HorsesAss.Org

Earlier this week I offered Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna some solid advice:

[T]he sitting state Attorney General should NOT have his campaign stooges give uninformed legal babble opinion—it reflects badly on the legal prowess of the Attorney General.

But now, McKenna is doubling down on this sort of idiocy…by mailing out a fundraising letter built around a whopper of a lie, built on their fringe legal theory.

Publicola reports on McKenna’s letter that starts out:

The leading Democratic contender, Congressman Jay Inslee, has a war chest of over $1,000,000 in his re-election campaign for Congress. This week the media is reporting that he intends to illegally transfer that money to his state campaign for governor.

By “the media”, the McKenna campaign means this AP piece that was carried by numerous media sources.

A plain reading of the AP piece yields these facts (reordered):

1. McKenna had $40,000 left over from his 2008 campaign
2. McKenna didn’t segregate the money into a surplus account; rather, he rolled over those funds to his 2012 campaign
3. The rolled-over funds commingled with new money and, therefore, are subject to campaign contribution limits
4. Inslee has $1.2 million surplus from past campaigns squired away in a separate account.
5. Inslee asked the PDC for permission to use the surplus, with donor consent, for his gubernatorial bid.
6. About $1 million of Inslee’s money never commingled with new money so it would not be subject to campaign contribution limits
7. The McKenna campaign characterized Inslee’s money as “illegal,” and claimed that Inslee was circumventing Washington state law
8. The PDC disagrees with McKenna’s intrepertation; they agree that Inslee can, with donor consent, use about $1 million for his gubernatorial campaign without contribution limit issues
9. The only challenge to the PDC’s interpretation of the law in the article comes from McKenna

This last point is important. It means McKenna’s fundraising letter is premised on a lie. It says:

This week the media is reporting that [Inslee] intends to illegally transfer that money to his state campaign for governor,

Not true. The media does not suggest the proposed transfer would be illegal. Here is what an honest McKenna could say:

This week the media is reporting that [Inslee] intends to transfer that money to his state campaign for governor. The PDC says this is legal. We disagree.

That would be an honest summary of the situation.

Instead this whole episode leaves us with a troubling picture of McKenna:

• He (or his campaign) fucked-up their own cash roll-over, apparently through ignorance of the state’s campaign laws
• He espouses a fringe legal theory about campaign cash roll-over, one that is contradicted by the PDC
• He is willing to blatantly lie to his potential donors

The episode not only throws into doubt if he has the integrity to be Governor, it throws into doubt his competence as our state’s top lawyer.

The Republicans are still trying to find a credible opponent for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in 2012. Former Bush Deputy White House spokesperson and Bush-Cheney ‘04 Press Secretary, Scott Stanzel is considering it.

But I said “credible.”

And now Seattle Weekly‘s Mike Seely writes:

…lately we’ve been hearing somewhat credible rumors that 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert might be up for abandoning his seat and challenging Cantwell. So is this chatter serious, or is there a stealthier factor at play here?

By “stealthier factor” he means that Reichert is using such rumors to leverage a more favorable redistricting outcome.

Seely ponders:

But what if Reichert’s motives are more pure? What would ensue would be a fascinating race between polar opposites: Cantwell, the wonkish brainiac who takes on issues of substance yet struggles with retail politics and staff retention, versus Reichert, the dull knife who gets by on Ken-doll looks, law-enforcement legend, and timely tacks to the center.

That would be fun! I like it. Reichert is, for sure, a stronger opponent for Cantwell than is Stanzel. But a Reichert challenge would accomplish two things. First, it opens up the Democratic-leaning 8th CD (which, of course, may be unrecognizable by 2012). Second, it means Republicans would dump lots of money into the race. Less so with Stanzel; Republicans would find more promising races upon which to spend their spoils.

This is Reichert’s big Window of Opportunity…but could he win?

In a statewide competition against an uberwonk, Reichert would not get away with his usual strategy of dodging all things substantive. He’ll have to speak in public and try to come off as intelligent and informed. No more “I’ve looked in a microscope and seen the heartbeat of a stem cell” moments; no more, “I don’t know enough about this issue, so I’ll pass on the question” answers like he gave in his 2006 debate against Darcy Burner. No more confessions of voting the way the leadership tells him to vote. The Cantwell campaign would eat him alive for such blunders.

So, no, he can’t. If Reichert sticks his head through that Window of Opportunity…he’ll get his freakin’ throat slit….

As I mentioned in the Open Thread, I’m trying to say something about how the County Council couldn’t decide what to do with Metro. But I really don’t know what I’m getting at.

