>Mrs. Angle Misses Lessons At The GOP Beltway Finishing School For Tea Party Candidates

>OK, so Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle’s sessions at the GOP Beltway Finishing School weren’t quite up to the standards of the redoubtable Institut Villa Mont Choisi. It just “doesn’t do” to be seen scurrying from a reporter for a major network affiliated television station after being asked to expand upon or clarify a previously uttered position statement. The Nevada Progressive helpfully provides the video.

One lesson evidently not inserted into the GOP Beltway Finishing School For Tea Party Candidates curricula is the one regarding the futility of running from one’s own record. Yes, it might be nice to run a unilateral campaign finely focused on one’s opponent to the exclusion of all other issues. However, this is the real world and this isn’t going to happen. This situation really isn’t going to unfold like so many artfully folded dinner napkins at a formal sit-down dinner when one has a veritable Treasure Trove of comments archived from thither to yon for the entertainment of the sensation seeking public. One example will suffice for the purposes of this post.

How might the candidate wish to explain the following statement from those archives: “I have been endorsed by Citizens United, the group that won the U.S. Supreme Court case against McCain Feingold as a violation of First Amendment rights to free political speech. The Constitution is the rule of law in our country. We can not violate it or we will lose our foundation. The matter of limiting campaign contributions has failed because big donors who want a vested interest in campaigns find the loopholes in the campaign reform laws.” [NVNV]

How would she like to explain that in the Citizens United case it was those “big donors,” the corporations, who contended that they were “people” and therefore had all the free speech rights associated with real, live, born of woman, natural people? “The ruling effectively protected corporate speech the same as individual speech. The majority’s ruling about corporate electioneering marked a dramatic break from the past. In doing so, the Court rejected a century of previous court decisions that ruled corporate donations can, and should be regulated. In its ruling, the court never explained why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity.” [SWtch]

Citizens United, it should be remembered, is a non-profit corporation chartered in Virginia, headed by David N. Bossie, and other movement conservatives from the Young American Foundation, and is associated with the Donatelli Group of Swift Boat infamy. [SWtch] The group has total receipts in 2010 of $1,009,108 in 2010. [CenterResponsivePolitics] The recent ruling declared that the organization need not reveal its corporate donors. [WaPo] A list of recipients of Citizens United’s largess is available and includes Infocision Management Corporation (a telemarketer), JPMorganChase of Baton Rouge, LA for banking services, and an assortment of extremely conservative candidates such as J.D. Hayworth in Arizona, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Patrick Toomey (one of the founders of the Club for Growth) in Pennsylvania, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and Mark Kirk in Illinois. [CenterResponsivePolitics] Given the origin of the leadership and the ideology of the recipients, there is every reason to believe that Citizens United, is, indeed, an advocacy organization for major corporate interests in the United States. So, how does this square with Mrs. Angle’s assertions about the unconstitutionality of campaign finance reform legislation?

“The matter of limiting campaign contributions has failed because big donors who want a vested interest in campaigns find the loopholes in the campaign reform laws.” This is circular reasoning at its finest. The cart’s in front of the horse: Limiting campaign contributions (McCain-Feingold) didn’t fail because big donors found ways to circumvent the regulations — it failed because the Big Donors litigated and got a favorable ruling from the Roberts Court saying that Big Corporate Donors could speak with their bank accounts. And, Mrs. Angle is the recipient of the funds made available by those self-same Big Corporate Donors, to the tune of $5,000. [CenterResponsivePolitics] Phrased less delicately, the campaign finance reform statute failed because the corporations spending funds to assist Mrs. Angle’s campaign wanted it to fail.

It would be interesting to hear (and perhaps see) how the Angle Campaign clarifies this issue. Unless, of course, Mrs. Angle retorts, “Where are you getting these questions?” “These must be lies from the Reid Camp?” Actually, no. This is straight out of one of Mrs. Angle’s very own collections of political statements. And, heaven knows, there’s even more in just that one source alone to keep reporters and pundits busy for the rest of the campaign season.

Perhaps Mrs. Angle will need more lessons from the GOP Beltway Finishing School for Tea Party Candidates, and maybe the instructeur féminin could refer to the admonitions of an earlier age.

There is always that timeless advice from Florence Hartley’s Ladies Book of Etiquette and Manual of Politeness (NY: Lee & Shepard, 1892) “Never meet rudeness of others with rudeness on your own part; even the most brutal and impolite will be more shamed by being met with courtesy and kindness than by any attempt annoy them by insolence on your part. Politeness forbids any show of resentment. The polished surface throws back the arrow.”

