Campaign finance shows the rule of men, not laws
ActBlue appears to be some kind of front for "illegal" campaign donations. Lots of reports of investigations, and some GOP state Attorneys General have launched an investigation. No doubt Democrat state Attorneys General are already looking for some ActRed equivalent.
This particular story looks like ActBlue has behaved like all great grifters in pushing their scheme past its use-by date. Like bank robbers who score big and get away with it, instead of just quietly folding up their tent and slinking away, they push for just one more big score, and then just one more, and all those bread crumbs leave a nice little trail for the investigators. Here they apparently pulled the wrong fraudulent name out of their magical hat, and their rabbit laid a big fat Easter egg.
Mark Block has been consulting for Republicans for years. So when he discovered an old email account he used for the 2012 Herman Cain presidential campaign was receiving receipts for donations to Democrat candidates like Kamala Harris, he became alarmed.
The discovery led Block -- a stalwart Republican -- and his lawyers on a journey that escalated Monday evening when he filed a groundbreaking lawsuit in the Wisconsin state courts under civil racketeering laws, alleging he is a victim of identity theft in a conspiracy to abuse the massive ActBlue fundraising platform.
That platform is designed to benefit Democrats with small donations under $200 that evade Federal Election Commission reporting requirements, the suit stated.
What this really shows is, first, that the rule of law is a fiction; and second, that campaign finance is not amenable even to the fiction of the rule of law.
"Rule of Law" is supposed to mean that laws are clear and can be applied objectively, that ordinary people without a legal education and lawyer on speed dial can know what is legal and what is illegal. You might think that at least burglary and robbery would fit that mold, but you'd be wrong. Do you know the difference between third and second degree burglary, or how many degrees there are, and how it varies from one state to the next? Does the federal government have similar laws for federal property? Do you know why there are separate sets of laws for burglary, robbery, shoplifting, embezzlement, defrauding an innkeeper? Look here, last item:
If you've been wondering whether it's illegal to defraud an innkeeper, the answer in California is yes, according to this post by the firm of Greg Hill and Associates. The post explains that "defrauding an innkeeper" is the crime of obtaining something without paying for it. Now, you and I might just call this "theft," but for whatever reason California has a statute specifically criminalizing the getting of "food, fuel, services, or accommodations" from a "hotel, inn, restaurant, boardinghouse, lodginghouse, apartment house, bungalow court, motel, marina, marine facility, autocamp, ski area, or public or private campground," without paying for it, such as by absconding after the thing has been got. See Cal. Penal Code § 537. So if you "dine and dash," or I guess flee from a bungalow court after staying the night there, this is the crime you just committed. Now you know.
Same with assault.
Why not just be illegal to, you know, "hurt people and take their stuff"?
Then there are cases which convict some schlub, a year later an appeals court affirms 2-1, the entire appeals court reverses 9-7, and the Supreme Court reverses then 5-4. All learned judges with years of experience and only the best Ivy League law school credentials, the best law libraries and their choice of the best law clerks, and even they can't agree what a law means after years of study and discussion with their colleagues. This is Rule of Men, not Rule of Law.
The problem with all laws is that they try to cover every possible variation of coulda-woulda-shoulda. The more words you throw in, the more bases you cover, right? Wrong! All you've done is split the problem up into little itty bitty pieces and opened up a dozen loopholes for every one of them. What is more waterproof, a solid one-piece shower floor, or a shower floor covered by 4 inch tiles and grout galore? Lawyers would replace those 4 inch tiles with 2 inchers, then one inchers, then quarter inchers, all the while bragging of covering every loophole, and hoping you don't notice they created every last single one of them.
Well, at least most people do know to not hurt people or take their stuff, so when they get charged with some degree of some crime, it's not a complete surprise. One can squint and pretend this is rule of law, it is at least within smelling distance.
But campaign finance? There's the basic question of why this is any of government's business in the first place, and the answer is obvious: incumbents have a tremendous campaign advantage and sure don't want a level playing field. The problem is trying to craft laws which look as objective as laws against theft and assault while still allowing government prosecutors all the leeway they need to apply some Rule of Men against those who challenge incumbents. Thus organizations like ActBlue, which should surprise no one. Unions, corporations, non-profits -- stories abound of them leaning on their members and employees to donate to the favored political cause in return for invisible overtime and undocumented time off, bonuses, promotions, and just plain cold hard cash. It's been going on for ages and will continue going on for ages, because the only result will be a few fines and newer smaller more fine-grained laws providing more loopholes.
The charter has no laws or regulations to violate. Did someone take your stuff or hurt you? They violated your self-control, your self-ownership, and the verdict is the financial loss, which certainly includes intangibles like the shock of being woken up by a burglar. Does Mr Burglar argue that's not fair, that's not Rule of Law, that he shouldn't have to guess how much a homeowner wants for being woken up like that? Then don't rob houses in the middle of the night. Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.
You can put all the whyfores and howcomes and penalty clauses you want in contracts and store policies and other voluntary agreements; but government can't do so in coercive involuntary laws. If you can't understand "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff", then you need a guardian, and if that means jail, so be it.