I remain convinced that most of the anti-choice (I refuse to call them “pro-life”) fanatics don't know anyone who has had an abortion. Still, for a group dedicated to the oppression of half of the population, they have had incredible success.

One recent victory is Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court's decision last year upholding a ban on so-called partial birth abortion. One of the points Kennedy makes in his opinion is that:

While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp. 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ibid.

If you unpack these sentences, what they say is that there is no evidence for what we're about to say, but it could be true that “some” –how many? don't bother asking–women have some regret; depression and loss of esteem “can” follow–we can't say for sure that they do follow, but it's possible. Thus, they couch their opposition to women's autonomy in a pretended concern for women's best interests. It's almost hard to believe that someone with training in close, logical reasoning could make such statements.

This week the American Psychological Association released a new study, finding that there is no scientific evidence to support this theory.

BOSTON—There is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women, according to a draft report released Tuesday by a task force of the American Psychological Association.

The APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion reached its conclusions after evaluating all of the empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals since 1989 that compared the mental health of women who had an induced abortion to comparison groups of women, or that examined factors that predict mental health among women who have had an elective abortion in the United States. The task force, formed in 2006, was charged with collecting, examining and summarizing the scientific research addressing mental health factors associated with abortion, including the psychological responses following abortion.

 “The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy,” said Brenda Major, PhD, chair of the task force. “The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain.”

To me, this is welcome news. Obviously, there is a vast category of people to whom the facts don't matter. Still, every chance we can get to demonstrate that there is no factual basis for their claims is important: it exposes the roots of their positions for the superstition and bigotry that they are. 

(This is a lot more important than my hummingbird photos. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Overheard in Montpelier — Jim Douglas to Anthony Pollina:  “Tony, here's $28,000, don't spend it all in one Party.”

Anthony Pollina's campaign is not handling his departure from the Vermont Progressive Party with the aplomb expected of a politician who has run in three statewide elections since 1984.  The current campaign finance flap was a foreseeable distraction, but he apparently had no pre-determined solution nor did he take proactive steps to stave off the problem before allowing a confusing political/financial/legal narrative to take hold.

The most important aspect of this story is also the most overlooked. No one seems to be discussing the fact that:

1. Mr. Pollina has broken no campaign finance law.

2. Mr. Pollina is under no legal obligation to return the notorious and controversial $28K.

3. Mr. Pollina may legally continue to collect contributions as an Independent in the same manner that he would have done as a Progressive.

Pretty crazy considering both his response to this affair and the press he has received as result.

My opinion (glad you asked)  Mr. Pollina owes Governor Douglas a big fat sloppy wet kiss because, thanks to the Governor, Pollina is not legally obligated to return a single penny. In fact, Vermont law does nothing to prevent him from going back to his contributors (caveat, good luck trying!) for more $$ — all thanks to Governor Douglas.

The fun stuff, below:

Anthony Pollina will be under extreme political pressure to return single source contributions in excess of $1,000. 

There has been an agreement among politicians to accept an informal campaign contribution ceasefire ceiling.  Face it; many of Vermont's large contributors have wholeheartedly endorsed this as well.  He will look really unsavory if he is the first person to exceed the politically and socially acceptable $1,000 limits just because (1) he can and (2) he forgot to consider the problem in the first place: oops!

Still the point is one of image not law. While burdened with a political and public relations obligation, Mr. Pollina does not face any legal obligation to return “excess” campaign contributions.  The State cannot prosecute Mr. Pollina nor can it hold him liable, fine him or otherwise put him in legal jeopardy since Vermont does not have a law on the books for him to violate.  The current “limits” folks are discussing are legally non-existent.  They are voluntary.  They reflect a mutual non-aggression pact to continue using the pre-Randall v. William Sorrell single source contribution limits.

Pretty neat trick, uh? 

This is how it works.  In April 2008, as the legislature was winding down the session, Governor James “Watch.Me.Starve.The.State-but-Piggy.Stuff.the.Snot.Out.of.My.Campaign.Account” Douglas vetoed the one piece of legislation that would have placed limits on contributions to gubernatorial campaigns.