>Good News, Bad News, Old News Roundup

>

A little good news, a little bad news for Nevada this morning: Good – “Nevada geothermal growth: Full steam ahead” [LV Sun] OK, we’re still behind California, but we’re catching up. Not Good – “Homebuilders finding it tough to hang on” [LV Sun] “Landlords get creative to combat retail vacancies” [LV Sun] Uh oh, the vacancy rate is expected to rise to more than 10% and the rents are expected to slip down by 3.6%. “Office vacancies climb as rents head south, analysts say” [LV Sun] There’s a 20% vacancy rate for office space, which is even higher, 21.7% if subleases are included, in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Worse yet – the “lack of demand for industrial space has pushed the vacancy rate (in southern Nevada) to its highest point in a decade.” [LV Sun]

The economic words for the day are OLIGOPSONY, a market in which there are only a few large buyers, and a much larger number of sellers; and OLIGOPOLY, a market in which a very small number of firms control a majority of the total market. The fast food industry is a good example of an oligopsony, with a few big buyers like McDonalds and Burger King able to demand lower prices from suppliers. Question for the Day: Which one describes Target and Wal-Mart, and which describes the Gaming Market in Las Vegas? [See LV Sun]

From The Waffle House: “Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV2) ducked questions about possible bids for U.S. Senator or governor in 2010, telling reporters Friday a re-election bid is his ‘plan today.’” [LVRJ] And then, there was this strange quote: “On other subjects, Heller told legislators and reporters that he was disappointed with the stimulus bill recently approved by Congress. “The final product was a raw deal for Nevadans and for American taxpayers,” he said. Nevada, with its high unemployment and foreclosure rates, was “at the bottom of the list for assistance” under the stimulus package, he added.” So, which is it – there was too much pork in the stimulus package (Heller’s previous position), or Nevada didn’t get enough of it?

What Heller has in mind for “economic stimulation” is a 10% tax cut across the board. [NV Appeal] Lovely that, especially for families in the very top income brackets who would see their taxes drop to levels not seen since 1925. This idea has been floating around for at least a decade. [CTJ] Not only is it nothing new, but it is essentially regressive, disproportionately favoring higher income tax payers by giving them a 7.3% overall federal tax break compared to a 4.6% overall federal tax break for those earning less than $100,000. [tables] When a specific plan incorporating this cut was proposed by House Republicans in 2003 the Tax Policy Center calculated that taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would get an average cut of $105,636 while those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would get an average tax cut of $714. [CD] Thus much for watching out for the “little guy?”

Another one bites the dust: Great Basin Bank was taken over by the FDIC as of 6:00 PM Friday evening. [EDFP] The Nevada Financial Institutions Division closed the bank and appointed the FDIC as the receiver. The FDIC oversaw a purchase and assumption agreement with Nevada State Bank (Las Vegas) to assume all Great Basin Bank deposits. The five offices of the Great Basin Bank will reopen Monday morning as branches of the Nevada State Bank. “The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund will be $42 million. Nevada State Bank’s acquisition of all the deposits was the “least costly” resolution for the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund compared to alternatives. Great Basin Bank of Nevada is the twenty-fifth FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year, and the second in Nevada. The last FDIC-insured institution to be closed in the state was Security Savings Bank, Henderson, on February 27, 2009.” [FDIC] *The FDIC is not taxpayer funded, its operations are financed by fees charged to insured institutions.

Another day goes by – and still there is no action on S. 482, the bill to require Senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically. This legislation is a simple bill that would create more transparency and more accountability, and there’s really no rational explanation for opposing it. The Sunlight Foundation has more information. The current term’s version of the bill is sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) with 33 co-sponsors. One of the co-sponsors is Senator Harry Reid (D-NV); Senator Ensign (R-NV) was one of the previous “obstacles” to passage. So, what has Senator Ensign got against greater transparency and accountability in Senate campaign finance reports? The Sunlight Foundation could use some assistance in their efforts to secure passage. Previous bills in the 108^th, 109^th, and 110^th sessions of the Senate died at the hands of Republican obstructionism. [GovTrack]

