Paul J. Larkin Jr. / David Rosenthal / @DL_Rosenthal / John-Michael Seibler
This week, the infamous “Bridgegate” scandal goes to trial, with former officials in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s administration facing serious charges from the U.S. Department of Justice. Not since London Bridge came falling down in 1281 has an overpass caused such a stir.
The backstory: In 2013, Christie was running for re-election. Like every other politician in that position, he was trying to round up support from other state and local pols. Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, however, declined to get on board. That is when the plot thickened.
The story is that several officials in Christie’s administration agreed to shut down some (but not all) of the traffic lanes across the George Washington Bridge into New York, creating a huge traffic jam in Fort Lee. That would “punish” Sokolich for his failure to “get in line.” It was a prank. A dirty trick. Think the end of “Animal House,” just real life.
As pranks or dirty tricks go, it was tawdry, even stupid. (Did they think no one would find out?) Christie himself described the lane closure as “abject stupidity.”
Once the story broke, Christie and his cohorts predictably took a drubbing from the notoriously tough New York media. Christie certainly paid a price in the media for the imbroglio and likely also among the electorate during his later run for the Republican nomination for the presidency.
No one has a constitutional right to avoid traffic or to use three or four lanes when approaching a bridge.
One might think that a media firestorm and political retribution were adequate penalties for a stupid, cheap, political dirty trick. But not in 21st-century America, where the U.S. Justice Department believes that political dirty tricks are actually crimes. The Justice Department has charged Bridget Kelly, Christie’s former deputy chief of staff, along with David Wildstein and William Baroni, officials of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, with multiple federal felonies for their parts in the Great Gridlock Shenanigans. The 37-page, 9-count indictment alleges these officials committed theft of federal government property, fraud, the deprivation of the civil rights of New Jersey residents, and that they conspired to do all of the foregoing. (If the defendants had dynamited an empty bridge, they would have committed fewer crimes.)
Wildstein pleaded guilty in 2015 to two counts of conspiracy and implicated his alleged co-conspirators. He will likely regret that because, as explained below, he pleaded guilty to nonexistent crimes.
What property did they steal? The bridge is still there—and probably the traffic, too.
What property did they misuse? The government alleges that the defendants misused “the time and services of unwitting Port Authority personnel.” Really? If that is a form of theft, then the Justice Department inspector general should investigate to make sure no DOJ employee uses a DOJ fax machine to send a permission slip to a child’s school, or uses the government’s WATS line to call a sick parent, or uses an office computer to check the scores on ESPN, or wastes away the day chatting with colleagues—or any of the other matters that go on in the federal government on a daily basis.
What was the fraud? Neither the defendants nor anyone else derived any personal financial benefit from the scheme. Was the fraud an implicit representation that politicians would not act like politicians? Puhleeze! We’re talkin’ “New Joisey” here! Besides, any DOJ prosecutor who thinks that politicians do not pull stupid stunts like this one is guilty of defrauding the federal government for telling his superiors that he is savvy enough to be a DOJ prosecutor.
The only benefit that Christie’s associates got was schadenfreude. If that is sufficient to violate the fraud statute, the Supreme Court has been wasting its time trying to interpret that law because, as Cole Porter wrote, anything goes.
Most outrageous is the civil rights charge. What civil right did the defendants violate? The constitutional right not to be ensnarled in traffic? Fuggedaboutit! Perhaps there is a constitution somewhere that includes a Traffic Clause (right after the Sanity Clause), but the American Constitution sure doesn’t.
The Constitution guarantees everyone a right to interstate migration, not interstate commuting — and certainly not speedy interstate commuting, let alone a right to “localized” driving, as the government’s indictment alleges. No one has a constitutional right to avoid traffic or to use three or four lanes when approaching a bridge. Besides, the defendants didn’t corral Fort Lee residents. There are numerous bridges, tunnels, and ferries into New York. Perhaps someone should show the prosecutors a map.
Look at this matter another way. It would not violate the Constitution for officials to funnel traffic into fewer lanes to repave the bridge. The only difference between that scenario and this one is that these officials are said to have acted with the intent to injure someone—not the commuters, however; they were just the delivery vehicle for the pain.