Not knowing what’s next, hopefully there’s some behind the scenes maneuvering going on (I mean obviously there is; hopefully it actually moves things). Hopefully service keeps running into the future.

Still, he best case is buses remain crowded. I took the bus South of Downtown last Sunday, and it was standing room only at about 7:00 in the afternoon. It’s regularly crowded during rush hour, and worse when it rains. And I understand why the council doesn’t want this on the ballot. Not every policy decision needs to go to a vote, and if we have the majority, we ought to be able to pass it.

Preferably, I’d like to see the legislature just let King County (and other counties) do what King County (and other counties) wants to do without arbitrary impositions like the 2/3. Still, if for the foreseeable future we have this 2/3 requirement, and the legislature is going to impose it on King County for various things, maybe we should shrink the council down to 3. That way any majority is a 2/3 majority. I mean we have the dumbass precedent for shrinking the council to 9. Why not go to 3?

The last time Jane Hague ran for re-election to King County Council (district no. 6), it was discovered that she had been hiding a DUI arrest, and was abusive of the arresting officers. We learned that she had lied about having a college degree. She also got hit with multiple PDC complaints. Alas, most of this came to light too late for a strong candidate to challenge her.

She has some serious electoral competition this year, with three challengers. One challenger, Richard Mitchell, is rated “Outstanding” by the King County Municipal League. Hague is rated “Good.”

And what does the Stranger have to say for this race?

Mitchell is the most accomplished and promising challenger to Jane Hague on the Metropolitan King County Council, and earns [our] endorsement. In our interviews with the four candidates for this seat, he stood out for his quick mind and grasp of detail.

[…] The County Council is nonpartisan, but when asked Mitchell said he is a Democrat because of that party’s identification with immigrants, civil rights and environmental justice. He describes his politics as “fiscally conservative and socially progressive.”

“Accomplished, ” “Quick mind,” “grasp of details”? Typical reality-based blather from a left-wing rag.

Oh wait…my mistake, that was the Seattle Times endorsing Mitchell over Hague.

I know, I know…the bland writing was a dead giveaway. Here’s another giveaway:

Our concern about Mitchell is that he might be too quick to raise taxes. That caveat noted, he is one of the most attractive new faces on the local scene, and we endorse him for the County Council.

Hmmm…somebody on the Seattle Times editorial board is rather aroused by this candidate….

Here is what The Stranger had to say:

The Stranger Election Control Board wants to have Richard Mitchell’s baby. Mitchell is intelligent, passionate, progressive, eloquent. We’d vote for Mitchell for anything. City council. School board. Legislature. Cruise director.

If there are issues on which Mitchell and the SECB disagree, we’re probably wrong. The man could dig a deep-bore tunnel that even the SECB could get behind.
[…]

Mitchell can walk on water. He can raise the dead. He can even manage to answer a reporter’s question directly, without a hint of equivocation, all the while remaining nuanced. That’s not meant as a slam against fellow challenger John Creighton, a pleasant surprise as a port commissioner, but a stereotypical waffler as a politician. Oh wait. We guess it is.

Mitchell is exactly the sort of smart politician everybody says they want, but who never seems to get elected.

Without hesitation, Mitchell said he would approve a $20 car tab to avert a devastating 17 percent cut in Metro bus service and believes in a minor sales tax bump to rescue the county’s underfunded criminal-justice system. Vote Mitchell.

I’ll take that as The Stranger’s endorsement with a medically-concerning extended duration erection.

Here’s his web site and an intro video:

– I don’t know if it’ll come together, but I’m working on something about King County punting on Metro.

– Rachel Beckwith’s story has been discussed in the comments already, but for those who missed it.

– I haven’t said anything about Norway because what I don’t know what I could possibly add. But David Futrelle and William Saletan (h/t) explore the narratives that surrounded him online. Neil Sinhababu notes who might be happy about the whole thing. And Glenn Beck can still go fuck himself (h/t).

– Figgins’ line is “.182/.236/.240 on the season. Each of those numbers feels dramatically worse than the last.”

– What scandal?

Just as it was before the events of the last legislative session, Tacoma is the flashpoint for the fight between those working to create access points for medical marijuana patients and the anti-drug establishment trying to turn back the clock. The News Tribune’s Jordan Schrader, who is – unlike his paper’s editorial board – both competent and sane, provides the latest news:

Tacoma’s push to shut down more than 30 medical-marijuana sellers inched forward Monday, even as outlets in unincorporated Pierce County received letters from the Sheriff’s Department putting them on notice.