During the 111^th session the ‘killer amendment’ has been attached by Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) requiring that nonprofit organizations be forced to disclose the names of anyone who gives $5,000 or more to the organization any time the group files a complaint with the Senate Ethics committee. For the record, these groups are already required to divulge membership to the IRS, but not to other agencies under protections dating back to the modern Civil Rights Movement during which segregationist legislators tried to get their hands on lists of NAACP members. [OMBwtch] In NAACP v. Alabama ex. Rel. Patterson (357 US 449) the Supreme Court affirmed the right of private group association after an attempt in 1956 by the state of Alabama to demand a copy of the NAACP membership list as a requirement for a business license. [NAACP] Therefore, not only is the Roberts Amendment a “poison pill” it is also quite likely unconstitutional.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Quick Hits: Stimulus Waivers and a Wavering Governor

>

Representatives Berkley (D-NV1), Heller (R-NV2), and Titus (D-NV3) have asked the US Department of Education to grant Nevada a waiver for higher education funds. [LVSun] The Sun provides a link to the letter. America’s least relevant Governor (Jim Gibbons) wants the Department to grant the waiver as well. [LVSun] This would be the same Governor who announced that he would reject stimulus money as “indefensible,” and flippity flopped on the room tax legislation he’d once vowed to support. [KLAS] When the Nevada Appeal editorial board publishes commentary taking the position that the Governor is out of touch, we can fairly well assume that his will be a one term tenure.

Before we get singularly focused on Edward Liddy’s scattered and incomplete testimony to the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, GSEs (House Committee on Financial Services), [HCFS] there’s a report given in testimony from the Government Accountability Office (.pdf) that should be reviewed. Shirah at Unbossed has a very cogent and concise summary of the AIG timeline.

It’s Sunshine Week at Open Secrets, and members of the U.S. Senate get an “F” for failing to pass S. 482, requiring members of the Senate file their campaign reports electronically. This time it’s Senator Roberts (R-KS) who is stalling the bill. Ten organizations have allied to press for the passage of this simple piece of legislation, the full text is available. Thus far S. 482 languishes on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. (Calendar #25)

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Ensign still blocking S. 223: Senate campaign chair holds up campaign finance sunlight bill

>

In the midst of press dithering over whether Senator Barack Obama really promised he’d accept public campaign financing, and how Senator John McCain’s fund raising compares to the Obama camp’s capacity to buy ad time, there’s a bill quietly languishing in the Senate that would make Senatorial Campaign Funding more transparent – and, it’s being blocked by Senator John Ensign (R-NV).

S. 223 now has it’s own webpage, compliments of the Sunlight Foundation, Common Cause, Public Citizen and several other civic minded organizations. The Huffington Post gave the cause some headline space earlier this month, and while this is good in progressive circles, the issue could use more publicity.

A bit of background: As of September 26, 2007 Senator Ensign had voted three times in the previous six months against the passage of S.223, the Senate electronic disclosure of campaign finance reports bill out of committee. Summing up, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is blocking passage of a non-controversial bill that would require the electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports. [Cfinst] [Text: GovTrack] Why?

Senator Ensign is acting as the “human shield” for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who has a pet amendment he wants attached to the bill that would require non-profit organizations to disclose all donors giving $5,000 or more when filing an ethics complaint against a Senator. Senator McConnell effectively stalled consideration of the bill for three years in his efforts to get his pet Jamendment attached to the final product. [Cfinst]

The so-called Ensign Amendment, which is actually Senator McConnell’s amendment, [DB] is not germane and Rules Committee Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein is correct noting that S. 223 simply requires Senators to transfer records already kept in electronic form to the Secretary of the Senate in electronic form. It is not the Democratic leadership that has linked financial misadventures or possible corruption to the subject of campaign finance reporting, it’s the GOP leadership itself.

In addition to being non-germane to the issue of campaign finance reporting – unless one holds that all Senate campaign finance reporting done electronically will reflect ethical lapses as the GOP appears to assume – the McConnell (Ensign) Amendment has less to do with the process by which ethics complaints might be filed as with the practice of tracking donors to non-profit, and non-partisan, organizations that seek to promote more daylight on political fund raising. This trick is as old as the white power elites’ attempts to get NAACP membership lists during the modern civil rights movement.

It’s ironic that the National Association of Manufacturers has filed suit challenging a provision of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act which “requires lobbying organizations to disclose more information about their affiliates and members who pay for and participate in lobbying efforts. NAM indicated in the suit that it feared the provision would require it to reveal a membership list of 11,000 corporate members, which the organization now keeps secret.” [D21] The same fear pervades non-profit organizations, that the revelation of membership lists might be used as for reprisals and untoward negative publicity.