The defendants’ intent was to injure Mayor Sokolich—not physically, just politically—for not being a “team player.” Yes, that is a shoddy way to treat the public (which always seems to take it in the shorts whenever politicians act like, well, politicians). But the Constitution protects us against political mischief. It lets us vote the perpetrators out of office. That is the proper remedy, not a criminal prosecution.
In a case involving alleged political misconduct (a trade association’s gifts to politicians), the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “a statute in this field that can linguistically be interpreted to be either a meat axe or a scalpel should reasonably be taken to be the latter.” Here, the DOJ prosecutors have gone with a scythe.
A lawyer representing Kelly wrote that “the intentional causing of traffic” has never been the subject of federal civil rights allegations. “No other federal criminal case,” according to counsel, “has been prosecuted anywhere, at any time, with facts even remotely similar to the facts there.” We haven’t looked everywhere, but, by God, we sure hope he’s right.
Last spring, the Supreme Court unanimously spanked the DOJ in McDonnell v. United States for trying to stretch the federal criminal law to punish tawdry political behavior. McDonnell was not an anomaly. It was just the latest in a series of cases (including McNally, McCormick, Sun-Diamond Growers, Skillingand Yates) in which the Supreme Court has told the Justice Department that it is up to Congress—not the DOJ—to come up with newfangled crimes and to define them with precision.
The prosecutors need to listen to the music, not just read the lyrics, in the court’s opinions. The district court should have dismissed this indictment in an opinion that read simply, “GMAB.” Were this case to result in a conviction and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, the court will need to send the DOJ to its room without supper yet again. Why? Because with this indictment the Justice Department has essentially flipped off the court.
It is a good thing that there will be a presidential election in November. It offers every hope that there will be a new attorney general come January 2017. The Justice Department could use some adult supervision.
Ridgewood NJ, Every March, we are all faced with the arrival of Daylight Saving Time and its impact on our circadian rhythms,our sleep-wake pattern. The 1-hour shift in time can even temporarily disrupt our ability to fall asleep at night and to wake up in the morning. We not only lose an hour of sleep, but the time change disrupts the body’s biological clock and circadian rhythm. The effect is the same as jetlag in plane travel, in which our bodies remain on the prior schedule for a period of time.
“People who sleep well can usually adjust to the time shift with little difficulty,” says Jeffrey P. Barasch, M.D., Medical Director of The Valley Hospital Center for Sleep Medicine in Ridgewood, NJ. However, if someone has been coping with chronic difficulty sleeping, daylight saving time can worsen or uncover an undiagnosed and untreated sleep disorder, such as insomnia or sleep apnea.
It is important to keep in mind that the required amount of sleep per day changes with age, and studies indicate the following recommended sleep durations:
• Newborns — 16 to 18 hours a day
• Preschool-aged children —11 to 12 hours a day
• School-aged children — at least 10 hours a day
• Teens — 9 to 10 hours a day
• Adults (age 20-64) — 7 to 9 hours a day
• Elderly (age 65 and over) —7 to 8 hours a day
“Unfortunately, as you well know, sometimes life can prevent us from going to bed when we want to and many of us have experienced the frustration of not being able to fall asleep or stay asleep once we are in bed,” Dr. Barasch says. “Luckily, our bodies can adjust to occasional instances when we do not get enough sleep.”
But what happens when we are consistently not getting enough sleep? According to Dr. Barasch, sleep deprivation can impact the brain and every organ in the body. During sleep, a newly discovered network of water channels in the brain, called the glymphatic system, becomes active and functions as a waste disposal system, carrying toxins away which would otherwise accumulate and damage brain cells. The accumulation of one of those toxins, amyloid-beta, is associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
Dr. Barasch warns that those who suffer from chronic sleep deprivation, regardless of the reason, can experience adverse effects in many aspects of their lives. The lack of crucial restorative sleep can lead to daytime sleepiness, irritability, difficulty focusing, deterioration in work or school productivity, and impaired creativity and decision making. Sleep deprivation also affects performance and reaction time. Losing two hours of sleep is similar to the effect of alcohol intoxication. Sleep deprivation is also involved in many automobile, truck and airplane crashes. Lack of sleep also promotes weight gain and may lead to long term health consequences, such as depression, diabetes, hypertension, gastrointestinal disorders and colon cancer.
