Skepticseye.com

Chuck Bell, California election lawyer and all around great guy, has things to say about delegate selection and state interference in party governance.

It didn’t turn out like you’d expect.

Here’s another link - just because I can.

The most recent issue, just received in our library, is “Summer 2006.”  (The most recent issue featured on the webpage is from 2005, so I shouldn’t feel neglected).  Looking for articles in the issue about the law of politics?  Look in vain.  There are three (three!) pieces: one on reparations, one on choosing the Chief Justice, and one on happiness as public policy.

I’m all for being happy, make no mistake.  But is nothing happening in the world of election administration, governmental ethics, corruption and criminal law, campaign finance, ballot access, voting rights, etc. etc. etc. . . . ?  Is no one writing about these areas?  Has the journal gone to pieces?

I’d like to know.  My one experience with the journal, in 1993, was quite pleasant.  I wish it well.

Its the Centennial of the Tillman Act!

The Washington Examiner celebrates. Wonder whether they’ll invest in the confetti.

That’s the way the investigation ends, apparently.

During this reporting period, the OIG completed an investigation that involved allegations of misconduct by several senior management officials. The alleged misconduct included a violation of a criminal conflict of interest law. As a result of the allegations, in November 2005, the OIG initiated a joint criminal investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office. Over the course of several months, the investigative team interviewed over twenty-six witnesses, reviewed thousands of electronic and paper records, executed a search warrant and performed other investigative work in order to obtain the facts surrounding the allegations.

During the investigation, additional evidence of administrative misconduct was uncovered by the OIG involving other employees. When appropriate, the OIG promptly forwarded the facts to management for further review.

In September 2006, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia ultimately declined to prosecute the primary subject of the investigation. Except for one employee, all of the subjects of the investigation retired, separated, or were terminated from the agency. At the conclusion of the investigation, the OIG recommended FEC management review the facts of the investigation and consider disciplinary action against one of the subjects who is still employed by the agency.

See page 18 of the IG report, linked above. For context, in case you forgot what this was all about, see here.

Brad Smith isn’t impressed when memberless groups complain about grassroots lobbying.

The FEC’s two top career lawyers are movin’ on up. Good for them! Good for the private firm that apparently understands the importance of taking this area seriously. (Say hello to Winston the talking bulldog for me!)
Reading anything more into this is just weird and untethered. Sorry. It is impressive that this speculation can form the basis for a two-column Post article.

. . . is now available for your listening pleasure.

Well, it was a fine day to see a Supreme Court oral argument, and we did.  We noticed for the first time that among the specifications for Bar member’s dress - furs are not permitted.  Was this a problem at some point in the past?

The argument in Davenport was engaging and worrisome.  I fear that if the Court adopts a “election integrity” rationale for the opt-in dues requirement, that could open an entirely new area of regulations applicable to the private internal arrangements of groups.  Unions here argue that they are being singled out - but unions in general are singled out in the law since they have the capacity to collect agency fees from nonmembers in the first instance.  The Junior League or Chamber of Commerce can’t come by your house and force you to pay dues.
I predict the Washington Supreme Court’s decision will be reversed, but hope that the rationale is the protection of nonmember rights rather than some amorphous “integrity” argument.  I mean, if Washington were so concerned about union participation in its elections, why is it legal in Washington for unions to make general treasury expenditures at all?

Justice Alito asked the best question, I think, which was along the lines of “If an opt-in requirement isn’t that burdensome and these people aren’t members anyway, how is it that the First Amendment tolerates anything except an opt-in requirement.”  Solicitor General Clement tried to distinguish “compulsion” as in not being able to object, with needing to assent in order for the unioin to use your money.  He got a little bogged down in what standard a court might look at to determine whether the union’s “consent” procedures were sufficient.

The whole point, of course, is that people are busy and unions may not be completely straightforward about providing a process for oppting-out.  One could argue that if there’s such a record, a state could decide to protect nonmember political association interests by enacting something like Washington’s law.

Fred Fielding as White House Counsel.

He’s quite a guy.  Good call, I think.  Best of luck.