Category Archives: regulation

Why the Left is so Anxious to Govern

Posted on by
Reply

Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer have a book out describing how the Left got control of the State of Colorado as recently as 2008, titled The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado.

Early in this book, Rob Stein, who is among other things the founder of the Democracy Alliance, laid out why the Left wanted control of Colorado and why especially they want control of our Federal government.

The reason it is so important to control government is because government is the source of enormous power,” Stein continued. “One president in this country, when he or she takes office, appoints…5,000 people to run a bureaucracy, nonmilitary nonpostal service of 2 million people, who hire 10 million outside outsource contractors—a workforce of 12 million people—that spends $3 trillion a year. That number is larger than the gross domestic product of all but four countries on the face of the earth.”

So the reason we’re doing what we’re doing…and the way we get progressive change, is to control government,” Stein said. “That’s what this is about.”

Get out and vote.

 

h/t Power Line

Regulation of Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats on the Federal Election Commission want to extend it.

The top Democrat [Vice Chairwoman Ann Ravel] on the Federal Election Commission strongly suggested Friday that regulators look at extending their authority to election-themed Internet videos—an area that for years has been largely hands-off for the government.

This woman, in line to become the FEC Chair, is beefing among other things that the FEC ignores the Internet’s influence on politics. Meanwhile, she seems to be ignoring the print, broadcast, and cable media’s influence on politics.

Oh, wait—speech already is regulated there. Those media and the ad generators on them are required to report, among other things, the cost of their political advertisements and to include in the ads “disclaimers” identifying who’s “responsible” for “the content of this ad.”

Ravel has insisted that rules applicable to these ads should apply to Internet ads, also.

That last is a fair beef. Here’s a proposal, then: how about deregulating speech in the other venues?

Nah. No Democrat is willing to do that.

In Which the IRS Gets Away with It

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Reggie Walton, of the DC District Court, dismissed all counts brought by the conservative non-profit, True the Vote, against the IRS for the IRS’ harassment of the organization when it tried to register as a 501(c)(3). The IRS had, on receiving that application

IRS was subjecting [True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht] to multiple rounds of abusive inquiries, with requests to provide every Facebook and Twitter entry I’d every posted, questions about my political aspirations, and demands to know the names of every group I’d ever made presentations to, the content of what I’d said, and where I intended to speak for the coming year.

Under the law defining a c3 organization, none of this information is relevant to the IRS’ application investigation. Indeed, Walton’s ruling explicitly makes no reference to the legitimacy of Engelbrecht’s charges.

Walton dismissed the counts because the IRS—eventually, but before this lawsuit was resolved—registered True the Vote as the c3 for which it had applied.

Unless an actual, ongoing controversy exists in this case, this Court is without power to decide it….

Because

The defendants’ grant of tax-exempt status to the plaintiff, and the defendants’ suspension of the alleged IRS targeting scheme during the tax-exempt application process, including remedial steps to address the alleged conduct, coupled with the reduced “concern about the recurrence of objectionable behavior” government actors….

Never mind that this is a purely voluntary “suspension,” subject to removal at IRS whim, conservative speech remains chilled, other attacks against other conservative entities remain (think Wisconsin), and so on. The present assault has stopped, so there’s nothing for a good judge to decide.

Let me see if my understanding of this is correct. If I stop beating my wife, wholly voluntarily and on my own initiative, I’m home free? My wife has no recourse? Never mind that I’ve only voluntarily suspended the beatings, never mind that my wife remains intimidated and vulnerable, I’ve got nothing to worry about from any court?

Walton’s ruling can be seen here.

European Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

…and, by extension, the goal of this administration’s Europe-wannabe tax schema.

Matthew Karnitschnig and Robin van Daalen, in The Wall Street Journal, interviewed the newly retired Marius Kohl, who was for 22 years the Attendant—head—of Luxembourg’s Sociétés 6, or Companies 6, the Luxembourg government agency that, among other things, determines the annual tax owed by each of roughly 50,000 Luxembourg-registered holding companies.

It’s a wide-ranging interview and well worth the read, but I want to focus on one small bit of it.

One outcome of Kohl’s stewardship is that Luxembourg became a corporate tax haven: companies registered there generally paid little in the way of taxes. This especially stands out against the EU average headline corporate rate above 21%, rates running as high as France’s 33%, and Luxembourg’s own 29%.

Naturally, the EU is dismayed with this, and with Kohl’s departure, it’s pushing Luxembourg to “fix that.” Luxembourg is being unfair, say the EU’s functionaries, and it should raise its corporate tax to be more in line with the rest of the EU.

Notice that. The EU declines to compete with Luxembourg (or with Ireland, whose official rate of 12.5% is being raised with the Irish government surrender to EU pressure) for business and associated employment. Instead, Luxembourg must make itself less competitive, must lower itself to the EU’s plain.

Because, it really isn’t people’s money, its government money that government kindly lets people use some of. Because, people are just piggy banks for the men of government, we’re not really in this for our own benefit.

This is where the US is headed, for all that President Barack Obama is talking about lowering our own corporate rate from 35% to 28%.   Obama, after all, is holding out for more taxes raised elsewhere in return.

A Number of Misunderstandings

Posted on by
Reply

Los Angeles passed an ordinance requiring hotel operators to give up data in their guest registers to the police, even when they don’t have a warrant.

The ordinance, approved by the city in 2006, requires hotels to collect and maintain guest information such as name and address, the number of people in the guest’s party, vehicle information, arrival and checkout dates, room number, and method of payment. Hotel operators who fail to comply with it face as many as six months behind bars and a $1,000 fine.

A motel operator demurred, and at this point, the 9th Circuit agrees: they struck the ordinance as unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment.

There are a couple of fundamental misunderstandings, though. One is in the 9th‘s ruling, paraphrased by Joe Palazzolo at the above link:

[H]otels have an interest in keeping guest records private, even if the guests themselves have no such privacy rights because they willingly give their information to a third party.

Guests do have a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding “their information,” though. They’re not giving their information to “a” third party; they’re giving it to a particular third party as a necessary thing so that the particular third party can provide the contracted service. Moreover, much of the information that is given over is not necessary for the transaction to occur; it’s mandated by a different third party—a government entity, for the government’s convenience.

A second misunderstanding is in the argument offered by LA’s lawyers.

These laws expressly help police investigate crimes such as prostitution and gambling, capture dangerous fugitives and even authorize federal law enforcement to examine these registers, an authorization which can be vital in the immediate aftermath of a homeland terrorist attack[.]

Say that’s all true. Get a warrant. Time hardly seems of the essence in these hypotheticals, even with the apocalyptically offered “homeland terrorist attack:” the cops are unlikely to be near the hotel or motel when an attack goes in. If time really is of the essence, come armed with a warrant in the first place; they’re disappointingly easy to get.

A third misunderstanding is in Judge Richard Tallman’s dissent, again summarized by Palazzolo.

[T]he hoteliers challenging the ordinance failed to show that police were applying the statute in an unconstitutional way.

The hoteliers had no requirement to do so. The law must be constitutional in the first place; its application by the police is wholly irrelevant after its unconstitutionality is shown.

The matter now is before the Supreme Court, and we’ll learn later who’s right. Legally, anyway.