Daily Dolt

Daily Dolt: John Bambenek

ArchPundit September 7, 2007 14 Comments

He’s remarkably impressive in his determination to demonstrate how ignorant he is:

The FEC, in their ruling said “First, the complaint does not allege, nor does publicly available information indicate, that Kos Media is owned or controlled by a political party, committee, or candidate.” (Page 5, lines 17-18). They state this because if there was such an allegation or if Kos Media was a political committee, the media exemption doesn’t apply. The problem is the entire complaint’s sole focus is the fact that Kos Media is a political committee. That was exactly what I alleged. They simply ignored that, pretended I was alleging something else, and dismissed the complaint. This means with about a two-page long pleading and a $350 filing fee, this decision could be overturned trivially on appeal.

So go for it, John. Don’t just act like a fool, be the fool. In fact, if you do get it turned over on appeal, I’ll pay the $350.

The point is the law always had a press exemption and Daily Kos fits that press exemption the same way Fired Up! did.
From the Fired Up! Opinion:

The Act and Commission regulations define the terms “contribution” and
“expenditure” to include any gift of money or “anything of value” for the purpose of influencing a Federal election. See 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A) and (9)(A); 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.111(a). However, there is an exception for “any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station (including a cable television operator, programmer or producer), newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication . . . unless the facility is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate[.]” 11 CFR 100.73, 100.132; see also 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i). This exclusion is known as the “press exception.”

The Commission has applied a two-step analysis to determine whether the press exception applies. First, the Commission asks whether the entity engaging in the activity is a press entity as described by the Act and Commission regulations. See, e.g., Advisory Opinions 2004-07, 2003-34, 2000-13, 1998-17, 1996-48, 1996-41, and 1996-16. Second, in determining the scope of the exception, the Commission considers: (1) whether the
press entity is owned or controlled by a political party, political committee, or candidate; and (2) whether the press entity is acting as a press entity in conducting the activity at issue (i.e., whether the entity is acting in its “legitimate press function”). See Reader’s Digest Association v. FEC, 509 F. Supp. 1210, 1215 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); FEC v. Phillips Publishing, 517 F. Supp. 1308, 1312-1313 (D.D.C. 1981); Advisory Opinions 2004-07, 2000-13, 1996-48, and 1982-44. Two considerations in applying this analysis include whether the entity’s materials are available to the general public and are comparable in form to those ordinarily issued by the entity. See Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 251 (1986); Advisory Opinion 2000-13 (concluding that a website covered by the press exception was “viewable by the general public and akin to a periodical or news program distributed to the general public.”)

====

According to the House report on the 1974 amendments to the Act, the press exception made plain Congress’s intent that the Act would not “limit or burden in any way the first amendment freedoms of the press …” and would assure “the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.” H.R. Rep. No. 93-1239, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. at 4 (1974) (emphasis added). Consistent with this intent, the Commission has already expressly extended the press exception to qualified activities that appear on the Internet. For instance, in Advisory Opinion 2000-13 the Commission found that iNEXTV, a company operating a network of specialized news and information websites with limited original content, qualified for
the press exception through its Internet activities even though it lacked a traditional “offline” media presence. The Commission concluded that iNEXTV and its EXBTV website were press entities “both as to their purpose and function.” Advisory Opinion 2000-13. The Commission characterized the network of news and information websites operated by iNEXTV as “webcast video periodicals.” Id. In finding EXBTV to be a press entity, the Commission noted the “news function” that EXBTV provided through direct access to news and commentary. The Commission concluded that the website was “viewable by the general public and akin to a periodical or news program distributed to 10 the general public.” Id.The Commission reaches the same conclusion here with respect to the Fired Up websites described in your request. Thus, Fired Up is a press entity and satisfies the first step of the press exception test.

2. Ownership Criteria and Legitimate Press Function

11
Fired Up is a for-profit LLC and is not owned or controlled by any political
party, political committee, or candidate. Given that Fired Up’s operation of its websites is at the core of its activities as a press entity, its provision of news stories, commentary,and editorials on its websites falls within Fired Up’s legitimate press function.Thus, because Fired Up is a press entity, and neither it nor its websites are owned or controlledby any political party, political committee, or candidate, the costs Fired Up incurs in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial on its websites are exempt from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.” The Commission notes that anentity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity in a news story, commentary, or editorial, even if the news story, commentary, or editorial expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office. See First General Counsel’s Report, MUR5440 (CBS Broadcasting, Inc.) (“Even seemingly biased stories or commentary by a press entity can fall within the media exemption.”)