So what do you do if your struggle with sleep isn’t limited to a change in the clocks?
If you are having difficulty sleeping, the National Institute of Health suggests incorporating some of the following strategies into your nighttime routine:
• Go to bed and wake up at the same time every day.
• Try to keep the same sleep schedule on weeknights and weekends.
• Use the hour before bed for quiet time.
• Avoid heavy and/or large meals within a couple hours of bedtime.
• Avoid alcoholic drinks, nicotine and caffeine before bed.
• Spend time outside every day (when possible) and be physically active.
• Keep your bedroom quiet, cool, and dark (a dim night light is fine, if needed).
• Take a hot bath or use relaxation techniques before bed.
If you regularly experience daytime drowsiness, fatigue or disturbed sleep, consider consulting with a sleep medicine specialist to evaluate and treat the problem.
Kathleen Willey, one of the women who famouslyaccused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, and has said she suffered acts of intimidation to silence her, used a radio interview on Sunday to broadcast a message to other possible female victims of Bill Clinton.
Stated Willey:
I would just like to encourage any woman who has suffered at the hands of Bill Clinton to please try to find the courage and bravery to come forth. Because it’s okay now. Nobody can hurt you now. It’s as simple as that.
Nobody can touch you now. The word is out. You will be okay but you will be doing the right thing for all the right reasons and you will be helping your fellow sisters.
Speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” the popular Sunday talk radio program, Willey demanded that Hillary Clinton submit to a lie detector test to answer questions about whether she engaged in campaigns to silence or intimidate her husband’s female accusers. Klein doubles as Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief.
Willey also telegraphed a message of encouragement for Donald Trump, who helped to skyrocket the issue of Clinton’s sex accusers to front-page status when the GOP frontrunner complained about the former president’s “terrible record of women abuse.” Trump was responding to Hillary’s claim that the billionaire exhibited a “penchant for sexism.”
“If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!” tweeted Trump.
Willey chimed in: “Thank you very much, Mr. Trump, for asking the right question at the right time. And please keep asking more.”
While some people are spending as much as $600 a night at hotels for Pope Francis’ highly anticipated visit to Philadelphia, a North Jersey church group is spending less money on a far less luxurious place to stay: the Philadelphia Zoo.
“The zoo makes it a little more down to earth because it’s more like a pilgrimage,” said Melissa Peters, a congregant at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Ridgewood, New Jersey. “We’re not gonna be staying in a hotel room where we have showers or where we have continental breakfasts and things like that. Instead we’re sleeping with animals in order to see the pope.”
Peters and 220 other parents and children from the church will sleep on the floor of the Philly Zoo buildings housing the bird and insect exhibits during the Pope’s visit to Philly for the World Meeting of Families in September.
“A pilgrimage is very different from a vacation or a trip,” said Cathy Hunt, another congregant. “A pilgrimage is a prayer experience and any discomfort that you’ll feel the excitement will be tenfold that.”
AUGUST 29, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY LINH TAT
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
FORT LEE – A school trustee in the midst of his third term resigned this week, creating a vacancy on the board that, by law, must be filled before the end of October.
Yusang “Jimmy” Park, the only Asian-American ever to serve as school board president in Fort Lee, said he and his family are moving to a house they purchased in Ridgewood, leaving him no choice but to resign. Trustees are required to live in the town in which they hold office.
Park was the top vote-getter when he was elected in 2007, outperforming the three incumbents in that race. Fellow board members nominated him as president in 2012 after former trustee Arthur Levine resigned.
“Looking back, I ask myself, ‘Are we in a better place than we were seven years ago when I started?’ I would say yes,” Park said, reflecting on the state of the district.
When he was first elected, Park noted, the district was reeling from the fallout of a superintendent who plagiarized a speech delivered to honors students. That was followed in 2009 by a grade-altering scandal when officials found that a high school counselor had tampered with college transcripts, and widespread frustration in the community over an absentee superintendent during the 2012-13 school year. That superintendent eventually parted ways with the district.
