« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Daily Muck
Joshua Henderson, the Marine who unleashed a 200 round barrage of bullets from his M240 that killed as many as 19 Afghans last March, asserts that he will testify only if he is granted immunity. Other Marines have testified that Henderson fired as many as 10 times and that they did not see any evidence of hostile gunmen or incoming rounds. (LA Times)
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees want more information about former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s no-bid contract to monitor out-of-court settlements of criminal allegations. The contract is worth between $28 million and $52 million. (New York Times)
John McCain's presidential campaign might have broken its own rules by including its fundraising list as collateral for a bank loan. The campaign had promised its donors that it would not sell their information. (Politico)
NASA’s Inspector General Robert Cobb does not have much of an appetite for investigating malfeasance. Cobb, who has been accused of mismanagement by both a presidential commission and members of Congress, has dramatically reduced criminal probes within NASA. When Cobb took office as NASA’s watchdog in 2002, his office launched 508 probes yet in the last year that number had declined to 68. (USA Today)
President Bush has been fond of saying that North Korea was producing counterfeit U.S. currency. However, a 10-month investigation by McClatchy concludes that there is little evidence to support this charge. The Swiss Bundeskriminalpolizei, who play a major role in tracking international counterfeiters, believes that North Korea’s dated printing technology makes it impossible for them to print “supernotes” ($100 bills). (McClatchy)
Now that an investigation of the November crash of an F-15 jet reveals a significant structural flaw in a support beam, the Air Force is looking into whether McDonnell Douglas (which since merged with Boeing), the plane’s manufacturer, bears responsibility. (LA Times)
Jury selection has begun in the trial of former Allegheny County coroner Cyril Wecht, whose laywers argue that he is being prosecuted for political reasons. Because an appeals court recently overruled the judge's order to seat a nearly anonymous jury, the jurors' names will become public before the trial. (AP)
A judge has allowed the discovery phase of Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS to move forward. Rather, who argues that he has been made a "scapegoat," is seeking $70 million in damages over his firing in March 2005. (AP)
Ralph Reed, whose ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff helped derail his career as a politician, has returned to politics - this time as a "GOP political analyst" on CNN. (Washington Post)
Comments (4)
Michael Lafferty wrote on January 11, 2008 11:08 AM:As I posted over at Politico…
Full disclosure: I am a progressive Democrat on board with John Edwards. There is a long list of individuals I do NOT want to see ascend to the office President of the United States, and Senator McCain is high on this list, for a number of reasons.
But, seriously - how is the incorporation of donor information in the collateralization of a note 'selling' that information, or otherwise providing it for resale? And, isn't donor information for all intents and purposes public information, or on its way to becoming public information through the Federal Election Commission at the end of each calendar quarter?
This strikes me as silly, and it's regrettable that the story includes no clarifying information from one of the primary architects of campaign finance reform. Or, from Senator Feingold, who worked closely with Senator McCain to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform.
Those of you who are so certain that this is an issue should do a little research, perhaps. I believe you will find that there is nothing unusual in this effort to borrow funds against the assets of the campaign, that no 'sale' has taken place, that donor information is eventually public information, and that there is nothing to this story. Really, nothing at all.
Maybe the reporter who filed this story and the editor who reviewed it can provide specific supporting evidence that this is a non-standard practice, breaks one or more campaign finance laws, and actually does violate the privacy policy posted by the campaign.
Even the one person who attempted a salient answer missed the point, or points, that I made, obviously lost in their overall adoration of Governor Romney and disdain for Senator McCain.
Yawn. This strikes me as such a non-starter of a story. Seriously. The real issue appears to be the shoddy reporting at Politico, coupled with the bitter, acerbic commentary of those who post there.
And I thought that the anti-Clinton and anti-Obama characters were largely clueless…
JEP wrote on January 11, 2008 11:40 AM:"the bitter, acerbic commentary of those who post there..."
Thems the blogs: sweet and bitter from the same well. And we are all better for it...
Well, we agree on candidates (Edwards) but disagree on selling email and mailing lists, I can not imagine a scenario where I would agree to have my information used as collateral for a loan.
So if they can't pay the loan, does the bank get to use the list at its own discretion?
And how can lists be considered property in the first place, unless they are being exploited?
Honestly, Michael, methinks thou doest protest too much, if you wanted this story to be a non-starter, you shouldn't have started a dialogue about it. Now people like me, who would have just regarded the story and gone on to the next one, will reconsider and recirculate it all the more.
You sure made me look more closely.
Redshift wrote on January 11, 2008 12:00 PM:"But, seriously - how is the incorporation of donor information in the collateralization of a note 'selling' that information, or otherwise providing it for resale? And, isn't donor information for all intents and purposes public information, or on its way to becoming public information through the Federal Election Commission at the end of each calendar quarter?"
If it isn't worth anything, you can't use it as collateral. Using it as collateral isn't selling it, but it is agreeing to turn it over to the bank to sell if you can't repay the loan.
And the FEC certainly considers donor lists to have considerable value. For example, candidates that drop their campaigns can't simply give their list to the candidate they endorse, because it's considered an in-kind contribution, and a big one, well beyond contribution limits.
ExListPro wrote on January 11, 2008 3:50 PM:Couple points:
1) Yes, donor lists are public information, from what is filed with the FEC.
2) A campaign's own list will have far more value on the market than one compiled from FEC data. There's no way to tell from the FEC data how the donor gave -- event? direct mail? via a bundler? Typically, campaign committees rent only names who have come in from direct mail, or at least have that stipulation available when you order.
In direct marketing, you want names who have already demonstrated behavior in the channel you're using. So -- anyone renting names for a direct mail solicitation to would prefer to rent names that have given via the mail. Event donors just aren't very responsive to direct mail appeals. Hence the campaign can provide a better product than the FEC.
And this isn't some rare occurence. Campaign lists are readily available -- usually not until about a year after the election, if it's Presidential, because the campaign might often go back to previous donors to retire debts or establish a Leadership Committee or whatever. A typical rental rate is $80 to $125 per thousand names, and these names might be on the market for 5 years. Or, if a committee is dissolving, they could sell the list in its entirety to one or more buyers who would find it valuable. I've seen it done both ways.
And in the vast majority of cases, donors aren't asked if they *want* to have their name rented out. They're given the opportunity to opt out of 3rd party communications, otherwise permission is assumed. No one who has "opted out" with either the campaign or with the Direct Marketing Association's Mail Preference Service will be rented -- but most everyone else can count on being included.
Don't just look at the campaigns, though. If you gave to a Federal campaign, you'll be on one of those lower-value compiled donor lists, too. McCain is just getting some leverage out of his list now when it will undoubtedly be on the market in one form or another in 2009.