The Commission expresses no opinion regarding the application of State law or
the Internal Revenue Code to the proposed activities because those questions are not within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of the
Act and Commission regulations to the specific transaction or activity set forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C. 437f. The Commission emphasizes that, if there is a change in anof the facts or assumptions presented, and such facts or assumptions are material to a conclusion presented in this advisory opinion, then the requestor may not rely on that conclusion as support for its proposed activity.

By the fact that Daily Kos isn’t owned by a committee and fits the definition of press, it’s exempt from being classified as a political committee. It cannot be a political committee because it is a press outlet.  Beyond that, it’s one person, and one person does not constitute a committee.
That Bambenek appears to not have read the relevant decisions that have been supported by the courts demonstrates his desperate need for attention regardless of whether he makes himself look like a fool.

Daily Dolt: John Bambenek

ArchPundit September 6, 2007 1 Comment

John has been wanting one of these for a long time and I’ve always resisted, but now he has gone and done something so incredibly stupid, that he truly cannot be denied being today’s Daily Dolt:

The blogger who filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against Daily Kos says he may appeal Tuesday’s FEC ruling on the matter, which found the popular left-leaning site did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act as charged. A lawyer for the blog, however, dismissed the claims as a fantasy.

“I’m not entirely surprised,” said John Bambenek, a research programmer at the University of Illinois who submitted the complaint, in a Wednesday interview with RAW STORY. “[The FEC] doesn’t want to get into all the drama of blogs.”

Yeah, that’s it–they don’t want drama. John got his ass kicked by having the complaint dismissed before any investigation his complaint was so weak.  More

Reacting to the commission’s unanimous decision–which “found no reason to believe Kos Media, DailyKos.com, or Markos Moulitsas Zuniga violated federal campaign finance law”–Bambenek told RAW STORY that the FEC didn’t address his fundamental complaint.

“I asked a particular question and they answered a different one. They just ruled that blog posts don’t constitute a donation,” he said, acknowledging that the FEC had already given its opinion in 2006 as to whether favorable commentary about a candidate, published by an independent website, amounted to a campaign contribution.

“My question was: Can a political action committee avoid FEC disclosure rules simply by organizing online?” Bambenek continued. “What I did was ask about a group that self-identified as having the sole purpose of electing Democrats.”

Of course, this was all settled in the advisory opinion about Fired Up!  The difference being if you are going to deal with writing and advocacy as a site, that’s not being a committee, but if you were to, say, buy advertisements advocating an issue elsewhere that would most likely be a committee.  Not real hard to understand. Then again, no one has ever accused Bambenek of understanding simple concepts.
Worse, John is one of these guys who claims to understand the original intent of the Constitution, but apparently knows nothing of the context of the First Amendment when it was passed.

Papers at the time of the Constitution were largely partisan papers largely organized towards giving a Party an advantage.  IOW, the First Amendment specifically protected the kind of journalism Bambenek is trying to call a political committee.

Daily Dolt: Washington is Full of Silly, Silly People: Meet Your Sergeant at Arms

ArchPundit July 17, 2007 No Comments

The level of utter vapidness concerning several issues over the last week is staggering. First, a private citizen of the United States refuses to appear before the House of Representatives after being subpoenaed. Some seem to be buying some story that asserting a privilege doesn’t mean you don’t have to have your ass in the hearing chair. It does not. You must appear and we have someone who can arrest you and frogmarch you into the House to be tried for inherent contempt. We call that person the Sergeant at Arms and in the U.S. House that is Bill Livingood.

And tonight we get this gem from the Corner

This is a really, really stupid stunt, and I’ll tell you why: It can all be over in 15 minutes, unless the anti-war Republicans decide to cooperate — and why should they?

Right now, there are only 50 working Democratic Senators (Tim Johnson D, S.D. hasn’t cast a vote yet this year), and there are only 49 if you don’t include Joe Lieberman (who I hear isn’t really up for this sleepover, whether you want to count him as a Dem or not).

You need 51 senators for a quorum, in the event that someone makes a quorum call — which any senator can make at any time. So all it takes is one Republican to stay in the chamber, object to anything the Democrats try to do, and then note the absence of a quorum. When the quorum is called, and only 50 senators are present, the Senate adjourns (or at least it can’t come out of the quorum call without unanimous consent), and the whole stupid stunt is over before Senator Byrd can even begin his outraged four-hour speech.

Any parliamentarians out there can correct me, but I’ve checked with two Senate sources and I’m pretty sure I’m right about this. I can’t even imagine what Reid is thinking.