Now, Park said, the district has voter-approved funding to build and expand classroom space, has adopted new campus security measures and has hired a new permanent superintendent
Review of Harper Lee’s Go Set A Watchman, by artist Jen Bissu
I had very high hopes for this book. Perhaps that’s in part why I am so terribly disappointed. I must credit Harper Lee’s editors: it was a wise decision to insist that she rewrite this novel, and continue revising it, until it turned into the magnificent To Kill A Mockingbird that we all know and love. There are only perhaps two or three parts of this book that I found actually enjoyable; the rest I grudgingly endured. It had its good points: her vocabulary is strong, and some of the writing is eloquent. Unfortunately, much of the writing in this book is nebulous. There is a great deal of philosophizing, which I found tiresome. Also, most apparent in the beginning of the book, Lee chooses to “tell” the reader about her characters, rather than “show,” as she did in Mockingbird. “Showing” rather than “telling” is a much stronger writing technique. I found the “telling” juvenile, prosaic, and not engaging at all. Fortunately that ceased after the beginning of the book. If I weren’t so determined to read this book for its historical value, having been published some sixty years after it was written, I would’ve dropped it after the slow, poorly told beginning. So I pushed through, and upon completing it, I found myself with an empty, dissatisfied feeling. I’m almost sorry this book was published. I just re-read To Kill A Mockingbird very recently, in anticipation of this book, thus deepening the stark contrast between the brilliance and delightfulness of Mockingbird and this disappointing book. I do recommend reading it just for the sake of historical background, because it is interesting to see where one of the best, most revered pieces of American Literature got its start. I’m giving this three stars, which I feel is a bit generous, but I’ll allot extra credit for the admirable vocabulary.
Here is a video review/ discussion of the book that I feel hits the nail on the head. https://youtu.be/vPNk-0dv5_Y
Fort Lee man among three charged in alleged burglary scheme targeting seniors
MARCH 13, 2015, 8:49 PM LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2015, 9:38 PM
BY ABBOTT KOLOFF
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Police have arrested a Fort Lee man and two others who allegedly ran a scheme targeting elderly people across several states by distracting them while their homes were burglarized, authorities said Friday in a news release.
The men were caught by a law enforcement task force after they allegedly attempted to run the scam in Ridgewood on Tuesday but came away from a Greenway Lane home without taking anything, said Somerset County Prosecutor Geoffrey D. Soriano. The men were arrested in Lyndhurst, he said.
The task force had been assembled in Somerset County after the three men allegedly stole a safe with $75,000 cash and an undisclosed amount of jewelry from a 90-year-old woman in Somerville late last year; one of the men had distracted her by saying he was with the water company and had come to check the pipes, Soriano said.
People are fleeing N.J. faster than any other state, moving company says
By Jeff Goldman | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on January 05, 2015 at 1:30 PM, updated January 05, 2015 at 4:56 PM
Nearly two of every three families making an interstate move involving New Jersey last year were leaving the Garden State, the highest rate in the country.
New Jersey had the greatest percentage of outbound moves of any state nationally last year with almost 65 percent departing, according to a company which bills itself as the largest transporter of household goods in the country.
The Garden State has led the nation in outward migration for the fourth time in five years.
In all, United said it tracked 4,003 moves out of New Jersey in 2014 compared to 2,169 inbound.
Nearly half of those leaving New Jersey were bound for Florida (15 percent), California (14), Texas (9) and North Carolina (7.5), spokeswoman Melissa Sullivan told NJ Advance Media.
Retirement and jobs were the top reasons to leave the state last year, according to a United Survey of departing New Jerseyans.
About 42 percent reported leaving for a new job or company transfer. Forty-one percent attributed their move to retirement. More than half (56 percent) of people leaving New Jersey were over the age of 55, with 22 percent older than 65.
The Threat to Political Speech Online: Q&A With Former Elections Chief Lee Goodman
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / January 03, 2015
The Federal Election Commission has steered clear of regulating political speech on the Internet. But the FEC’s outgoing chairman, Lee Goodman, warns that the commission could well impose rules on Americans who disseminate information on blogs, video channels or podcasts.
Goodman, a Republican, last year headed the six-member FEC, which oversees campaign finance laws. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal before his term ended, he discussed a 3-3 decision by the six-member commission in response to a complaint filed against a nonprofit group called Checks and Balances for Economic Growth.
