[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Fri Jul 20 15:35:43 PDT 2012
I agree on both -- although I would say that there are different
categories of government action. We have a strong standing consensus
that a White House asking the IRS to audit someone is way over the line,
and equally, calling the IRS to stop an audit is over the line. These
are high crimes and misdemeanors.
In some other areas of official power, there may be a little more
ambiguity -- the Bush administration distributing "Faith-based
initiative" funds to friendly groups, for example, or members of
Congress calling the FCC to get some license expedited. (I use that
example because when I worked on the Hill, that was something we always
refused to do, but had lots of arguments with other offices in the
delegation that had a different standard.) Inviting some donors to a
White House state dinner and not inviting non-supporters, seems to me
inevitable and not worth fighting.
As I noted in my article on l'Affaire VanderSloot, he's already been on
a "friends list." Being a major donor to Orrin Hatch helped win his
industry a very significant, valuable exemption from standard FDA
regulation.
So one good reason to have some reasonable regulations on campaign
finance is so that no one has quite enough influence that they can
pressure government to put them on a friends list. And without
disclosure (or "symmetrical disclosure," because the elected officials
already know who their backers are), we'll never have any means of
seeing the patterns that might indicate undue rewards for donors or
retaliation against donors to an opponent.
On 7/20/2012 5:02 PM, Joseph Birkenstock 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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/20120720/2e097bfd/attachment.html>
View list directory