This spring, our General Assembly passed S. 278. Senate Bill 278 fixed the problem created by the Randall v. Sorrell decision and replaced the campaign contribution limits the legislature had repealed in Act 64.

S.278 set a generally acceptable limit on campaign contributions and was the product of intense negotiation, compromise and acceptance by political parties, legislators and public interest groups. Among other things, it would have instituted a contribution limit of $1,000 per election cycle.  The exact language in S.278 that Governor Douglas vetoed read:

A candidate for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general shall not accept contributions totaling more than $1,000.00 from a single source or political committee for any election.

By vetoing the legislation, however, Governor Douglas prevented any statutory limit on campaign contributions to gubernatorial (or any) candidates. The legal ceiling on campaign contributions to gubernatorial candidates — rather than being statutorily capped at $1,000.00 — remains well in excess of this.  In fact, there is no limit. Governor Douglas can harvest contributions far in excess of the $1K & $2K individual offerings he already has sloshing around in his campaign slop bucket.

Governor Douglas's veto has forced the most wide-open campaign contribution (non)limits in the country and with hardly a peep out of anyone. Come late August, September or October, he can call on his donor base for unlimited funds to cluster bomb Vermont airwaves with standard issue GOP dissembled cookie-cutter media fear & slime, and there is no legal recourse against him doing it either.

The Process, How We Came to this Point: 

Prior to 1998, Vermont law mandated “No candidate shall accept contributions totaling more than $1,000 from a single source.” 3 V.S.A. §2805 (pre-1988 language)

In 1997, our General Assembly repealed the $1,000 campaign contribution limit. In its place the legislature adopted a new law mandating a $400 single source contribution limit. This is the key to the whole mess. The legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation REPEALING the $1,000 contribution limit that Mr. Pollina is being pilloried for “violating.” The replacement statute became effective in November 1998 after that year's election. 

Since passage of Act 64, there is not $1,000.00 contribution limit under Vermont law.  The $400 limit “on the books” (as they say), was tossed by the Supreme Court as part of an overall unconstitutional campaign finance scheme. To this day, if one looks-up the statutory contribution limits in Title 17, the only language “on the books” states:  A candidate for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general shall not accept contributions totaling more than $400.00 from a single source, political committee or political party in any two-year general election cycle. Oops! That's not very helpful now is it?  Oh well, the rest, as they say, is history.

The unrepaired language residing in Vermont's campaign finance statutes are a meaningless relic waiting for a legislative update without a gubentorial veto. So what is the contribution limit to a gubernatorial campaign?  The simple, and legally correct answer, is that there is no limit.

So WHERE DOES one find the so-called $1,000 single source contirbution limit that Mr. Pollina allegedly violated? The short answer is nowhere, but there is still more to the story than that.

Faced with this problem – i.e. no contribution limits – and after being shot down in Randell v. William Sorrel et al. (which, BTW, cost Vermont taxpayers a few $million in legal fees that the courts required State to reimburse the plainfiffs for violating their free speech rights), the Attorney General decided to implement a new limit on campaign contributions. With a straight face, he declared that Vermont's contribution law “reverts” to the old repealed law when the Court stikes down the law currently residing in the Vermont Code.

“Uhh” you may be asking?

This “reversion” concept, while not recognized in law, or fact, nor in any way enforceable, and without any historic precedent, has nonetheless been the basis of the informal campaign finance cease-fire practiced by MOST candidate thus far. (Aside – at least one candidate violated it intentionally in 2006 to make this very point). Asst. Attorney Gen. Mike McShane was quoted in several Vermont papers saying the A.G.'s office would sit back and wait to receive a complaint before “investigating.” I suspect that one reason the State might not be jumping to bring a case against anyone who breaks the $1,000 “limit” is this one little problem: THERE IS NO LAW on the books to violate. Hello!