The nonprofit had posted two campaign videos on YouTube without making disclaimers or divulging production costs. The complaint alleged that Checks and Balances violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 because it didn’t disclose the information.
Goodman and the two other Republicans on the panel contended that free postings on the Internet are exempt from the law. However, FEC Vice Chairman Ann Ravel, a Democrat, called for a “re-examination of the commission’s approach to the Internet.” Such a review, Ravel said, is “long overdue.”
Ravel has not made definitive proposals for new Internet regulations, a spokesman told The Daily Signal, but she plans to meet with technology and media leaders this year.
This transcript of the interview with Goodman was edited for style, clarity and length.
The Daily Signal: What was the basis for your ruling that Checks and Balances for Economic Growth did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act?
Goodman: In 2004 and 2005, the FEC undertook a rulemaking specifically addressing Internet communications and Internet political activity. The commission heard public comments from over 800 citizens and organizations. The commission drew a fairly bright line in its regulations as a result of that process. And under the 2006 rule, the commission will regulate paid advertising on the Internet.
If my organization wants to take out a banner ad or place an Internet video on a commercial website and pay a fee for that advertising space, the FEC regulates that expenditure just like it would a TV ad or radio ad. However, if an organization places content for free on the Internet, there is no expenditure to regulate because the dissemination cost is free.
In the process of drawing that line in the rulemaking process, certain organizations proposed that the FEC count production costs of websites and podcasts and YouTube videos as an expenditure, and the commission declined to adopt that proposal.
Since 2006, if your dissemination on the Internet is free or low-cost, such as posting a free video on YouTube or building a website or organizing a social media platform, or any number of Internet-based political activities, you are unregulated.
The American public has embraced this freedom, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of YouTube videos, blogs, websites, podcasts, social media posts, social media platforms and other Internet-based activities that have gone unregulated without so much as an inquiry from the FEC.
I don’t think there is any evidence that this robust exercise of freedom on the Internet has corrupted any politician in America. Moreover, it’s clear that the Internet has facilitated a free marketplace of ideas and political expression, where individuals and small groups compete with large, well-funded voices on a level playing field.
For all these reasons, my two Republican colleagues and I voted the way we did in the Checks and Balances matter, and will oppose efforts to impose far greater regulation of political speech on the Internet.
Republicans on the FEC ‘will oppose efforts to impose far greater regulation of political speech on the Internet,’ Goodman says. (Photo: Newscom)
The Daily Signal: If this discussion is brought before the FEC as Vice Chairman Ann Ravel said, what implications could this have on the blogging community, on any Web-based news organization, on people with YouTube channels or organizations posting YouTube videos?
Goodman: I don’t think we can begin to contemplate all of the severe consequences to online political speech as a result of even opening this discussion within the FEC.
First, I believe that opening this issue will serve only to deter low-cost and free discussion of political issues on the Internet. As people begin to hear that the Federal Election Commission is considering a crackdown on Internet political speech, some people will be discouraged from participating. I think that’s a shame, and that’s one reason I’m speaking out loudly and clearly that three Republican commissioners will oppose any effort to restrict freedom on the Internet.
“Republican commissioners will oppose any effort to restrict freedom on the Internet,” says 2014 FEC Chairman Lee Goodman of online political speech
Second, I cannot imagine how the Federal Election Commission will begin to regulate hundreds of thousands of blogs, YouTube videos, chat rooms, emails and links, and all sorts of Internet-based political discussion because of how vast political discussion on the Internet currently is.
The problem for the FEC as a practical matter — put aside the philosophical and policy implications — what the vice chair is inviting the FEC to do is to establish an Internet review board where a room full of government bureaucrats sit on a daily basis and troll the Internet for political commentary — to identify online commentators who did not register or report their expenses in connection with their website, and to issue subpoenas seeking information about their expenditures.
I know of no other way that the FEC could regulate the hundreds of thousands of posts on the Internet, absent such a review process.
The Daily Signal: It seems like this would hurt the little guys starting blogs, as opposed to big companies and news organizations. Is that the case?
