Currently viewing the tag: “Should”
(David Post)
. . . my book on Jefferson and cyberspace was awarded Temple’s “Friel Scanlan” scholarly writing award, which means I give the F-S lecture this year — Tuesday @ 4 PM, up in scenic North Philly at Temple Law School. Any VC’ers in the vicinity are welcome to stop by –
If Donald Trump runs for President, he should forgo public finance and federal matching funds not just because, as a mega-wealthy billionaire, he can, but because doing so would allow him to spend in the early primary and caucus state’s without federal limitation. A candidate who accepts matching funds also agrees to observe strict spending limits in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, and all the primary and caucus states. A candidate who self-funds and doesn’t accept Federal matching funds is under no such limitations.
Bypassing public finance, Trump can leverage his wealth to outspend his opponents in the early states, gaining a significant strategic advantage. Sadly, Trump advisor Michael Cohen, a vice president of the Trump organization, doesn’t seem to understand this. City Hall newspaper recently reported “Cohen said that Trump would raise money from average citizens, rather than just funnel his own money into a campaign.”He wants citizens in the country to have skin in the game,” he said.
While there is little doubt that Trump could raise maximum $ 2,600 contributions from many of his wealthy friends and supporters, it is truly questionable how many low-dollar donors he could muster. Who gives money to a billionaire?
To the extent that Trump’s wealthy friends wish to support him, they would be best off putting their money into a 527 organization, where they can give without limitation, rather than donating the lousy $ 2,600 they are limited to if they donate to an official Trump For President organization.
The spending limits on each state are set by the Federal Election Commission based on a formula. Under all circumstances, these limits are fundamentally inadequate, given the advertising and communication costs in each state, causing candidates to “cheat” by, for example, crossing the New Hampshire state border to sleep in Massachusetts and return to the Granite State in the morning so as not to incur the lodging costs for the candidate and his entourage in the calculation of the New Hampshire state spending limit.
By forgoing public finance and completely funding his own campaign, Trump would not have to play these games. He could sink $ 3 million into Iowa and $ 5 million into New Hampshire to prevail in those contests. Early victories mean he could spend far less than the state limits in the states that choose their delegates later in the process after his opponents have dropped out.
Trump could still write an unlimited check to his own campaign if he chooses not to bypass public finance and matching funds, but would be giving up the single most significant advantage his mega-wealth affords him; the ability to outspend Mitt Romney and the rest of the field in the early contests, where a Trump candidacy must flourish or die.
Trump himself told ABC News he could spend up to $ 600 million of his own money if he runs. I’ve made it clear that I neither represent or speak for Trump, but I hope he runs and believe his ability to self-fund a campaign without federal matching funds and outspend his opponents in the early primaries and caucuses is one of the keys to victory.
Jeremy Hooper points to this video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that the Solicitor General should resign over President Obama’s decision not the defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “It’s unacceptable, it cannot be justified. It was direct interference politically by the President of the United States,” Sessions said during Donald Verrilli, Jr’s confirmation hearing to the position, before falsely claiming that Obama had supported DOMA. From the hearing:
SESSIONS: I would suggest what should have have happened. The Solicitor General should have told the Attorney General, ‘we cannot not defend that statute. It does not comply with the law.’ And the Attorney General should have told the President, ‘I know you may have changed your mind, Mr. President, but this is a statutory law passed by the Congress of the United States, it’s been upheld Constitutionally and it has to be defended. We cannot fail to defend that statute. And then what happens? I think what happens is the President says, ‘okay, I wish we could….’ And I think he would have backed off. If not, then you have to resign.
Watch it:
But if we are to take Sessions’ suggestion seriously, then we would also need to impeach conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. As Ian Millhiser explains, “in 1990, then-acting Solicitor General Roberts refused to defend a federal affirmative action law after he successfully convinced the George H.W. Bush Administration that the law was unconstitutional. He failed to convince the Supreme Court, however, and the law was upheld. By declining to defend DOMA, the Obama Administration is following the exact same approach embraced by Roberts.”
Several Republicans have also asked for Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation, despite the long history of past administrations choosing not to defend legislation. In fact, the administration argues that two new challenges to DOMA in November of 2010 brought about the change. As the New York Times explained, “Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people.” The administration decided that sexual orientation deserved a higher level of constitutional scrutiny and that under that standard of review, Section 3 of the law was unconstitutional.
