GMU School of Law is having a debate! This is not a discussion about whether to get married, but rather an exchange on the upcoming Virginia ballot measure.
THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION: THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON MARRIAGE AND ITS EFFECT ON OTHER AGREEMENTS
Wednesday, November 1, 2006 12:00 p.m.
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA
Room 120
(Virginia Square-GMU Orange Line Metro Stop)
The George Mason University School of Law will host a debate to explore the meaning and impact of Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage (Ballot Question #1). Cato Institute Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Mark Moller will argue that the measure threatens rights and protections currently offered to unmarried persons under Virginia law. Nelson Lund, Mason Law Vice Dean and Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment, will will argue that the amendment should not be interpreted to threaten these rights.
Personally, I think “Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment” has got to be one of the best titles ever.
The San Jose Mercury News says California’s clean elections proposition is “premature.” (Also unconstitutional, at least today).
are apparently only some of the dangers awaiting unwise voters this November. You all might enjoy this remix of audio from various political ads, set to a sort of hip-hop thing.
I think it would be funnier to set the material to a meandering folk-guitar strum, but that’s just me.
If only Dulles were dull . . . we all could do with a little less suspense created by intolerably long and inefficient security screening. What is up with Dulles?
Ruth Marcus wrote this editorial last week,, which conforms with my experience there, as we as with a close FOTS who flew out yesterday. Here’s a rather calm description of the situation, and some posts from late last year when things seemed to be working.
Avoid Dulles. That’s all I can say.
Lott and Smith have some thoughts about Air America and campaign deregulation.
Those of you web-surfing instead of editing that memo - you KNOW who you are - may like to peruse my latest SSRN working paper. On parties. And Justice Breyer.
No lampshades or exotic dancers, unfortunately. Justice Breyer doesn’t lend himself to a discussion of that kind of party.
Since a guy like Bob Casey hasn’t been so successful. Here is the letter, and an accompanying statement from three FEC Commissioners, in the AOR-2006-31 matter.
The Casey campaign asked the FEC if it could receive the lowest unit charge (LUC) from a broadcasting station, when it wanted to run ads that didn’t have the precise disclaimer that entitles a candidate to the LUC, under 47 U.S.C. 315(b). The FCC thinks that as long as broadcasters provide the discounts in a nondiscriminatory manner, they may. The FEC couldn’t render advice, however, as to whether the discount would be an illegal corporate contribution.
My guess is that this would get nowhere in enforcement, were someone to file a complaint, but even so it keeps the question somewhat open, when it really shouldn’t be.
My sources (yours too, no doubt) send me this:
FREE AND OPEN TO PUBLIC (RECEPTION TO FOLLOW)
Is Free Speech a Victim of Campaign Finance Reform?
Featuring
Burt Neuborne
Professor & Legal Director, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
VS.
Bradley Smith
Professor, Capital University Law
Former Chairman Federal Election Commission
Moderator
Jerry H. Goldfeder
Election Lawyer & Adjunct Professor at Fordham Law School
Co-Sponsors: Fordham Law Federalist Society & American Constitution Society
With one of the most competitive Congressional elections in recent history upon us, many questions are being asked about the constitutionality and efficacy of campaign finance restrictions. The Supreme Court’s recent constitutional message has been mixed: it upheld McCain–Feingold but ruled Vermont’s state election restrictions unconstitutional. On the efficacy side, critics see the rise of 527 groups as well as Presidential candidates abandoning public financing as signs of reform’s failure. Supporters point to examples of transparency and increasing competitive elections as evidence of success. Are restrictions working? What are the constitutional limits that restrict future reforms? Do the American people want more or less restrictions on their election contributions?
Monday, October 30th, 2006
6:30 P.M. Sharp
Fordham Law School
140 W 62nd Street, McNally Hall
(Corner of 62th Street and Columbus Avenue)
RSVP for this event at Thesmithfamilyfoundation.org.
This seems wrong.
At least 10 payments labeled “petty cash” for “volunteers” are listed in Lieberman’s campaign finance report, which was made public last week by the Federal Election Commission. The largest payment of $135,000 was made Aug. 4. Other cash payments in the days before the primary included $75,000 on Aug. 7 and $87,500 on Aug. 2.
Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the Lieberman campaign, said the money was used for payments to young field workers hired in the closing weeks of the primary. She said they were paid $50, $75 or $100 a day.
Sun was unable to say Saturday why the workers, some of whom appeared to have stayed for days or weeks in dormitories at the expense of the Lieberman campaign, were not listed by name and salary.
Just offhand, my guess is that the cash was used for “operating expenses,” (and probably do belong on the same Schedule B - but who knows?) but if these numbers are correct the campaign would have exceeded the $200 per payee itemization threshold.
For more exciting guidance on reporting disbursements, see the FEC Guide at p. 78.
From Time. (Does anyone still read Time?) Choice tidbit:
For an organization dedicated to holding government accountable, CREW isn’t transparent about its own operations. Organized as a 501(c)3 under federal tax laws, it does not have to reveal the names of all its donors. “I wouldn’t have any donors if I revealed all my donors,” says Sloan. However, CREW acknowledges that it has received $100,000 from the foundation of liberal financier George Soros and several annual donations of at least $10,000 from that of entertainer Barbra Streisand.
Gee, disclosure has a chilling effect (for people other than George Soros and Barbra Streisand, apparently)? Who knew?
Related post from March, here.
