[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

[Steve Hoersting]

Mark,

So that I can be sure we have common ground over which to discuss these
novel and difficult issues, is it truly your position that Fast and Furious
"didn't amount to anything?"  As in, proved to be baseless rather than hit
a stone wall?

Steve

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>  Really? Again?
>
> Mr. Vandersloot has been the principal shareholder of a large, privately
> held, financially complex corporation for a long time. If he's never been
> audited in all that time, then it makes plenty of sense that his number
> would come up. He's also been a major Republican donor for a very long time.
>
> Strassel is making a very major allegation. Why is the proper response,
> let's make Mr. Vandersloot and other *Republican* donors, and only
> Republican donors, exempt from disclosure laws? If President Obama's
> political team in the White House actually contacted anyone in the IRS and
> directed them to audit Mr. VanderSloot, the proper response is to file an
> article of impeachment against President Obama. I'd support the impeachment
> of a president who did that, just as five or six Republicans supported the
> impeachment of Nixon on a similar charge.
>
> You say there is no one to whom Mr. VanderSloot can appeal, but of course
> there is. There's a fellow named Darryl Issa, who has full subpoena power
> and no hesitation to use it. There's the inspector general of the IRS. Mr.
> Issa seems to have gotten bored of Solyndra and Fast and Furious, which
> didn't amount to anything, so lets turn him loose on VanderSlootGate.
>
>
>
> On 7/20/2012 9:39 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> Kim Strassel's latest:
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577537233908744496.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
>
> And it's applicability to election law:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/266623
>
> Kim asks this question at the end: "As for Mr. VanderSloot, to what
> authority should he appeal if he believes this to be politically
> motivated—given the Justice Department on down is also controlled by the
> man who targeted him?"
>
> The answer, for Mr. VanderSloot, is, realistically and unfortunately, "to
> no authority; none."
>
> But for those businessmen who are yet safely anonymous, and understand
> speaking in the political process is their only remedy against economic
> deprivations from an unchecked IPAB or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
> sure to come, the authority to which they should appeal is the district
> court.
>
> Businessmen who don't want to be the "next" Frank VanderSloot should file
> in district court as John Does to seek the *Socialist Workers* exemption
> to compelled disclosure of their partial funding of independent political
> speech.
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/afe91cae/attachment.html>