Goodman: The specter of regulation of Internet political speech will discourage small groups and individuals from using the Internet to express their political opinions. If we regulate it, we will necessarily discourage it and get less of it. It’s an axiom that if you regulate it, you will deter it and get less of it.
Under current law, there are two important exemptions from FEC regulation: One is the media exemption. Congress wrote in the Federal Election Campaign Act an explicit exemption for the media, the press.
The second important exemption, created in the commission’s 2006 rulemaking, is the Internet exemption. If the commission were to abolish the Internet exemption, many online bloggers who have been protected by it would resort to protection under the media exemption.
However, the distinction between a bona fide media organization and blogger online is a blurred line. And there are three Democratic commissioners on the FEC today who have consistently voted to constrict the definition of the press entitled to the media exemption.
It is unclear whether online bloggers would be exempt from regulation under the press exemption, and it would embroil the FEC in determining which bloggers are the press and which bloggers are not the press. That would be a significant consequence and complication if the FEC were to follow Vice Chair Ravel’s proposal.
The Daily Signal: Would this, then, be regulated by the government combing blogs to see if the blogs meet the qualifications for what the FEC rules as a media organization?
Goodman: That’s correct. Look at the medium. This is not as easy as identifying who has a broadcast license from the Federal Communications Commission. The Internet has placed a printing press in the hands of every citizen in America. And many small groups and individuals have started political commentary pages or websites on their kitchen tables and have grown those blogs into being significant daily publications.
The Internet has democratized not just political speech generally, but journalism specifically. Imagine the FEC having to comb all blogs in America to determine which ones are exempt, are bona fide press entities, [and] which ones are not bona fide press entities and would be regulated because the Internet exemption has been abolished. I believe this is an area where the government ought to leave well enough alone.
On Nov. 5, national and local newspapers in New York report on the results of the previous day’s mid-term elections. (Photo: Richard B. Levine/Newscom)
The Daily Signal: Isn’t it the First Amendment right of Americans to record podcasts and write on the Internet?
Goodman: Absolutely, and let me take it a step further. This is the fundamental error in the proposal to regulate the Internet. The Supreme Court consistently has ruled that the FEC has no constitutional authority to regulate speech for the sake of regulating speech.
The FEC exists solely to regulate large contributions to candidates and to require public disclosure of large expenditures to influence elections because the money involved in the contributions and the expenditures has the potential to corrupt politicians.
The vast majority of posts on the Internet, from YouTube videos to websites to blogs, are low cost or free. Therefore, if we were to begin regulating online political speech, the FEC would be in the position of regulating speech and not expenditures for speech.
Absolutely it’s a First Amendment right to speak to the world through your personal computer without governmental interference, so long as you’re not corrupting politicians.
The Daily Signal: Is the concern that someone who is running for Congress is going to find a blog and be corrupted?
Goodman: I cannot speak for the vice chairman. I infer from her statement that my Democratic colleagues are concerned that Internet speech has become highly effective and influential in the political process.
Pew issued a report one year ago indicating that one-half of Americans report the Internet as a primary source of obtaining political news, information and advocacy. So the Internet clearly is an influential medium in America today.
I believe that’s what captured the attention and regulatory impulses of Vice Chairman Ravel. Just because it is influential or effective does not give the FEC a writ to regulate it.
“Just because it is influential or effective does not give the FEC a writ to regulate it,” says 2014 FEC Chairman Lee Goodman of online political speech
The Daily Signal: It seems this is a nonpartisan issue. You have Democrats and Republicans who would benefit from an unregulated Internet.
Goodman: The proposal to regulate Internet political speech would have ecumenical consequences. It would deter political speech on the right and the left of the political spectrum. More importantly, it would deter thousands of populist voices that have found a voice on the Internet.
The Daily Signal: Do you think this move has anything to do with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC, even though those decisions deal with monetary contributions?
Goodman: I haven’t heard anyone articulate that being the problem. But the major concern after Citizens United was that large, corporate-funded voices would drown out all other voices in the political process. On the Internet, the smallest of bloggers has the level playing field to make their ideas heard as easily as the largest of corporations.
The decentralized architecture of the Internet gives each citizen an equal place to have his voice heard. What goes viral on the Internet is interesting political speech that resonates with people. Much of what goes viral — by “going viral” I mean gets millions of viewers — is creative and interesting content, and not necessarily well-funded content.
