Shock Robo Shock Poll Shock!

A mostly political Weblog.
May 1 2006 4:28 AM

Robo 'Yahoo' Shock Poll!

Border-centric third-party beats GOP.

(Continued from Page 6)

Update: The candidate discount saves the day?  Bradley has posted an update: Virtually all the money for the ads--some $5 million--comes from Tsakopoulos and his daughter. "The legal limit for an individual contribution to a primary campaign for governor is $22,300," but, again, since this is (in theory) an "independent" ad that limit doesn't apply. The beauty part is that because it's not an official campaign ad, the ad doesn't qualify for the special candidate rates from broadcasters. "So it is not getting the $5 million worth of advertising that the official Angelides campaign would get with this money if it were legal for it to receive this money," Bradley says. "It may be more like $3 million worth." Maybe the combination of a) shame and b) special candidate rates can effectively discourage "independent" campaigns without violating the First Amendment rights of "independent" advertisers (which an outright ban on Tsakopoulos-style independent ads would do.) That's not a bad outcome. ... Note: This "independent" expenditure problem isn't solved by public financing of campaigns, though public financing of "official" campaigns might give them another big advantage over unregulated independent campaigns. ...

P.S.: Is ABC's esteemed The Notemissing this juicy California story because it's myopically focused on the work product of a few non-Web, MSM journalists? kf says yes! ... 1:32 P.M.

Start lobbying, dammit! Are you as suspiciousas I am about the current well-publicized crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants? It would seem to serve two political purposes: 1) It's a cheap attempt to reassure anti-illegal forces who demand that the government actually get serious about enforcement; 2) It's an attempt to panic business owners who worry that the government might actually get serious about enforcement--so they'd better start lobbying to make sure that doesn't happen! ... I mean, they'd better start lobbying to make sure there's an appropriate guest worker program. An employer-side lawyer interviewed on the NPR show linked above makes this drumming-up effect explicit:

"I think it's a clear message to employers that you better pick up the phone and start calling your Congressional and Senate representatives because we need immigration reform badly."

Advertisement

I'm not sure either side will be fooled. ... 2:34 A.M.

What's his motivation? If you were writing a script about the Pellicano case, how plausible would the following scene  be?

Mr. Pellicano warned Mr. Burkle that he had already obtained all of his telephone numbers, and "was prepared to use any and every means to" investigate Mr. Burkle, but first asked him to tell his version of his dispute with Mr. Ovitz, Mr. Burkle told the F.B.I.

When Mr. Burkle did so, asserting that Mr. Ovitz owed him money, he told the F.B.I., Mr. Pellicano reacted indignantly, using an expletive to refer to Mr. Ovitz and saying he did not work for "welshers" — an exchange that was partly reported in Vanity Fair in 2004.

That Pellicano--he may be a sleazy, mercenary bully who's behind bars, but he has his own rough-hewn moral code! He simply will not work for "welshers"! Don't you see? ... Er ... no ...

Sorry, NYT! I think it needs another draft! ...

P.S.--Unflummoxed: I think I can clear up the less important of my two confusions about Ron Burkle, which was:

If, as reported by the NY Observer's "Daily Transom", details of Ron Burkle's "divorce were printed in the Los Angeles Business Journal, which combed over the records before the records were sealed," and reporters have copies of this publication, why don't we know the juicy details from those records?

Apparently the only part of the divorce record that was printed by the LABJ was the "marital settlement agreement" (a post-nup, not a pre-nup). The rest of the court record, and whatever juicy details it does or doesn't contain, remains under seal pending Ron Burkle's appeal to the state Supreme Court. That court may turn down the case in the next few weeks, however, which would likely result in an unsealing. ... At least Mr. Burkle didn't draw the press' attention to himself at this potentially delicate moment!... 1:51 A.M. link

Thursday, April 20, 2006