Wrong end of the horse (Bubby - 9/7/2006 3:05:28 PM)
No Doug, the I.Pub is the "finished product" of digested cheetos...
The I.Publius2006 - New! - Improved!
"Slings I.Pub like a Bad Monkey"
On September 5, 2006, Jim Riley posted an entry entitled +óGé¼+ôRaising Kaine PAC in violation of Federal Election law+óGé¼-¥ on his blog, the Virginia Virtucon. Mr. Riley did not suggest, inquire, or opine about a violation, rather he affirmatively stated that Raising Kaine was in violation of federal law.
Mr. Riley has been rumored to be an attorney and certainly holds himself out as such. A quick inquiry, however, can only definitively show that he is a lobbyist for National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
Assuming he is an attorney, as he claims to be, one would assume he has some familiarity with federal law. And being a lobbyist, one would assume he has an understanding of federal election law. Those assumptions, however, have been called into question by the referenced post.
The post starts out with the assertion that +óGé¼+ô[i]t is very clear according to the Federal Election Commission Act what types of funds may be used in federal races.+óGé¼-¥ Mr. Riley+óGé¼Gäós obvious lack of understanding is evident by this statement because the +óGé¼+ôFederal Election Commission Act+óGé¼-¥ does not exist. For purposes of this analysis, it will be assumed that Mr. Riley was referring to the Federal Elections Campaign Act, commonly known as FECA.
Mr. Riley+óGé¼Gäós next claim is that +óGé¼+ô[i]f a PAC is to make a contribution to or make an expenditure on behalf of a federal candidate, it must be a federally registered PAC[.]+óGé¼-¥ Again, this statement is incorrect. To the contrary, a state committee can donate to or spend on behalf of a federal candidate up to $1,000.00. 11 C.F.R. +é-º+é-º 100.5(a) and 100.111(a) (2006).
Whether or not the candidate is required to report the expenditure requires an analysis to the degree the committee and candidate coordinated. Mr. Riley does not aver any coordination between Raising Kaine and Jim Webb, therefore, that issue will not be addressed. Further, it is a moot point since a committee - coordinating with a candidate or not - may still donate to or expend on behalf of a federal candidate up to $1,000.00. Id. See also Coordinated Communications.
Mr. Riley further states that even though Raising Kaine is exempt as an internet communication, it is +óGé¼+ôengaging in other activities on behalf of the Webb campaign that do not fall under that sole exemption.+óGé¼-¥ Note that Mr. Riley does not present any evidence or specific allegations of these mysterious +óGé¼+ôother activities+óGé¼-¥ that Raising Kaine is supposedly +óGé¼+ôengaging in[.]+óGé¼-¥ The reason for that is simple. Raising Kaine has not done anything +óGé¼+ôon behalf of the Webb campaign[.]+óGé¼-¥
Mr. Riley then quotes and cites, via hyperlink, 11 C.F.R. +é-º 100.16 (c), which defines an independent expenditure. Mr. Riley, based on this authority, claims that +óGé¼+ôwhat Raising Kaine PAC is doing+óGé¼-¥ is not an independent expenditure under federal law. This averment, however, is irrelevant as the committee has never made an expenditure in behalf of Jim Webb.
The initial flaw in Mr. Riley+óGé¼Gäós defamatory post is that the committee must first make an expenditure before any analysis as to limits and reporting of such expenditures are applicable. As stated above, Raising Kaine has never donated a penny to Jim Webb, nor has it spent any funds in Webb+óGé¼Gäós behalf. Any accusation to the contrary is without merit and false.
The secondary defect in Mr. Riley+óGé¼Gäós defamatory statement is that a Virginia committee cannot donate to or spend any funds in behalf of a federal candidate. To the contrary, any state committee, including one only registered in Virginia, can donate directly to or spend in behalf of a federal candidate up to $1,000.00 per calendar year. Although Raising Kaine has not exercised this right yet, the option to do so remains available to the committee.
