additional compliance will be seen as foolish when it means a member, staffer or lobbyist risks becoming less influential or effective.

One surprising idea I heard came from Andrew Stark, who suggested that we don’t take seriously enough the corrupting influence of “big information” - that is, the provision of research and expertise by lobbyists, which substitute for (enhance?) professional staff work and create a debt between the officeholder and the expert. This panelist, a Canadian, seems rather sanguine about what regulating that conduct would mean - of course it would require insulating Members from viewpoints and scholarship. Which is a little scary, isn’t it?

And Rick Hasen had the quip of the afternoon, asking whether, for First Amendment purposes, lobbyists were more like children or like corporations. Catchy, eh? But there’s more to that I think - it didn’t occur to me at the time, but if the circumvention arguments for collateral campaign finance regulations are sufficiently robust (which is a question), they would seem to be able to justify restrictions on lobbyists that would otherwise run contrary to the First Amendment absent the circumvention rationale. Maybe, then, lobbyists “are” like corporations, if you see their activity, as overt agents and employees of corporations, as circumvention of the corporate contribution and expenditure ban.

You reform advocates like this argument? You can thank me later.

I know I’m a little “behind” here (but the DOS attack wasn’t forseen.) Let’s just say that I understand when “Members” may not understand the intricacies of the “widely attended event” exception to the gift limits, or how much exactly first class airfare should be . . .

But you would expect that one would know a gift of a prostitute’s services is probably not in accord with the ethics rules.

No, it doesn’t qualify as a gift out of personal friendship. Sorry to destroy that little illusion for you. And, no, it wouldn’t qualify as a widely attended event, either. I don’t care if there were two of them.

Coverage a la Wonkette. And the Post.

. . . or maybe you don’t, about Las Vegas politics (which resembles regular politics, only more flamboyant) here’s Vegas Pundit, the blog of Las Vegas Sun political columnist John Ralston. Which I like - I wish his posts were a little more expansive, but he’s probably saving up material for his other ventures.

Hey! Look! It’s independent advertising in behalf of California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides! Who knew he had rich friends?

Steve Westley’s campaign staff doesn’t like it:

Garry South charged Friday that “it defies credulity to call this an independent expenditure” because of the numerous personal and business connections between Angelides and Tsakopoulos. “Angelo Tsakopoulos, his family and developer cronies are stepping in to try to rescue their wholly owned subsidiary, Phil Angelides,” South said. “This is the most blatant an example I’ve seen to evade campaign finance laws.”

They’re you go. Evasion. Coordination-by-association. Let’s hope a group of Westly backers don’t decide to speak up themselves. Mr. South might be left eating his words.

And a candidate who can’t get a straight answer about how to handle the returned purloined funds. Venice Florida Congressional candidate Nancy Detert’s treasurer flew to South America with her campaign funds, but came back. You’d think this would be easy, but:

FEC officials say they just aren’t sure how to handle the money being paid back to Detert because they’ve never seen a case like this. Randy Maddox, who was Detert’s campaign treasurer, took $97,000 from the congressional campaign early this month and flew to South America. He was in Argentina for nine days before his parents talked him into returning to the United States, according to Detert.

When he returned, Maddox, 42, said he lost $27,000 while in Buenos Aires, so he couldn’t restore the full amount he had taken. His parents agreed to pay the rest of it back, according to Detert and an attorney representing Maddox. But FEC officials say returning the $27,000 to the candidate could violate campaign donation limits that prevent individuals from giving more than $4,200 to a candidate per election cycle.

Not if it isn’t a “contribution.” Why would an agent of a thief, returning the stolen property, be considered as having made a “contribution?” The theft wasn’t an “expenditure was it? This shouldn’t be hard. RAD is chocked full of smart analysts. So I don’t get what the problem is. Is this an indication of a vacuum in senior staff? I hope not.

Maddox is running for the seat formerly held by Katherine Harris, FYI.

Consider Bob Bauer’s thoughts about standing and the role of attorneys in test cases.

It is an enlightening thought experiment to consider how the same objections to the CCL would read if the group were more, say, Lambda in its views. Just try to assert that such a group would not be injured by its inability to sponsor advertisements opposing a federal marriage amendment and naming particular Members.

Because they should have a PAC. What’s wrong with them? Just start one. Justice Breyer thinks its that easy, so it must be.

Yesterday at the G-Sting trial, former Commissioner and accused bribe recipient Dario Herrera says — “what money?” So surprising he didn’t take the stand to admit to it all.

Meanwhile, assuming your thirst for Vegas-y blogging may not be entirely quenched, check out this blog seemingly associated with the LA Times - but much more entertainingly written.

By the way, Herrera was the beneficiary of the straw-donor activity in MUR 5305, released in March.

UPDATE: Another blogger has converted the wiretaps collected in the G-Sting investigation into Mp3s and made them available online. Kind of like a podcast, eh?