Representative Mike Pence spoke with Tea Party members in a rally in Washington promising to fight for the budget cuts they want to see from the GOP.
Representative Mike Pence spoke with Tea Party members in a rally in Washington promising to fight for the budget cuts they want to see from the GOP.
Representative Mike Pence spoke with Tea Party members in a rally in Washington promising to fight for the budget cuts they want to see from the GOP.
As Iowa and other traditional early states respond furiously to Florida’s efforts to hold an early primary, Iowa State Rep. Josh Byrnes makes the case in POLITICO’s Arena, my colleague Seung Min Kim notes, that Iowa should keep its position because Iowans "still represent solid core family values."
I think Florida does need to obey the party rules. I realize this is all about dollars but I think tradition trumps dollars on this issue. Iowa is a true grassroots state where the residents have lived here for generations. There is something special about Iowa being the first in the nation and you will never see the same revenue generated in Florida as we see in Iowa. People in Florida are too desensitized to politics and they get enough political attention.
Iowans take this process seriously and still represent solid core family values that I think everyone in the nation is envious of. So when we select our candidate, it sends a strong message to the rest of the nation on who that ethical candidate is.
(Eugene Volokh)
The old answer seemed to be “yes,” but in recent years the states have split on the subject. State v. Carlin, decided by the Alaska Supreme Court last Friday, switches Alaska from the “yes” column to the “no” column, partly because of growing concerns about victims’ rights:
While abatement [i.e., erasure of the conviction –EV] is contrary to the victims’ rights under the Alaska Constitution, relying on the presumption of guilt after conviction to leave the conviction intact is contrary to the defendant’s right to appeal. Therefore, we choose the middle path, electing to follow those courts that allow the appeal to continue upon substitution. These courts have provided that either the State or the defendant’s estate may request substitution, allowing another party to be substituted for the defendant. Specifically, we agree with the high courts of Washington and Maryland that the defendant’s estate may substitute in for the deceased appellant.
“We believe AARP operates in direct opposition to their senior membership.”
Good stuff. AARP is the Death Star of American entitlements, so if the GOP wants to reform Social Security and Medicare, they’re going to have to fire some photon torpedoes. And this one could do some damage. Seniors have always been wary of O-Care for fear that it’ll siphon off money from Medicare — which […]
“We believe AARP operates in direct opposition to their senior membership.”
Good stuff. AARP is the Death Star of American entitlements, so if the GOP wants to reform Social Security and Medicare, they’re going to have to fire some photon torpedoes. And this one could do some damage. Seniors have always been wary of O-Care for fear that it’ll siphon off money from Medicare — which […]
USA Today |
NCAA should discipline Jim Tressel, because his employer won't
Washington Post It's clear that The Ohio State University is not going to take any further action against football coach Jim Tressel. The more this mess drags on, the more surprised I am that they did anything at all. … OSU's Tressel expresses 'regrets,' names interim coach Tressel Apologizes, Says He Has No Plans To Resign Jim Tressel Investigation: LB Coach Luke Fickell Named Interim HC |
NBC's Matt Lauer, on Wednesday's Today show, startled Michele Bachmann as he tried to convince her that Obama's strategy of bombing Libya was a good way to show support for the rebels as he pressed the Republican Minnesota Congresswoman "If there are flickers, as you say, of al Qaeda among the rebels, would it not be a sign to them or showing them that the United States has compassion and we are willing to use our military might to help all people?" Bachmann was taken aback by the thrust of the question as she responded: "Compassion for al Qaeda?"
Lauer scrambled to clarify himself, insisting he meant the U.S. would be showing compassion for "civilians in Benghazi." Bachmann pointed out to Lauer: "Well of course we have compassion for people. That is not the point," as seen in the following exchange:
(video, audio and transcript after the jump)
MATT LAUER: Going back to my question though, had you been President on that day, March 17th, what would you have done? Would you have done nothing?
MICHELE BACHMANN: I would not have gone in.
LAUER: So would you have called the other leaders of NATO countries and said, "We support you, but we're not coming?"
BACHMANN: Well I think that what, what presidents do is they stay involved and they, they try to get their, the very best intelligence that they can. Because I think, one thing the American people need to know is that we did not know, nor did the intelligence community know who the opposition is. If we are going in – because, remember, there were, there was just testimony yesterday that there are flickers of al Qaeda. We don't know how much al Qaeda is involved in the opposition forces. Why would we want to strengthen al Qaeda's hand in North Africa? That certainly wouldn't be in the interests of the United States.