Reality check: If the State were to charge someone with violating a contribution limit, the first thing a judge asks is “what statute did the defendent violate?” To which the prosecuter from the AG's office would respond, “it's our position *cough* that the defendent violated 17 V.S.A. §2805(a), which the legislature repealed in 1997. In front of most judges I know, that response will go over like a fart in church. The next thing the judge will say (and if s/he is lucky, the only and most polite statement a prosecuter can expect to hear) is “case dismissed.”

Back to Mr. Pollina. There are many problems with Anthony Pollina’s campaign. The fact that he will be lucky to garner the same 9.5% of the vote he received when he last ran for Governor is problem numero uno. 

His biggest problem is ditching the Progressive Party. We have heard many reasons why he did that. Personally, (among other reasons) I think he did it to preserve a face-saving option to drop out of the race. As an Independent, he can bail after the primary without leaving the Progressives saddled with a headless horseman candidate still on the ballot riding into November. He has a drop-out option as an Independent free agent that would otherwise be a painful option to exercise as the Progressive nominee.

This latest campaign finance flap, however, is a big distraction. It represents a painfully difficult choice rather than a legal liability.

One final thought. Off the bat, I said that Mr. Pollina owes the Governor a big fat wet sloppy kiss (I say it again here for those lucky enough to have purged that image from their minds, sorry!). Still, I'm not sure who should be giving who the reach-around on this one. If Mr. Pollina decides to breach the gentleman'sperson's agreement on $1,000.00 single source contributions, what then? The Governor had his reasons for vetoing the contribution limit in the first place *wink**wink*. Even though Mr. Pollina's campaign is going nowhere, think of the precedent it will set if he keeps the money. Think of the cover this gives the Governor to go nuclear on the money front. Once our little(former)Progressive boy pulls his finger out of the money dike, where do you think the river of big money contributions will flow?

I have a feeling the Douglas campaign will not demagogue the Pollina campaign's latest screw-up.  I also have a feeling the Douglas campaign sees this for the opportunity that it is.  

Will the press ask the candidates whether they will pledge to continue respecting the informal and non-binding $1,000 ceiling?  Will Governor Douglas make a pledge to hold the line or will he make a “I will follow the letter of the law” non-answer if asked?  We'll see.

NOTE:  Vermont's election laws (Title 17) can be found HERE.  The specific section — 17 V.S.A. §2805(a) — that was overturned by the Supreme Court is HERE.

 Loading ...

So much for the idea that Wesley Clark might get anywhere near an Obama administration, let alone be VP:

 * [new] He kept the date open… (38+ / 0-)

For a long time but we have a very active business that he needs to travel a lot for.  He wasn’t invited to speak at the convention.  I’m sure somebody in his office called the campaign and asked if he was going to be invited to speak because he needs to book meetings for that week if he isn’t in Denver.  Apparently the answer that came back was no.

It’s not a fake out or some secret plan, he isn’t going to be VP or probably anything else in an Obama administration, assuming he’s elected.

What he is going to do is go out and campaign for Obama and plenty of Democrats in house and senate races this Fall.

I know some you think you can change this by launching VP diaries a couple times a day in hopes that Obama will be swayed by the “netroots.”  Dude, when has that ever worked with this campaign?

It’s a beautiful day.  Go outside and get some sun.

“Apes don’t read philosophy.” “Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it!”

by WesClarkJr on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM PDT

“When has that ever worked” indeed. Clark has become associated with the netroots and the progressive left, and Obama is clearly done with the progressive left in general and the netroots in particular. No big shocker – the guy’s always been a centrist, but the way its been going down also makes clear that he is in no way practicing anything other than what he refers to as the “old politics,” he’s just doing so with his own particular style.

So be it. We’ll all continue to work to get him elected, because the only alternative is unthinkable. But it’s clear from even the most casual pulse-taking of the mood among much of the activist left that from the day he’s sworn into office, we’re going to have to be dogging his every step to keep him from merrily cruising down the same tired road of Washington-style compromises and capitulations that steered the nation into GOP dominance over the 90’s.

And I think we’re more than ready to do that. President (I hope) Obama may be in for some eye-opening surprises…