I’m pleased to say that John Joseph Birkenstock joined us here in the mortal realm yesterday. No word yet on whether his father’s first preference for names was Benjamin Tillman Birkenstock.
Congrats to the Birkenstock family on this blessed event.
Here’s an upcoming event at Cato. Why is this interesting? The presenter has the “Woody Hayes Chair in National Security Studies” at Ohio State.
So, does that mean the academic so honored favors ground forces over air power? Maybe he just advocates the annihilation of Ann Arbor? Grabbing opposing forces by the throat until they cheer up?
In fairness, here’s Ohio State’s attempt to make the designation sound plausible.
Tomorrow the FEC will also be considering the advancement of good government in two other ways:
On November 30, the Commission will consider a proposed policy encouraging self-reporting of violations of FECA (also called sua sponte submissions). Self-reported matters, when accompanied by full cooperation, may be resolved more quickly and on more favorable terms than matters arising through complaints [or] referrals …
The Commission will also seek comment on a proposed pilot program offering hearings to respondents in enforcement actions pending before the Commission. … The program would provide respondents with the opportunity to present oral arguments directly to the Commission.
Now that Larry Noble is in private practice, will he continue to speak out against offering respondents a hearing? He may continue to believe that hearings are ill-advised, but I think that position would distinguish him from his colleagues in the private Bar.
… might be the next theme song for campaign treasurers everywhere. That is, under a proposal being considered Thursday at the FEC.
It would provide a “best efforts” defense for campaign treasurers who fail to file complete or accurate reports by the deadlines. At present, a “best efforts” safe harbor is available for campaigns who cannot report contributor occupation or employer details - typically because the contributor doesn’t provide them to the campaign — and can’t be forced to do so.
It would also seem this policy would have implications for campaigns who failed to report accurately activity due to the malfeasance of a rogue treasurer. The Commission is already offering an out for committees that implement certain accounting standards (SOx for politics! Weeee!) but it seems at first blush a committee might succeed with a best effort type argument when they haven’t hewn to the exact standard the FEC has articulated.
All in all, anything that favors leniency and discretion for the hapless, the small fry, and the first-timers is a good thing, in my view.
Bob Bauer explains why the 100th anniversary of the Tillman Act (next year, you know) is a proper occasion to rethink this whole corporate-ban business.
I know I haven’t been blogging much - classes are almost over - and it probably seems cheap to link to Bob. Don’t I have anything to say? Why, yes I do. I agree that the corporate contribution ban - and the later provision extending to expenditures (and unions), is wrong, unsupported as a matter of reform policy and ineffective. (Also, when you read the record of the “expenditure” aspect it seems like in many debates Congress understood the ban to reach what we would now call “in kind” contributions, not independent spending. Not that I’m a big fan of using legislative history to “make law,” but it is food for thought).
By the way, I think the anniversary is a great excuse for a conference, panel, symposium, or demonstration. Who’s with me? We can pitch a tent in front of 1113 19th Street.
The FEC has declined to answer a variety of fun questions posed by a group wanting to do political stuff without being regulated as a political committee. (After the request had already been sent back once before by the Commission for the requestor to make changes necessary to pose a proper advisory opinion request.)
If there’s anyone out there who still thinks that a definition of “political committee” - a real, applicable one - exists, well, good for you. Thirty years after Buckley, and we still don’t really know how to measure “major purpose” or what to measure it with. No, this problem wasn’t solved by BCRA. Or McConnell.
Ironically, it was some of the pro-regulation types who have been heard from time to time insisting how “clear” the law is in this area, who advocated that the FEC NOT opine on this request. At the same time, of course, they were happy to assert that clearly this group deserved to be so regulated. That being the case, why is providing specific guidance a bad idea? So what if there’s a pending enforcement matter? If you’re right, then getting this advice out sooner rather than later is a good thing.
Today’s New York Times opines:
Connecticut’s secretary of the state, Susan Bysiewicz, said the new machines will make voter recounts slower but more accurate. That is because voter intent is clearer on paper ballots, while the current machines show only totals and provide no paper record of each vote cast.
But no method of voting will entirely eliminate mistakes as long as people, and not machines, are in charge of elections.
Emphasis mine. I did not know replacing election administrators with robots was part of the plan. Who programs the robots? Hmmm?
Yes, that’s right. So, got plans?
It also happens to be my birthday. Happy Birthday to me.
It’s one that rhymes with “me.”
Milton Friedman passed away last night, at the age of 94.
I sat next to him at dinner once. It was at a south-sea themed place (Trader Vic’s in San Francisco, I believe), and he was seated in one of those rattan-type chairs with the huge round backs. While he was an economist of immense stature, he was not a big man. In fact, he was pretty small. The chair dwarfed him. I don’t think he noticed. He was very friendly, wildly opinionated, and my recollection is we had a great time.
Free to Choose (the 1980 series Friedman did for PBS) is available on DVD through Laissez Faire Books. Show you care - buy a set today!
The Commission (4-2) extends the logic of WE LEAD to Act Blue.
Which is to say, a group can raise federal hard money contributions independently for specific potential candidates, and forward them to those candidates when they become “candidates.” And have a committee to receive the funds.
Rather, than, I don’t know, giving money to the individual personally. So the person can give it back. Or tossing it into the street.
Thanks to County Chocula - I mean Commissioner CVS - for bringing forth the alternative draft.
Powered by WordPress