Senator Ensign has defended “his” amendment as germane (Thus accepting that in the GOP fund raising and corruption are two sides of the same coin?) and necessary to prevent frivolous ethics charges emanating from caliginous sources. If he truly believes that the matter should be given a full hearing then there is no reason the subject of the amendment can’t be put forward as a stand-alone bill. If he doesn’t then the amendment is simply as many writers have characterized it – a poison pill designed to prevent the passage of S. 223. It’s a sorry thing when the chair of a national party’s Senatorial Campaign Committee is the one blocking passage of a piece of sunlight legislation.

** Previous posts: January 9, 2008; December 4, 2007; September 26, 2007; July 14, 2007; on Desert Beacon.

>Coffee and the Papers: Ethics on hold, Economy down, Mideast mess

>Forty members of the U.S. Senate have signed on to legislation (S. 223) to require electronic filing of campaign contributions, but Senator John Ensign (R-NV) isn’t one of them. Ensign, as noted previously, has an irrelevant amendment he wants attached, and is holding up consideration of the bill until he ‘gets what he wants.’ Nevada citizens will have an opportunity to display their displeasure with this obstructionism by Roadblock Republicans at 10 a.m. Monday, January 14 when Common Cause conducts its press conference outside Senator Ensign’s Reno Office. (Corner of Virginia St. and Liberty). For more information click over to the Sunlight Foundation site.

Members of the House of Representatives may get to debate legislation creating stronger ethics enforcement when the session resumes as a group of Democratic ‘freshmen’ introduces a measure to create an outside ethics office. The proposal comes in the form an amendment to an ethics bill introduced in December, which has House leadership worried that opening the bill to amendments would let the Republicans offer amendments to weaken or even kill the original bill. [The Hill] Nevadans may want to watch how our Congressional delegation members react to these amendments.

Timing is everything? The Bush Administration will notify Congress next Monday that it intends to sell $20 billion in weapons (including precision guided bombs) to Saudi Arabia, “moving up the announcement to coincide with the president’s arrival in Riyadh.” [NYT] “Bush gets no promises in Mideast visit” [LAT] “Palestinians little moved by Bush visit” [CSM] Glenn Greenwald summarized the “Grave Iranian threat to world peace.” [Salon] “Bomb kills 23 in Pakistan” [NYT] “Iran shows its own video of vessels’ encounter in Gulf” [NYT] “Turkish military shells northern Iraq” [NYT]

This could get interesting: “By Feb. 1, the National Archives and Records Administration and the White House must provide congressional watchdogs with an update on preparations for the transition of all presidential records to the National Archives by January 2009. Concerns over progress might be well-founded: Proper handling of electronic documents, the need to identify and centralize pertinent records, and the sheer volume of information all leave the White House with a mammoth project on its hands.” [Gov Exec]

Little wonder national campaigns are tacking into the economic winds, the Center for American Progress reports that in 2001 67% of Americans thought the economy was in good shape contrasted with 72% who now say it isn’t. These headlines may be an indication of how far off the mark the Republicans have been in their management of the U.S. economy: “Stimulus unlikely to counter rise in oil prices,” [WaPo] “Capital One Financial says profit is way off,” [WaPo] “Dismal December for Retailers” [WaPo] “Jittery shoppers kept retail sales flat in Dec.” [NYT] “Bank agrees to buy troubled loan giant for $4 billion,” [NYT] “Luxury shoppers shut their purses” “Rolls Royce aims at 6 percent staff cut” [Forbes] [BusWk] “The Fed may have to play catch-up” [BusWk] “U.S. trade deficit widens” [NYT] “Merrill seen suffering $15 billion loss” [Reuters] “World economy threatened by U.S. slowdown” [Reuters] More information and commentary at: “Bank of Countrywide America” [Salon] “Economic Snapshot” – 13 indicators that all is not well. [CAP]

So, which Democratic presidential candidate does the corporate elite fear most? John Edwards. [Reuters] “Clinton promises new economic plan” (calls Bush response “anemic”) [AP] Summaries of candidate positions and comments are available at “The early word: It’s the economy” [NYT]

Nevada headlines at Blue Sage Views

>Ensign subject of Sunlight Foundation video: Still blocking campaign finance reform bill

>

Remember that poison pill amendment Senator John Ensign (R-NV) attached to S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act? The Senator’s continued refusal to drop his pre-Civil Rights Era proposal from the bill may get him some unwanted publicity next week when the Sunlight Foundation in conjunction with Public Campaign and Common Cause will release their video on the subject.

Common Cause is also planning a press conference next week to be held in front of Senator Ensign’s Reno office. Those interested in participating in this event should contact the Government Watchdog Program/Common Cause at 916-760-1534.

