That means:
The Washington State & Grange v. Washington Parties case is being argued today at the USSC. Will the parties again be able to control who runs and votes for party candidates? The suspense is killing me. (Sadly, I’m not attending.)
Comments on the WRTL rulemaking are due! Just write any old thing. It’s not like anyone reads them . . . - they do? Oops. . . .
And its 30 days until Halloween! Something to get you into the proper frame of mind.
At least I think that’s what is going on. So the late great California Electoral College initiative is fading into the sunset.
If you don’t get the title to this post, don’t worry. Apparently nobody else gets it either.
U.S. News and World report has a story about the rise of bundlers, that is, well, confused:
Bundling took off after the passage of the 2002 bipartisan campaign finance law, which limited direct individual donations to $2,300. That modest ceiling sent campaigns in search of well-connected supporters who would persuade others to write campaign checks, package them together, and give them to the candidate.
Whereas, when the limit was $1,000, there was less incentive to bundle? I thinik you might be able to trace the rise of bundling (stipulating for argument’s sake there IS one) to the abolition of soft money fundraising. You may also - more likely- trace it to the Amway-esque organization of GWB fundraising a la 1999-2000. Imitation and sincere forms of flattery and all that . . .
We’ve got bloggers! If you haven’t already, check out the impressive Hsu array here. Of course, there may be some inaccuracies depending on the completeness of the donor information provided (and reported) - garbage in means garbage out.
It would seem, if straw donors are at work here, they showed some gumption in using real (and distinctive) names. If you were really donating through third parties and hoping to escape detection, wouldn’t you be looking for Smiths, Johnsons, and Joneses?
How are we suppose to observe Constitution Day without an appropriate greeting card? Clearly there is an opportunity here for some clever marketing professional..
I predict that, over time, a tradition will arise of presenting to one’s dear friends a plant, in recognition that plants, like the Constitution, are living things.
on Section 5 of the Voting Rights act, and the ability of a sweet little municipal utility district to opt out of the preclearance requirements. Poor thing. (Edward Blum opines here.)
Surely, if the mothers ruled the world, they would be allowed to . . .
Look, from here it appears that if “the mothers ruled the world” Edie Falco would have won.
I wonder how much they spend on advertising . . .
Maybe the subjects of recent 527 enforcement activity do - if only to deflect a little attention . . . since the Anti-Saloon League was prominently pursued in the 1920s for its failure to file as a political committee (it resisted because it argued that its activities were educational, scientific and charitable). No matter - the Prohibition Party is holding its Convention!
In The League’s day, voter persuasion - oh, I mean “public education” - was achieved through the use of plays and poetry. To wit:
If you knew the dreadful story of that sparkling cup you’re draining,
How it drags a man from virtue, down to dark perdition’s brink,
Yes, and wrecks his brain and body, leaves no trace of good remaining –
You would never dare to touch a drop of the Accursed Drink.
Subtle? No. Who says education has to be subtle?
Powered by WordPress