LAUER: Well, well let me, let me flip that coin on, on its, on its other side. If there are flickers, as you say, of al Qaeda among the rebels, would it not be a sign to them or showing them that the United States has compassion and we are willing to use our military might to help all people?
BACHMANN: Compassion for al Qaeda?
LAUER: No, compassion for civilians in, in Benghazi.
BACHMANN: Well of course we have compassion for people. That is not the point. There is no more compassionate nation in the world than the United States of America. We are the ones that offer the humanitarian aide. But in this instance, under the Obama Doctrine, the President of the United States is using the United States military for the purpose of humanitarian aide. This is a marked difference from the way that the United States military has been used before. The Obama Doctrine is very, very different from any interventions that we have done in the past.
The following is the full interview as it was aired on the March 30 Today show:
MATT LAUER: Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota has been critical of U.S. involvement in Libya calling it, quote, "President Obama's war." Congresswoman Bachmann, good morning to you.
[On screen headline: "Target: Libya, What Would Bachmann Do Differently?"]
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, MINNESOTA-R: Good morning, Matt.
LAUER: I want to take you back to March 17th. It was a Thursday, it was the day that Moammar Khaddafy told the people of Libya and Benghazi that his troops were on the way, they would show no mercy and they would find them in their closets. If you had been President of the United States on that day what would you have done specifically?
BACHMANN: Well I don't think at that point that we had seen the threat to the United States either from Khaddafy or have we seen a vital American national interest at risk. That really needs to be our first line of defense. Because unfortunately there are atrocities that do happen in different countries in the world. We just saw this weekend slaughter in Syria. So based upon that criteria humanitarian intervention, which apparently is the new Obama Doctrine-
LAUER: Right.
BACHMANN: That would be the basis for the United States to enter into one country after another. I don't think that's in the American interest-
LAUER: So-
BACHMANN: -for us to enter into one country after another.
LAUER: Going back to my question though, had you been President on that day, March 17th, what would you have done? Would you have done nothing?
BACHMANN: I would not have gone in.
LAUER: So would you have called the other leaders of NATO countries and said, "We support you, but we're not coming?"
BACHMANN: Well I think that what, what presidents do is they stay involved and they, they try to get their, the very best intelligence that they can. Because I think, one thing the American people need to know is that we did not know, nor did the intelligence community know who the opposition is. If we are going in – because, remember, there were, there was just testimony yesterday that there are flickers of al Qaeda. We don't know how much al Qaeda is involved in the opposition forces. Why would we want to strengthen al Qaeda's hand in North Africa? That certainly wouldn't be in the interests of the United States.
LAUER: Well, well let me, let me flip that coin on, on its, on its other side. If there are flickers, as you say, of al Qaeda among the rebels, would it not be a sign to them or showing them that the United States has compassion and we are willing to use our military might to help all people?
BACHMANN: Compassion for al Qaeda?
LAUER: No, compassion for civilians in, in Benghazi.
LAUER: Well of course we have compassion for people. That is not the point. There is no more compassionate nation in the world than the United States of America. We are the ones that offer the humanitarian aide. But in this instance, under the Obama Doctrine, the President of the United States is using the United States military for the purpose of humanitarian aide. This is a marked difference from the way that the United States military has been used before. The Obama Doctrine is very, very different from any interventions that we have done in the past.
LAUER: Alright, let me ask you one more question, again, placing you in the White House. If you are the President of the United States, given what you know now, what's taking place on the ground in Libya, would you make a decision to arm the rebels?
BACHMANN: I would not. Because, again, we do not know enough about who they are. And we also have not identified it an American vital international interest. That must be done before the United States can intervene in another nation's affairs.
LAUER: So as I ask you a couple of questions asking what you would do if you were president, are you running?
BACHMANN: No. I haven't made a decision to run. I'm going into the early primary states and speaking to primary voters, but I won't be making the decision, I don't think, until some time this summer.
LAUER: Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Congresswoman Bachmann, thanks for your time this morning. I appreciate it.
BACHMANN: Good to see you, Matt. Thanks.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
The number of unpalatable options is growing.
American Thinker Blog