Sheriff Paul Pastor said his office sent letters to about 15 dispensaries late last week to notify them about the county’s interpretation of a state law that took effect Friday.

Businesses say the law gives them a way to keep operating, but Pastor said it puts limits on any seller wanting an “atmosphere of lots of clients and easy access.”

“They’re allowed as long as they conform to the law,” Pastor said. “It’s my understanding that would strongly limit what they were able to do.”

I have a feeling that both Sheriff Pastor and the lunatics at the News Tribune editorial board are going to be somewhat disappointed. While the new law certainly disallows direct sales to any authorized patient who comes in off the street, individuals who want to set up a storefront and run a business will likely still be able to do so by organizing their customers into a series of different gardens and possibly even rotating them in and out of those gardens in order to conform with the law. Even without rotating them, a single person can belong to many different gardens and therefore maintain a fairly large network of patients from a single location and still stay within the letter of the law.

And in a post from Seattle Weekly today, Keegan Hamilton reports that Ed Troyer from the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office struck a far more reasonable tone when asked how aggressive they’d really be. It’s possible that over the course of the past few days, Pierce County officials are realizing that the mess created by the partial veto did little more than force dispensaries to reorganize their business models.

Of course, no one seems to have any idea what the law exactly allows. And even fewer people know what the hell the folks at the News Tribune editorial board are smoking. They see Seattle’s tolerance of these medical marijuana access points as a cover for drug trafficking, but that makes absolutely no sense. By having them operate above ground, it’s far easier to ensure that they’re not selling to unauthorized people. In Tacoma, on the other hand, if city and county officials are successful at putting those who want to play by the rules out of business, the drug traffickers win. It’s nothing short of amazing that the city’s main newspaper can’t figure that out.

The bigger potential problem here, however, is that with medical marijuana still illegal under federal law, there’s a genuine concern that overzealous local officials could invite in federal enforcement to take down even the providers who follow state law. And Tacoma voters will provide a good gauge of how popular such a move would be when they vote in November to make marijuana law enforcement the city’s lowest priority.

Please join us tonight for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally.

We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but a few folks show up earlier for dinner.

Can’t make it tonight? The Burien chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tomorrow (Wednesday), July 27 at the Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub. Starting time is 7:00pm.

And with 230 chapters of Living Liberally, including seven in Washington state, chances are excellent there is a chapter near you.

Gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna (R) has his undies all atwist over gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee’s (D) plans to forward up to $1 million of congressional reelection surplus to his gubernatorial election war chest:

Republican candidate Rob McKenna’s campaign, responding to an inquiry from The Associated Press, characterized the money as simply “illegal.”

“He’s trying to claim that because it would be convenient for him to try to grab that money and evade Washington state law” McKenna campaign manager Randy Pepple said.

“Babbled” would have been a better last word for the sentence.

He added that the campaign or someone else would likely challenge any formal opinion that would allow the money transfers.

The PDC has reviewed the law and, in their opinion, finds such a transfer acceptable:

PDC staff believes Inslee’s interpretation is correct, and agency spokeswoman Lori Anderson said past candidates have taken similar steps.

“I don’t think that’s a fuzzy area,” Anderson said. “It’s spelled out well in our statutes and our rules.”
[…]

PDC officials pointed to a section of state law that allows candidate’s with dedicated surplus funds to roll them over to future elections for the same office without the money being subject to contribution limits. Because Inslee is running for a different office, officials also turned to a separate section of law that allows candidates who are running for a new office to get approval from donors to use past donations for a new campaign.

Those laws combined show Inslee’s interpretation is correct, Anderson said.

Three amusing observations:

First, the sitting state Attorney General should NOT have his campaign stooges give uninformed legal babble opinion—it reflects badly on the legal prowess of the Attorney General.

Second, the AP story points out:

After his 2008 campaign for attorney general, McKenna rolled an extra $40,000 over to the 2012 election cycle. Because that money was mingled with new cash, it is all subject to campaign contribution limits, according to the PDC.

Anderson said that McKenna could have placed that money into a dedicated “surplus” account and got the same benefits as Inslee.

OOPS!

In other words…McKenna’s campaign royally fucked up its own campaign cash roll-over. And now they presume to tell the PDC how the process is supposed to work for Inslee?!?

Uh-huh.

Third, as Jerry Cornfield points out, if the McKenna campaign sues the PDC over its interpretation of the law…

…[t]his could create an interesting situation down the road because McKenna’s office typically defends PDC interests in court.

That’s an amusing irony—kind of. And it reminds me of an episode from the chronicles of Horsesass involving McKenna’s predecessor.