>S. 223: Ensign serves as human screen for McConnell on campaign finance reform opposition

>My, my, what a good little soldier is our Senator John Ensign (R-NV). Not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, but in the Senate Chamber wherein he serves as a human screen for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The Senate “electronic filing bill,” S.223, was blocked on Monday for the third time, by Senator Ensign. But there’s more to the story: “Sunlight has learned that last week Democratic offices were given a Unanimous Consent agreement that would have allowed the Senate to move to S. 223 only if they agreed to take up a an amendment identical to the one introduced on Monday by Senator John Ensign. The consent agreement came from none other than the offices of Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom the Sunlight Foundation has targeted as a culprit in covering up the identity of the anonymous Senators previously blocking the bill. That the “McConnell amendment” is now being offered by Senator Ensign comes as no surprise to long time McConnell watchers, who are well aware that when it comes to reform, McConnell is often hiding behind the scenes, pulling all the strings. The document shows that the effort to block S. 223 originates not from the offices of Sen. Ensign but from the Minority Leader’s office. So, McConnell wasn’t hiding the identity of a fellow senator, he was hiding himself!” Paul Blumenthal, Sunlight Foundation [Sunlight] (emphasis added)

In the immortal words of an old Pilgrim Myth: “Speak for yourself John!” It’s probably time for Nevada citizens to ask Senator Ensign if he is willing to claim this egregious amendment as his own, and to cover for Senator McConnell, or if he truly opposes electronic filing of campaign reports? For Senator Ensign to claim that he’s really all for electronic filing, but insists on this amendment, is tantamount to claiming that he’s in favor of the provisions of S. 223, but can’t move a muscle without the permission from his Minority Leader – hardly the stuff of an independent voice in the U.S. Senate. Perhaps never has “Ensignificant” been so appropriate.

B/B (h/t) to Nisha Thompson, Outreach Director, Sunlight Foundation for the links and additional information.

>Ensign wants Senate to swallow poison pill amendment

>Senator John Ensign (R-NV) wants supporters of electronic campaign finance reports to believe two things, neither of which is plausible: (1) That he can’t remember putting the secret hold on the bill; and (2) That the amendment he wants inserted is for the public good. [RGJ] [LVRJ] First, it’s really hard to believe that a person wouldn’t remember placing a secret hold on a bill, and it’s even harder to believe that an individual wouldn’t remember doing it twice.

The junior Senator’s own statement opens up the credibility question: “Ensign, R-Nev., said he supports the legislation but has been blocking its progress because he wants his colleagues to consider an amendment that would require outside groups that file ethics complaints against senators to disclose their funding sources. “If there are people filing ethics complaints for pure partisan purposes, it should be public knowledge,” he said.” First, the ethics complaint filings are public knowledge, so the “IT” Ensign wants is the disclosure of the membership records of the organization doing the filing. This tactic is as old as the White Citizens Councils. [CRMvet]

Disclosure of donor and membership lists has already been found by the U.S. Supreme Court to have a “chilling effect on the freedom to associate.” Arkansas school teachers filed suit challenging a state statute that would force them to disclose every group to which they had belonged for the previous five years. The court found in Shelton v. Tucker (1960) that local groups intended to lobby local school officials not to hire anyone who had any connections to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Urban League, the American Association of University Professors, and the Women’s Emergency Committee to Open our Schools. In Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960) a local NAACP president challenged his conviction under a statute that required disclosure of the NAACP membership list. The stated purpose of the demand was to “determine if the organization was a charitable, non-profit.” The local chapter president had provided the financial information but not the names and addresses to prevent racial harassment and hate crimes. The Supreme Court ruled that while this wasn’t a “frontal” attack on the NAACP the statute did “stifle by more subtle government interference” the organization’s activities promoting civil rights. Figuring out why the White citizens’ groups wanted the names and addresses of civil rights workers in Arkansas requires little, if indeed any, imagination. Arkansas wasn’t the only battleground.

Louisiana whites tried to prevent the NAACP from “doing business” in the State unless the names of its members were made public in 1956, to ferret out “Communists” or “subversive organizations.” They failed in Louisiana v. NAACP (1961). The State of Florida tried to get NAACP membership lists in 1963, once again ostensibly to determine if the organization was harboring alleged Communists. Again, the high court refused to allow the tactic, holding that if the organization itself was not engaged in illegal activities the membership list was protected. [Gibson v. Florida]

Anti-integrationists tried the “background check” argument, the financial status stratagem, and the “anti-Communist” charade; current arguments for the disclosure of membership lists and records stand on equally thin ground.

