Don’t bring around a cloud to…
Tuesday, July 13th, 2010We had rain today, which kept us stuck at our desks through lunchtime today. Nice break from the heat, but still…
So I’m working on this big project taking a look at state lobbying laws, and the more I work on it, the more I think this entire area of law is a fucking mess. In some states, if a nonprofit group writes an open letter about a proposed law, they suddenly have an obligation to register as lobbyists and make huge financial disclosures. Other problems I’m running into are poorly defined terms (for example: when a governor vetoes a bill, is this an executive official engaged in legislative action? or an executive official engaged in executive action? If the latter, in what context does a law that applies to “attempts to influence executive officials in legislative action” apply?), contradictory information (I’m not kidding when I tell you there’s a state that lists different registration fees in the statutes passed by the legislature, the administrative code written by the governing agency, and on the website of that same agency), overly harsh penalties (really, a possibility of a $10,000 fine and ten years in jail for filing a financial disclosure form late?), and generally a lot of poorly considered, poorly executed rules. At any rate, I was joking with my supervising attorney that the general lack of scholarship on this subject means I have some fertile ground for journal notes this year.
Speaking of journals, I was accepted to three of the school’s journals this year (I applied to four) and I have to make a decision by Friday about which, if any, I sign on for. We have a meet-and-greet with the journals tomorrow night.
Yesterday I got to go to a cool cocktail reception with the lead attorneys from the ACLU on the Constance McMillen prom case. It’s kind of a neat story from the lawyer’s perspective. It started as a routine demand-letter situation and escalated into the center of a national media circus.
Not much else to report on. I’m falling into a The West Wing marathon, which is sure to destroy my concern for a social life for the next few days, even as I force myself to get out of the apartment.
![Mr. & Mrs. Smith (SMASH Cast Version) [feat. Megan Hilty & Will Chase] - Single](http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/34s/74615246.jpg)
![I Never Met a Wolf Who Didn't Love to Howl (SMASH Cast Version) [feat. Megan Hilty] - Single](http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/34s/75191908.jpg)
No wonder the legal system is so screwy. I’m lost just reading that small part. Hope you find a journal that seems like a good fit. Enjoy your marathon.
Jere Keys Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Thanks.
I think I hurt myself trying to understand that paragraph. This is why I’m not a lawyer, though not the only reason.
Congratulations on being selected for 3 out of 4 journals! That is no small feat.
Jere Keys Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 10:11 am
See, and the fact that it’s so hard to understand is the first indication it’s bad law.
Justin Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
This is a genuinely sincere question: are other laws really that much easier to understand? I mean, yes, the verbiage above looks not only hard to understand but actually incoherent and self-contradictory, but aren’t most laws generally pretty hard to understand — and worse — aren’t most laws ambiguous and imperfect anyway? Isn’t that a) what lawyers are for, and b) why courts have to interpret them? I’m just wondering whether what we’re seeing above is merely an extreme in a spectrum, or if you think it is really a difference in kind.
Jere Keys Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Laws are not necessarily incoherent or ambiguous. For example, the President must be 35 years old when he takes office – not so complex. Sure, somebody somewhere may have to ask a court to decide whether they have to reach 35 before the very hour in which they take the oath, or if it’s enough to be sworn in on the same day as your 35th birthday, but those sorts of details arise from the complexity of human experience.
Bad laws like those I’m dealing with (and I should note that you are not reading verbatim language above, only my paraphrasing) are bad because they cobbled together poorly.
“We don’t like big corporations coming into here and influencing politics, so let’s pass a law that anyone who tries to influence politics has to register with the state ethics board.” Um, it takes 3 seconds to realize that “anyone” in that context includes my mom calling her state representative to express support for gay marriage, the newspaper editorialist who criticizes the wasteful budget, or even the Governor who makes a speech to the state assembly about passing environmental protections. So then we awkwardly try to carve out exceptions for the media, other state officials, and uncompensated individuals. But then someone complains that the wealthy billionaire is spending all his personal money taking Senator Bigbucks out to dinner, so we make an exception to the exceptions and uncompensated lobbyists DO have to register if they spend more than $500 on attempting to influence legislation. Why $500? That’s how much it costs for dinner at the restaurant our billionaire and Sen. Bigbucks usually eat at. Of course, if I have to travel back and forth to Albany to meet with my representative, those bus fares might add up to $500 pretty quickly. So we make an clarification to the exception from the exception that uncompensated lobbyists don’t need to consider travel expenses when calculating their expenses toward the $500 threshold… and so on.
These laws haven’t been thought through in the first place, and the result is either laws which are way too broad (see the beginning of the paragraph above) or way too complex (see the end of the paragraph above).
That is some awesome poutage you got going on there.
And I agree with John. You have big feet. Oh wait…
Jere Keys Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Size 12 1/2, thankyouverymuch
I don’t understand a single thing in that monster paragraph. But kudoz to you for knowing what it meanz.
Jere Keys Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 10:09 am
I wish I knew what it means. I’m not sure anyone does. That’s the problem.
I kinda followed it all (apparently I CAN use my Political Science major for something useful after all), but it just made totally clear to me something I’ve been thinking for a while.
If you want to cut the size of governement AND save a lot of money, just eliminate the states. there’s 50 different governors and legislatures AND their staffs, that you don’t have to pay for. And all those 50 different regulations covering the same issue will fade away, streamlining it all.
And even though I KNOW this will never happen, just knowing that the heads of any wingnut conservatives that hear about this will surely have their heads explode on the spot, well, that makes me smile and chuckle.
HUGS…
Justin Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
See, I used to agree with that idea, Polt, when I was a little urchin, but I’m not entirely sure that replacing the states with a monolithic country is a great idea. There are genuinely large cultural differences between the states, and allowing us to have different solutions may not be a bad idea for a lot of things.
Some things — electoral procedures, for instance — I’d love to see federalized. But if we were going to eliminate the states, I’d almost be more for cutting the country up into four or five medium-sized countries — let the red state parts live like tea-partiers to their little hearts’ content without being funded by the blue states
I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that smaller is usually better, and local is in many ways best. There is a lot to be said for the City State…
Jere Keys Reply:
July 14th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I am not engaging in a debate about the merits of federalism. But I like you idea of letting the United Confederation of Jesusland go, as long as we can grant asylum to queer kids escaping to South Canada and the nation of Washegonifornia.
I’m so glad I’m not the only one who had trouble getting through that paragraph.
Enjoy your marathon : ).