[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

Fri Jul 20 14:20:05 PDT 2012

Joe,

I agree with your first premise.

As to your second premise, I can say this much now.  As the importance (to
having an economic livelihood) of being on a "friends list" increases --
meaning one can only do business if one is a friend to the current
administration, whoever it may be -- then the existence of a "friends list"
will become more cognizable to a person seeking a disclosure exemption in
the political arena.

IPAB certainly brings us in this direction.  What medical provider would
want to get on the wrong side of it or the administration that installed
it?  The actions of IPAB will not be subject to meaningful review by courts
or Congress; everyone knows that.  The CFPB certainly brings us in this
direction.  What banker would want to get on the wrong side of that czar
knowing review of his actions are not reviewable by the courts or Congress?

Steve

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Joseph Birkenstock <
jbirkenstock at capdale.com> wrote:

> 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/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 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. <-->
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/f6a1d39b/attachment.html>