Skepticseye.com

Brad Smith has lots - I mean lots - to say about the proposal to remove limits on what Leadership PACs can transfer to political parties. He winds up with this:

In other words, the proposal to eliminate restrictions on Leadership PAC transfers to party committees is primarily intended to help parties raise funds to support challengers and endangered incumbents. It is an effort to solve a problem that itself was the result of earlier “reforms;” it is an effort to get cash out of Leadership PACs and into the parties, where it will be focused on competitive races and if history is our guide, more than individual or PAC contributions, used to support challengers.

I’m not so much attracted to this story because it is about Michael Schiavo campaigning for Ned Lemont - that seems like an ordinary bad idea. But his PAC Director (yes Michael Schiavo has a PAC… don’t you?…) is named Derek “Fig” Newton.

Here’s the online PAC docs for “Terri PAC” ID No. c00417576. Their most recent filing is a notification of multicandidate status (now they get to give $5,000 per!). No Newtons, fig or other flavor, are evident there.

But this is funny.

Can you limbo with a gauntlet? That might be fun.

Personally, I’d prefer death with dignity, but do-gooders everywhere are excited (perhaps I exaggerate - mildly engaged?) about a new proposal from the usual suspects (absent Senator McCain, notably) to save the Presidential Public Financing System.

Says the Campaign Finance Institute in this morning’s email:

“the bill responds constructively to the urgent need to move forward. With more states getting ready to hold early caucuses and primaries in 2008, it is critical to make sure that the money system lets real voters, and not just the donors, make the decisions.”

Presently, donors of $250 are vitally important to the matching-funds primary system, since its that money that gets matched one-for-one. Under the proposed reform, contributions of $200 get a 4 to 1 match. So finding lots of $200 donors is very VERY important. Either way, donors remain important - as of course they will be for someone opting out of the system who needs to raise every red cent privately.

One option does, however, make it much more tempting to bundle, or if you’re a creep, find straw donors. Just a thought.

The CFI Report (from 2002 but updated in 2005) is here. The Save Public Funding for Feingold Act, or whatever it’s called, does not yet appear on Thomas (that I can find), but a press release is here, and a fact sheet is here.

Anomie and Ennui discuss the different ways the Supreme Court could hear a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

See, now I’m a dispassionate, detached academic type, I can only look on as TKS and Wonkette tell the story of Senator and Candidate McCain and how one might negotiate for the services of a “new media” type who blogs - and blogs about YOU - without making the whole thing look bad when uncovered. TKS ends his post thus:

I don’t think Hynes is a bad guy. There’s nothing wrong with working on a candidate’s PAC or on his campaign, and there’s nothing wrong with blogging about that candidate. The error is in not informing readers. I think bloggers have an obligation to disclose their relationships to entities in which they have a financially compensated relationship or interest. There’s no reason to think that anything Hynes wrote is anything less than his unvarnished opinion; but his readers ought to be informed that McCain is not just his favorite presidential contender; he is, ultimately, a client.

Okay - here’s my take, which doesn’t have much at all to do with campaign finance. I am not sure I like the term “obligation.” I think if bloggers who fancy themselves to be serious commentator types want to obtain and maintain credibility (and profile), they are well-advised to disclose who they are, and who they work for, so that readers can evaluate their opinions. Anyone visiting here who surfs around a bit will learn quite a bit about me, for instance.

But it is also acceptable to take a cute fake name, and go forth and bloviate. Readers will just factor that in when they evaluate your opinions. More to the point, if you convert your status as a blogger into professional advancement, while also operating behind a curtain, it won’t be surprising when people object. Here, Hynes has an explanation about timing that makes him a little more sympathetic. It’s still an awkward situation that might have avoided had he not been quite so aggressive … especially the Hewitt stuff. Jeez.

Bankruptcy expert and all-around great guy Jack Ayer has a blog. It doesn’t have anything to do with campaign finance, which is probably all the more reason for you to take a look!

But we’re feeling much better now, thanks to talented and helpful friends who dropped what they were doing to fix this site. We seem to be having a bit more trouble lately, for which we apologize and will attempt to remedy.

Danny Tarkanian, son of former UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian, is running for Secretary of State in Nevada. And:

If Tarkanian is elected Nevada’s top elections official, he says he’ll push for a requirement that voters show proof of citizenship when they register to vote and show a state identification card, such as a driver’s license, when they go to the polls. He’s opposed to letting people register to vote through Election Day.

I can’t wait until certain alumni of the Civil Rights Division get a hold of this. Paging Edward Blum . . .

Look. You can pledge $50,000. With the click of a mouse, you too can be heavy-hitting nonprofit donor for a day.

They might even take installments. Ask them!