[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

Fri Jul 20 14:02:38 PDT 2012

So Mark, and Steve: setting aside whatever did or didn't happen with Mr.
VanderSloot's taxes, it sounds like you both agree with Ms. Strassel
(and with me) on the principle that any political use of the official
power of the government in the service of punishing an "enemies list"
would be bad.  But please correct me if I'm already wrong.  

Is it equally bad to use those same official resources politically to
reward a "friends list"?  If not, why not?  

And, to take it just a short step further, is there a meaningful
difference between an "enemies list" and a "'not on my friends list'
list" in this context?

________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
One Thomas Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 862-7836
www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
*also admitted to practice in CA

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark
Schmitt
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 4:45 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

I think when Issa admitted that he didn't really have any reason think
that Holder or anyone in the White House knew anything about it, he was
basically calling an end to it. He pushed the contempt vote through,
just so it didn't look like a failure, but I haven't heard a word about
it sense. The Fortune magazine article on it has made a lot of people
conclude that it didn't amount to anything.

In any event, my point is, Issa seems to be finished with it. And if you
or Senator McConnell actually believe that the White House directed the
IRS to target Mr. VanderSloot, you should ask Issa to get on it.

(Just to show my cards, I don't think you really believe that.)

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org> 
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
@mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9> 

On 7/20/2012 4:29 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:

	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/SB1000087239639044446430457753723390874449
6.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 list
		Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu

http://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

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/32778f4f/attachment.html>