Back in early 2003, when it became clear that Goldy’s Horses Ass Initiative, I-831 might conceivably make it to the ballot, then state Attorney General Christine Gregoire sued to keep it off the ballot.

Goldy lost the case. But just in case he won, and the initiative subsequently became law, Goldy was prepared to sue over the legality of the law. Doing so would have put Gregoire in the position of defending the new law.

Of course, McKenna has an easy out, by virtue of his own precedent: McKenna could simply refuse to provide the PDC with legal representation.

Problem solved.

Via Goldy:

Oregon Democratic Rep. David Wu announced today that he would resign from Congress in the wake of sexual assault allegations.
[…]

But if you think Republican Party insiders are rejoicing at the news, think again. Wu, who’d already been the subject of conjecture and criticism due to his increasingly erratic behavior, had been seen as a vulnerable target in this otherwise safe Democratic district spanning parts of Portland and the surrounding counties. But his resignation all but hands the seat to popular, progressive, Democratic Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian.

Blue Oregon’s Carla Axtman points out to Goldy that “this is very bad news for the Republican Party of Oregon…. Without Wu to run against, they have no game.”

Wu, a former college roommate of Sen. Bill Frist, created some controversy during the last election when some of his staff resigned after demanding an intervention for his increasingly erratic behavior.

Hmmm…maybe he was just all giddy with love/infatuation at the time, a la former South Carolina Gov. Mark Stanford. Except, apparently, unreciprocated for Wu.

Although not a defense of NOTW.

I can imagine a situation where some Democratic operative came up to me and said, “we hacked into Rob McKenna’s phone and found something important.” Sure, almost certainly not me; a more reputable journalist, columnist, or blogger. But hear me out.

So let’s say this party hack came to me with definitive proof that some Republican of import had broken the law in some way that was worse than phone hacking itself. I’d imagine that I’d post something about it, or at least dig further based on their hacking. I’d presumably mention the hacking in the post if if was worthy of a post. Basically if it’s important enough a story, I can imagine being honest and letting the chips fall where they may.

That’s a very different thing from finding out whatever Jude Law and Hugh Grant are doing. And of course corrupting the police and deleting messages is so beyond the pale, I can’t imagine there ever being a circumstance I’d find it OK.

The point isn’t of course to exonerate News of the World or News Corp, only that calling it a phone hacking story kind of makes it sound not as terrible as it is.

– (a) This was a horrible column. (b) “Americans Elect” sounds to me like an attempt to reference the country’s puritanical roots. (c) I feel like a decently organized group could sway them, and cause trouble. If Democrats all decided to nominate a conservative to draw votes away from the Republican nominee, for example.

– Why not Washington indeed.

– The Weekly seems to have no standards.

– “You can drop a subcontractor as easily as you can cancel a date. That’s not a good union job. That’s not the kind of job that Longview needs” (h/t Ivan on Facebook)

– You can’t look into what News of the World did if there’s anything worse going on anywhere in the world.

– There is a value in sending people into space beyond the scientific value.

If this is where we’re at right now with the debt ceiling negotiations, I’m starting to become legitimately worried that Republicans in the House will succeed in driving this country over a cliff.

Last week’s contest was another really tough one. After a clue, wes.in.wa came up with the right location. It was La Center.

This week’s contest is related to something in the news from the month of July. Good luck!

1 Corinthians 7:9
It is better to marry than to burn.

Discuss.

The state’s new medical marijuana law took effect Friday. But between the governor’s reckless partial veto, the unresolved state-federal conflict, and a state Attorney General who hides under his desk every time he hears the word ‘marijuana’, no one seems to have any idea exactly what the law does or doesn’t allow.

To give a brief illustration of how fucked up this is, here’s part of the new law [emphasis mine]:

The medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter does not constitute a crime and a qualifying patient or designated provider in compliance with the terms and conditions of this chapter may not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil consequences, for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, or have real or personal property seized or forfeited for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, and investigating peace officers and law enforcement agencies maynot be held civilly liable for failure to seize cannabis in this circumstance, if:

…

(2) The qualifying patient or designated provider presents his or her proof of registration with the department of health, to any peace officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or her medical use of cannabis;
(3) The qualifying patient or designated provider keeps a copy of his or her proof of registration with the registry established in section 901 of this act and the qualifying patient or designated provider’s contact information posted prominently next to any cannabis plants, cannabis products, or useable cannabis located at his or her residence;

One rather large problem here…section 901 and the registry were vetoed by the governor. So instead of finally having a class of patients protected from arrest, we still have a medical marijuana law that makes it impossible to avoid getting arrested by any police officer who decides to overrule your doctor’s recommendation.

