Governor Jim Douglas (no relation to William O., see below - although he does bear an eerie resemblence to Justice Kennedy) has vetoed Vermont’s replacement campaign finance law. He says the limits are still too low, and that this version is still susceptible to constitutional challenge, just as the previous law was in last year’s Randall v. Sorrell.
The Burlington Free Press has the entire veto message, in case you’re really interested.
This is just too good:
It seems far harder to put this past behind the victor in judicial than in legislative or executive campaigns. In part this is because the successful candidate for other office never really leaves the field of battle and can expect, after the brief “honeymoon,” candid performance reviews, regularly delivered. The Judge goes off to Chambers to splendid seclusion to follow the dictates of Fact and Law. Litigants must suspend disbelief and accept that this self-discipline, this nobility of purpose and purity of method, is possible for the judge who only a short time ago was an unscrupulous office-seeking politician no different from any other. The “sleazy bastard” has suddenly become His Honor. All Rise.
Voters want it both ways: the judge who heeds the vox populi, then acts independently and with the dignity befitting the office. They would like to believe that their interests are fully congruent, on the issues or large constitutional questions they most care about, with the Facts and the Law. Confronted with the impossibility of this aspiration, they favor their own interests.
Speaking of “sleazy bastards,” would William O. Douglas have sustained his “career” as long, had he been elected? Even subjecting a judge to confirmation or retention elections offers some popular involvement, and notwithstanding the dour predictions followiing the 1986 Rose Bird rejection, seem not that open to abuse.
I do not think all judges must necessarily be elected or confirmed. But states and localities that choose to do so should not be assumed inferior or “corrupt” in that choice. Both systems have their strengths.
Byron York has a great piece in the June 11 issue of National Review (sadly not in electronic form, at least as far as I can tell). Where he makes the case that there is, in fact, voter fraud.
And there is.
The argument, it seems to me, is whether voter ID laws curb the fraud. The voting rights folks say “no” - or at least “not enought to compensate for the damage caused when a voter without ID wants to vote.” Since there aren’t a lot of cases where people who are casting votes have been shown to be pretending to be someone else. — ‘Cause…. then they don’t usually GET to vote. But anyway . . .
In some of the cases York offers, if people had been voting improperly, a voter ID requirement might have taken care of that. But in cases where phony names are added to the rolls, or dead people “vote” AND there’s a real concerted effort behind that - it is a small thing to produce “ID” to satisfy the person behind the table that you are who you are. (Google “fake id” if you doubt me). Or make up some ballots. Or make up some voter sigs on the roster.
Especially if the precinct folks don’t care all that much.
I am willing to concede (mostly) that personation fraud, of the type that can be stopped with ID requirements, may not be a huge deal. I am not so sure that this means there is “no fraud” or that the concern about fraud is ill motivated. Corrupted officials remain capable of committing fraud, and - no - computerized voting doesn’t make me feel better about this. I liked punch cards, myself, with those nice hole-punch tools that made such a satisfying thwonk when you voted. And didn’t hang a chad.
And, with an ID requirement, pulling fraud off (even if it makes a passable presence election day) requires additional planning. Leaving a trail, perhaps. Involving more people. Witnesses. Records. Getting caught.
The things you come across when you’re looking for something else . . . today its a casenote from the Harvard Law Review (via JSTOR) from 1935. A snippet:
The complainant corporation, a pro-Nazi organization, proposed to hold a meeting in a hired hall …. Police forbade the scheduled meeting. The complainant sought an injunction restraining the police interference. The New Jersey constitution provided that “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”
Held, that the injunction be denied because a corporation has no right of free speech and, alternatively, because the complainant did not come into equity with clean hands. Injunction denied. American League of the Friends of New Germany v. Eastmead, 114 N. J. Eq. 487, (1934).
The note-writer isn’t convinced:
… It is true that a corporation is not entitled to all the constitutional rights of a natural person; thus, it is not guaranteed the ” privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States ” (italics inserted). [citations] . . .