Unfortunately, Senator Ensign’s argument mirrors those made by anti-integrationists and white supremacy leaders fifty years ago. White supremacist leaders sought to argue decades ago that the public had a “right to know” who was challenging the established order in the South, and Senator Ensign’s argument is a return to that discredited line of argument, contending as it does that the public has a “right to know” who is challenging the ethics of a member of Congress. The Supreme Court has already held that it should be sufficient to know that Association A, or Organization B is the originator of a complaint; and, it has been consistently held unconstitutional to require the specific membership lists of those entities.

The amendment Senator Ensign is exploiting to prevent the passage of electronic campaign finance filings is quite likely unconstitutional, and certainly beneath the consideration of any who support the right of free speech and association. We’ve been down this road once, there’s no reason to replicate the sins of the past.

>Coffee and the Papers

>The fantasies of Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) notwithstanding, there is evidence of warming in the Sierras with implications for northern Nevada’s water supplies [RGJ] and in those areas in which water is already scarce there is continuing controversy about how (or even if) to distribute it from northern to southern Nevada. [LVRJ]

While governments at nearly all levels are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, representatives of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn. and others are pushing Congress to support the Depression era program to build coal fired power plants. [WaPo] Congress is now trying to figure out how to upgrade the century-old power plant for the U.S. Capitol. [Roll Call subscription]

The African country of Chad was supposed to reap wonderful benefits from an “innovative collaboration” between the World Bank, Exxon Mobil, and the government of Chad. Since the oil deal life has become harder, the conflict in Darfur has seeped into the country, the government has become more corrupt, and bandits have become rebels. [NYT select]

Thus much for casino operator Steve Wynn’s admission he made a big mistake with his tip-sharing scheme. His dealers voted 444-149 to be represented by the Transportation Workers of America. [Nevada Appeal] Wynn’s “bad idea” precipitated a proposed bill in the Nevada Legislature to ban such tip-sharing policies. [KRNV] Wynn has one week in which to challenge the union vote.

Washington Post headlines “Voter Fraud complaints by GOP drove dismissals” The meat’s in the second paragraph: “Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered for removal last year, five were identified by Rove or other administration officials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voter fraud — Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; New Mexico; Nevada; and Washington state. Four of the five prosecutors in those districts were dismissed.” To which we can add, “Yet another purged attorney?” (former West Virginia prosecutor fired in the middle of a corruption and vote buying investigation) [Think Progress] The firing that still remains something of a mystery is that of Daniel Bogden in Nevada. [TPMM]

Nevadans aren’t the only ones with questions about the readiness levels of National Guard units. [DB] Congressman Christopher Carney (D-PA), Chr. of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight has announced hearings on National Guard Readiness for Thursday, May 24th at 10:00 am. [The Gavel] It appears that we can add Illinois to the list of states in which the Guard manpower is sufficient to address emergency needs, but the heavy equipment is “strained by deployment.” [Panta] Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) reports that the Maryland National Guard has 50% of the total equipment it needs and 66% of the equipment needed for domestic homeland security. [Mik]

The Congress is still grappling with how to handle “bundling” financial contributions to campaigns. The current language in the Senate bill requires disclosure of any checks solicited even if the lobbyists only have an informal agreement with the donor, and an equally informal understanding with the candidate. Under current law people not working for the campaign are required to register with the FEC, but volunteers can easily obtain a letter from the campaign designating them as a fundraiser. House members are trying to solve issues surrounding the bundling of checks that the lobbyists literally never see, noting that requiring “a physical standard would miss most of the action.” [Roll Call subscription]

The trial of alleged terrorist Jose Padilla opens today in Miami, and the key piece of evidence against him is an application to attend an Al Qaeda training camp; a far cry from the “dirty bomb” plot first announced. [Miami Herald]

Meanwhile in Iraq: “Iraqi political feuding has paralyzed Bush’s strategy” [McClatchy]
———-
Update: Nevada Legislative deadlines and hearings posted at Blue Sage Views

>Another Ensign Anonymous Hold?

>Nevada Up North is asking if Senator John Ensign (R-NV) is responsible for the anonymous hold on S. 223, the bill to require electronic political financial disclosure. [WaPo] via Daily Kos. Thus far, Ensign’s office has responded that “they don’t know,” but that holds are announced within three days.

To ask for yourself call 202-224-6244.

Ensign has used the anonymous hold tactic before to halt the confirmation process for Vice Admiral Thad Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard. [Ensign]