Despite this, there’s a new section (1102) that still supposedly leaves the door open for cities like Seattle to allow for what this bill was supposed to do before Gregoire mutilated it: Regulate the distribution of medical marijuana.

(1) Cities and towns may adopt and enforce any of the following pertaining to the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdiction: Zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, health and safety requirements, and business taxes. Nothing in this act is intended to limit the authority of cities and towns to impose zoning requirements or other conditions upon licensed dispensers, so long as such requirements do not preclude the possibility of siting licensed dispensers within the jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction has no commercial zones, the jurisdiction is not required to adopt zoning to accommodate licensed dispensers.

But as I mentioned on Tuesday, defense attorney Douglas Hiatt thinks that this section is invalid. In his opinion, because there’s still only an affirmative defense (while all marijuana possession remains illegal at the state level), Seattle and other municipalities can’t regulate it. In his opinion, the state isn’t allowed to regulate what remains an illegal activity. Nick Licata, in a statement regarding the proposed regulations for Seattle dispensaries, appears to misstate Hiatt’s case [emphasis mine again]:

This ordinance is the City’s response to a bill passed by the Washington State Legislature earlier this year – and that will go into effect on July 22 – that permits cities to regulate and license the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis products within their jurisdiction. Although my recent bill received a great deal of media coverage, the legislation will only make sure dispensaries across the city act like the businesses they are, and that we hold them accountable as such rather than only turning a blind eye.

This ordinance is a crucial step forward toward providing clarity for medical cannabis dispensaries in the area, particularly in wake of the new state law. While the federal government still prohibits the production, processing, dispensing, and possession of medical cannabis, responding to the state government’s new rules is a responsibility that will minimize the impact of changes to the roughly 25,000 Seattle medical cannabis users.

Some opponents of the legislation have questioned whether the City has the authority to regulate a federally prohibited substance, such as medical cannabis. The legislation in every way recognizes that there is a federal prohibition, but also takes the needed steps to ensure safety and basic standards of dispensaries in Seattle. Regardless of whether the business is illegal, we want to make sure it is not jeopardizing the rights, health or safety of the surrounding community, which is why this ordinance is so important.

That’s actually not what Hiatt is questioning. Hiatt is questioning whether Seattle can regulate a substance that remains illegal at the state level, not the federal level. Now I’m still not sure whether Hiatt’s opinion makes sense legally (although I’m aware that several attorneys strongly disagree with him), but it’s not good that no one even seems to understand what he’s even arguing. As another attorney I spoke to mentioned, this will eventually be decided in a courtroom – probably fairly soon – and it’s really hard to predict how any judge is going to interpret all this.

One thing that does seem to be clear about the law is that anyone setting up shop in Seattle (or any other tolerant city) to provide medical marijuana must abide by the framework of Section 403, which defines “collective gardens”. Thanks to the governor, simply selling medical marijuana to authorized patients remains illegal, so if folks want to set up a storefront, they’ll have to organize their business in a way that segments their customer base into 10-person cooperatives and ensure that people only get supplied with medicine from their own designated garden. With the City Council estimating that there are roughly 25,000 medical marijuana patients in the city, it could then require roughly 2,500 collective gardens to supply them all. Some of those could probably function independently in a private setting among acquaintances, but many others will likely require some entrepreneurial help organizing themselves. And it’s these large networks of patients and collective gardens that the city has an interest in regulating.

As I mentioned above, Douglas Hiatt is arguing that cities and towns can’t regulate it at all. And even if his argument has a legal basis, the politics of it are murky. Most cities want to make sure that marijuana distribution happens in a place that’s safe for both patients and the community as a whole. They’d love to have all this commerce happen in commercial and industrial areas. But if there’s an incentive to stay small enough as to not be seen as a “business”, people will strive for that. And this will inevitably lead to grow operations staying within residential areas and largely hidden. From a political standpoint, Hiatt thinks this will lead to people getting mad and demanding change. But it could also backfire and lead to futile attempts at moratoriums (maybe not in Seattle, but possibly elsewhere), which might also be against the law. No one knows.

Of course, the punch line to all of this (if you have to choose just one), is that Attorney General Rob McKenna – the gubernatorial hopeful who thinks that the individual health insurance mandate is an egregious abuse of federal power, but that the federal prohibition on marijuana is just dandy – is simply refusing to deal with any of this. When Liz Jones from KUOW contacted his office, they claimed that his office is not involved in the issue. And honestly, I have no idea if that’s a good thing or a bad thing at this point.