We can assume those Senate sources are Dumb and Dumber. Talking Points Memo disappoints me and brings in the very bright and very authoritative Sarah Binder to answer the question that they, above all, should know. It’s not that for hard questions they shouldn’t go to Binder, it’s that this isn’t a hard question. We have faced a very similar situation recently when the Texas House Dems fled to Ardmore, Oklahoma. The Texas Speaker ordered Texas law enforcement to track them down

Attempting to break a quorum is nothing new as Lincoln tried it as well–Rich Miller provided the details during the Texas standoff.

LINCOLN BROKE A QUORUM Back in 1839, the Illinois House was meeting in special session and hatched a plan to vote on a Democratic bill to require the state’s central bank to make payments in gold or silver, rather than paper money. The Whig Party strongly opposed the idea, and, led by Rep. Abraham Lincoln, decided on the spot that the best way to kill the proposal was to deny the majority Democrats a quorum. So, they left the building, the

Second Presbyterian Church in Springfield. But two members were required under law back then to demand that a quorum call be made. Lincoln and another House Whig, Joseph Gillespie, walked into the chambers and made the motion. No quorum was present and a vote couldn’t be taken. The next day, though, Lincoln and the Whigs made the same attempt, but the House Speaker ordered the doors locked behind them and summoned some members who had previously been too ill to attend the session. A quorum was now present.

Lincoln realized the problem and he and the other Whigs jumped out of a window to try to halt the vote, but the quorum was already certified and the Whigs lost. According to Lincoln friend William Herndon, the window jumping had no effect “other than to provide the Democrats with capital material for ridicule.”

I don’t mind that the average person walking down the street doesn’t know much about quorums and how members can be compelled to attend, but people writing for the NRO with supposed sources should. It’s very basic to Congressional procedure and has changed very little over the years.

And of course, the Senate Sergeant at Arms is

Terry Gainer, former head of the Illinois State Police

Daily Dolt

ArchPundit April 13, 2007 1 Comment

Katie Couric

She does zombie lies.

Daily Dolt

ArchPundit April 9, 2007 6 Comments

Teh Stupid

It burns
It’s a bit weird given this and thousands of other examples.

Except for a momentary defection to independent candidate Ross Perot in 1992, Luntz has been a Republican operative who has counseled Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Trent Lott. But he often has worked for the media and made comments too harsh for the ears of reclusive Republicans. He has clashed frequently with Rep. John A. Boehner, the Republican leader of the House who stifled ethics legislation last year when he was still majority leader.

Boehner, elected chairman of the House Republican Conference when the party took control in 1995, tried then to keep Luntz from addressing closed-door meetings but was overruled by Speaker Gingrich. When Luntz warned publicly in October 2005 of rejection by voters in 2006, he was forced to deliver an abject apology before he could speak at a retreat of House Republicans held at the Library of Congress. After seven straight years on the program, Luntz was kept off last week’s 2007 session at Cambridge, Md., by Boehner.

More hysterical stupid:

Again, if House Speaker Newt Gingrich had done this to President Bill Clinton, the New York Times would still be covering it. No such coverage is likely in this case, because Speaker Pelosi is a Democrat.

Like this:

FLASHBACK: Hastert Traveled Abroad, Told Foreign Leaders Not To Listen To Clinton

President Bush yesterday said Speaker Pelosi’s bipartisan delegation to Syria sends “mixed signals,” implying that Pelosi overstepped her bounds by merely visiting Syria.

Bush’s supporters have been repeating the argument:

Former ambassador John Bolton: “I would simply hope that people would understand that, under the Constitution, the president conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.”

Former Gov. Mitt Romney: “It has long been the established principle of this country that the president of the United States leads our foreign policy. And if you don’t like the president, then you change him. But you don’t have the two parties each conducting foreign policy in the way they think it ought to be conducted.”

Speaker Pelosi has done nothing to suggest that she intended to speak on behalf of President Bush or the U.S. Government. But her predecessors haven’t been so respectful.

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:

House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.

If the right is looking for members of Congress clearly infringing on the president’s constitutional prerogatives, they should look at Hastert, not Pelosi.

Daily Dolt: John Doe Movement

ArchPundit April 2, 2007 1 Comment

Dear Jewish Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the martyrs at Hebron refused to sit back and let themselves be murdered in the name of Judaism without a fight.

I will never forget the Muslims who died in Ahmad Hallaq’s bombing and those who captured him.
I will never forget the alertness of Syrian intelligence, who notified the world about Mossad’s bombing of public buses filled with working Muslims.
I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”

I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Arab-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”

I will petition against your hate-mongering synagogue leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of judaic principles and judaic law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Anti-Semitism.”

I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

===================

But you know, Malkin isn’t a racist.