A corporation is a “person ” however, where the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit depriving any ” person of . . . property without due process of law “, or the denial of ” equal protection of the law “. … Consequently, if the right to freedom of speech or of the press could be treated as a property right, as might a radio corporation’s right to broadcast, it would clearly be entitled to protection. Cf. Pierce, Governor of Oregon v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925).
Although the Supreme Court in two cases has interpreted ” liberty” in the due process clause as applying only to natural persons, the issues involved in those cases were completely different from that presented here. [citations] Moreover, many cases do tacitly recognize the right of a corporation to freedom of speech and of the press by allowing publishing companies to sue as party plaintiff for some alleged infringement of this right. … The instant case, of course, can be supported on the alternative ground of clean hands because the petitioner encouraged assaults and breaches of the peace. See Publix New Jersey Theatre, Inc. v. Flynn, IIO N. J. Eq. 160, 159 Atl. 408 (1932).
You might very well think that . . .
Myspace will be providing support and whatnot to candidates who want to use it to contact supporters and raise funds. Neat, huh?
BUT - Myspace = Newscorp. Oh. Must be bad then.
Goofy quote of the day award:
Tracy Westen, chief executive of the Center for Governmental Studies, a non-partisan research organisation, said News Corp’s involvement in online candidate fundraising “raised interesting questions”.
The company was acting “like a mass bundler”, or a fundraiser that organised lots of small donations for candidates, he said. “It creates the appearance of gaining access or influence. You get a lot of influence if you bundle hundreds of contributions. Your name will be remembered [by the candidate].”
I’m sure candidates are grateful for the services of the highway department and the weatherman, too . . . not to mention NPR (which enjoys corporate sponsorship!)
The FEC discusses values tomorrow.
In particular, the FEC has a “salary lapse.” (Sounds ominous, but I think what it means is that they can pull money from salaries and benefits and use it for stuff.) That proposal has been objected to by Commissioner Walther, so the Commission gets to discuss it publicly at tomorrows Open Meeting. Will he grandstand about lack of staff? About internal scandals? Will he have anything useful to say? We shall see.
Another values question arises in the Kerry audit, also up tomorrow. The Kerry campaign, like any publicly funded presidential campaign, must undergo an audit after the election to see whether the public money was properly spent. (No one enjoys this.) In this audit, the FEC green-eyeshade folks discovered that the Kerry for President committee sold to Kerry for Senate (the 2008 reelection committee) an email database of 1,000,000 entries. They paid $2,000,000. The FEC auditors, based on what they say are comparable sales as well as a “cost of development” theory — say this is too much, and the transaction is essentially a contribution from the senate committee to the Presidential Committee. The Commission rejected (wisely) the cost of development approach (which may or may not have anything to do with the list’s “fair market value”) but deadlocked in whether to inquire further about the valuation.
This would seem a lot to spend — but the sale went foward on January 3, 2005. So it would not have subsidized the then-over Kerry campaign. (Now, a more interesting question would be if the price had been too low, and the presidential campaign was subsidizing his current committee.) Maybe someone will argue this.
The larger point is that public subsidies for campaign inevitably lead to this sort of second-guessing. Any campaign makes decisions quickly, and presidential campaigns do so with a host of internal and external pressures. There will always be something for an auditor to second guess. So, when you read that a candidate is opting out of the public funding system — and what a shame this is — think about whether that might be their most rational managerial choice, one any candidate would take if they could afford it.
Apparently Vista/Windows gives users a whole new set of opportunities to embed metadata in documents, forget it, and expose your secrets/rejected ideas/snark to the world.
IMac, anyone?
China orders death penalty for food safety official who accepted bribes for licensing adulterated medicine.
(As you may recall, the movie The Third Man was in part about adulterated medicine. Hence the title of this post.)
He’s small, but powerful. In macrame.
Is he –
The 2008 Libertarian nominee for President (better question - should he be?)
Your landlord?
Your ex?
You?
Please answer in the “Comments” section conveniently provided adjacent to this post.
Powered by WordPress
