Review of Mainero v. Probolsky On TIN CUP 2: Part 1
Posted by: Jubal | 01/30/2008 8:40 AM
If you click over to Rick Reiff's Inside OC site, you can watch the most recent episode, which features Sup. Moorlach's Chief of Staff, Mario Mainero, squaring off against GOP consultant Adam Probolsky.
The topic: the misbegotten TIN CUP 2 campaign finance ordinance.
It'll take a few minutes to download the file. The Mainero-Probolsky face-off starts at about the 13 minute mark.
Mario Mainero makes some statements that deserve further examination. For example:
Hold the phone: "the train has already left the station"? I could say the same thing about retroactive 3% at 50 pensions, but that hasn't stopped Sup. Moorlach and Mario Mainero from plowing ahead on that front.
Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of contribution limits. The Supreme Court at one time also upheld the constitutionality of separate-but-equal racial segregation in public schools. But it's absurd to say that because something is permissible, then it ought to be done. Something doesn't magically become good public policy because the SCOTUS rules it is permissible to do. There are all sorts of things we can do to expand government that SCOTUS considers permissible, but conservative advocates of limited government ought to oppose.
This train has not left the station by any means. There is absolutely nothing preventing the Board of Supervisors from abolishing contribution limits, and to suggest otherwise is untrue.
By all means, let's bring campaign finance compliance into the modern world. We can start by junking the archaic, post-Watergate experiment in contribution limits and substitute a system better suited to the Internet age and our nation's tradition of liberty and limited government.
The slate mailer provision is an great combined example of arbitrariness presented in bureaucratic gobbledygook -- and it will literally require taking a ruler to slate mailers to see if the 25% surface area rule is violated. The point is Supervisor Moorlach is endorsing this absurd provision that Adam describes very accurately. If Mario and Sup. Moorlach think it should be retained, then they should be able to explain why.
More later...
The topic: the misbegotten TIN CUP 2 campaign finance ordinance.
It'll take a few minutes to download the file. The Mainero-Probolsky face-off starts at about the 13 minute mark.
Mario Mainero makes some statements that deserve further examination. For example:
"First of all, I think we have to start with the fact that the train has already left the station on whether we have contribution limits. In 1976, with Buckley v. Valeo, in 2002 with McConnell v. the FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of campaign contribution limitations."
Hold the phone: "the train has already left the station"? I could say the same thing about retroactive 3% at 50 pensions, but that hasn't stopped Sup. Moorlach and Mario Mainero from plowing ahead on that front.
Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of contribution limits. The Supreme Court at one time also upheld the constitutionality of separate-but-equal racial segregation in public schools. But it's absurd to say that because something is permissible, then it ought to be done. Something doesn't magically become good public policy because the SCOTUS rules it is permissible to do. There are all sorts of things we can do to expand government that SCOTUS considers permissible, but conservative advocates of limited government ought to oppose.
This train has not left the station by any means. There is absolutely nothing preventing the Board of Supervisors from abolishing contribution limits, and to suggest otherwise is untrue.
"So the issue isn't really whether we are going to have them,the issue is whether we are going to bring them into a more modern campaign era."Not so fast. Whether we have contribution limits should be very much an issue. Have they succeeded in making government "cleaner"? Are elections more or less competitive?
By all means, let's bring campaign finance compliance into the modern world. We can start by junking the archaic, post-Watergate experiment in contribution limits and substitute a system better suited to the Internet age and our nation's tradition of liberty and limited government.
"I think Adam misses something. What he's referring to has been in the law for quite a few years. That's not an update at all."I think Mario is missing something. By retaining the crazy slate mailer provision -- which has only been in TIN CUP since Supervisor Norby's election in 2002 -- Sup. Moorlach and Mario are endorsing it. That provision was Grindle's way to outlawing a campaign tactic that helped challenger Norby to unseat incumbent Cynthia Coad. But no, TIN CUP isn't about helping incumbents.
The slate mailer provision is an great combined example of arbitrariness presented in bureaucratic gobbledygook -- and it will literally require taking a ruler to slate mailers to see if the 25% surface area rule is violated. The point is Supervisor Moorlach is endorsing this absurd provision that Adam describes very accurately. If Mario and Sup. Moorlach think it should be retained, then they should be able to explain why.
More later...
Odd. Mario's logic seems opaque. Limits are legal so we already have them. That's a giant logical leap.
And we don't have a Campaign Commission. Don't need one.
Mario is incorrect about the history of campaign finance laws. The Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976 gave the government broad power to regulate free speech since then conservative courts have chipped away at it, rending virtually meaningless. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission stripped McCain-Feingold of much of its power. The courts are steady moving in the direction that campaign finance infringes on free speech.
Has anyone noticed Steve Greenhut's conspicuous silence on this issue?
The Reg published a weak anti-TIN CUP editorial a week ago, and it was clear Cathy Taylor, not Greenhut, wrote it.
Greenhut used to regularly criticize Shirley and stand up against government regulation of political speech.
And now not a peep out of him.
I think he's giving Shirley Grindle a pass because she share's his hatred of Mike Carona. Some independent voice he's turning out to be.
I agree Greenhut is laying off this issue, but not because he's sold out to Grindle (although he's changed his tune on her due to Carona).
Greenhut is keeping mum on the TIN CUP 2 issue because it's a Moorlach initiative. His silence is payback.
The Independent Oversight Commission to keep an eye on the sheriff's deputies was Greenhut's idea. He got Moorlach to push it into law.
So, as a favor to Moorlach, Greenhut is holding his fire. If this TIN CUP 2 and county FPPC was coming out of Bill Campbell's office, Greenhut would be flaming it mercilessly.