Raising Kaine, therefore, is not in violation of federal election law despite Mr. Riley+óGé¼Gäós frivolous accusations. We eagerly await an apology from him.
Btw, minor point--slander is spoken defamation, libel is written defamation.
But your post is MUCH stronger than my argument - thanks for bringing this to the light so everyone can see that he's grasping.
When I first read this, I was amazed at the boldness of the claims, and the self-assured nature of the commenter. I have seen in the last weeks several examples of people wanting to annoy and argue on progressive and liberal websites that those people who are their hosts (bloggers) are somehow in the wrong for advocating for the candidate of their choice.
Since RK is a PAC, this probably seemed like a good idea. However, as most times is the case, the evidence presented is wrong, immaterial, or just carping in a rightist manner. An effective argument would need to include actual facts and correct citations of law.
Desperation is all I can think is going on here.
Legal manuvering- or the threat of it- is a distraction, and as such it doesn't matter whether there is a real case or not. All that matters is to waste the time and resources of the opposition. The tactic of the Right has less to do with actual impropriety than with a perception that they can spin- whether in or out of the court system. The more relevant RK is to the outcome of the Webb campaign, the greater the incentive for Allen supporters to issue accusations and/or attempt to discredit and silence RK.
I don't know enough about the FEC and State guidelines to comment on whether there's a case to be made against RK and the Webb campaign. I have faith that RK and the Webb campaign have thoroughly considered all aspects of the situation and are on safe ground.
I think the funniest item I've seen this year is when he swallowed the "Three Amigos" email and put out a post even though it was shown to be an Allen plant story.
Circle-jerking must be one of your favorite activities. You certainly talk about it all the time.
I think you would be wise to run back home to your friends, Riley and Kilo.
From Project Vote Smart:
2006 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 100 percent in 2006.2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 100 percent in 2004.
2002 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 100 percent in 2002.
2001 On the votes that the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Allen voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association also makes campaign contributions...$8000 in the 2005-2006 cycle.
Like I always told my kids as they were getting old enough to vote....when you see a political "ad", the person or group paying for it can, sometimes, give more info than the content of the ad itself.
It really is a treasure trove of information. I recommend it to be read by everyone.
By the way, they caught one of our blog trolls out in California. http://www.ksby.com/...
The I.Publius2006 - New! - Improved!
"Slings I.Pub like a Bad Monkey"
Talk radio works for them because the GOP and its associates wield so much corporate power. Top-down disemmination of faux information. But with blogs, there is lateral and free sharing of information. The right-wing can't stand this hence the scurrilous attacks.
Is it just me, or has anyone else observed that, within the past 2 weeks (more or less), the MSM seem to have started reading blogs? And I don't mean take a brief peek at an oddball/fanatical one, where all they see is dirty language, so they can justify their sneering; that seems to be a bit passee right now. But it used to be that I always saw a tid-bit in either WashPo or NYTimes before I saw it in the blogosphere. Now it seems to be the other way around a lot of the time -- I see it here (or Think Progress, or TPM - either Cafe or Muckraker), and, 24,48,72 hrs later, I see it in print. It's as if the reporters figured out they can assemble a much better-documented article much faster by using the blogs.
And, if it is so, this is also a serious threat to GOP. Before, it was difficult to discredit their talking points, delivered by Snowjob as our daily piece of ****; now it's much easier.
Of course, the problem now is to make sure that the Dems' Congressional health plan covers regular doses of political Viagra... :)
Her comments seem to reflect the opinion that the mining industry, which includes rock quarries and such, is suffering from a lack of hourly workers, and from a few overly-paid engineers. She thinks that the government should help to fund the education of mining engineers so that there will be an influx of them and their wages will decrease. But she also states that the educational system, K-12, is more focused on an academic curriculum that encourages college education, which hurts their prospects for workers who will work for next to nothing....my words, not hers, but the sentiment is the same.
So, in this one "pro-business" organization, we see an attempt to create more educated workers to drive professional wages down, and to create a less educated hourly work force that will be happy to earn whatever they can get.
This is the organization that George Allen supports 100% of the time.