Look at “Obama Girl” in 2008. I daresay that video has had, on YouTube alone, 30 million hits. And because it goes viral and other people pick it up and send links to it, who knows how many Americans have seen that video. JibJab.com [animation with political themes] went viral. I don’t think the production cost of JibJab cartoons is very expensive.
What large corporations tend to do and what well-funded advocacy groups tend to do is they buy advertising. They buy banner ads, for example, and we regulate those expenditures. If you pay Yahoo or AOL to post a banner ad [for] your advocacy message, we regulate that. But what’s going viral and being seen by millions of Americans on the Internet is predominantly low-cost production.
What’s viral on the Internet is a populist phenomenon. Someone posts something interesting or something that resonates, and then millions of Americans talk to each other through email and links and say, ‘Look at this.’ I believe that the Internet is the antidote to the concerns raised after Citizens United. We don’t need to ruin it for the American people.
The Daily Signal: Those are interesting examples. How would FEC regulation change that process?
Goodman: BarelyPolitical.com produced “Obama Girl” and other videos — all politically themed – about John McCain, about Rudy Giuliani. There were at least a dozen politically themed videos that they produced and posted for free on YouTube. It was the first one that went viral. They had millions of viewers for all of them.
Under a regulatory regime, there would be several implications. First, each video would have to carry a disclaimer at the bottom indicating who paid for it and whether it was authorized by a political candidate. Second, BarelyPolitical.com would have to file expenditure reports with the Federal Election Commission disclosing the first date on which they post each YouTube video and how much they spent on the production.
Screen shot from an “Obama Girl” video. (Photo: BarelyPolitical.com/YouTube)
The FEC would have to issue regulations on what would be included in the production costs – do I consider purchasing costs of your personal computer, the editing equipment that you used? What about the video cameras you use? Did you pay the girl who performed in the video? Did you pay anyone else?
We would have to have a regulation prescribing what is described in production costs. The software that you purchased — and by the way, that goes for individual bloggers, too — up to computer, the software you purchased, your monthly Internet access charge. The FEC would have to get into this granular level of prescriptive regulation to tell people what to include in their expenditure reports to the FEC.
Then the content creator would have to disclose anyone who contributed money for the purpose of supporting the blog or YouTube post. And then, last but not least, if they coordinated their communication at all with a campaign or political party — for example, if they republish any campaign materials from a candidate — then that would count as a contribution to the candidate if the blogger or YouTube poster is incorporated. And that would mean the expenditure being reported is an illegal corporate contribution.
These are the consequences of regulating what has been a wholly constructive forum for Americans to speak and share ideas. Government needs to know when to leave well enough alone. The specter of government regulation of hundreds of thousands of websites and YouTube posts and chat rooms is ominous. It’s the regulatory Pandora’s box.
N.J. Supreme Court: Fort Lee co-op board violated man’s free-speech rights in leafletting case
DECEMBER 3, 2014, 1:36 PM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2014, 5:57 PM
BY PETER J. SAMPSON
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the free-speech rights of a resident of a high-rise co-op building in Fort Lee were violated when the co-op’s board barred him from distributing leaflets under the doors of his neighbors.
In a unanimous decision, the court held that Robert Dublirer, a regular critic of the co-op board, had been denied a fundamental right guaranteed by the state’s Constitution.
In 2008, Dublirer sued the owners of the 483-unit Mediterranean Towers South complex, claiming a rule it enforced against him was unconstitutional.
Dublirer was contemplating a run for a seat on the board, but was denied permission to distribute campaign materials to residents. The board had previously distributed literature that criticized its opponents.
But the board cited a “house rule” that barred soliciting and distributing written materials without board authorization. The rule was intended to preserve the residents’ privacy and quiet enjoyment of their homes, and minimize litter.
“Dublirer’s right to promote his candidacy, and to communicate his views about the governance of the community in which he lives, outweigh the minor interference that neighbors will face from a leaflet under their door,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in the 24-page decision.
Technology solutions to parking problems in Fort Lee
September 15, 2014 Last updated: Monday, September 15, 2014, 7:23 AM
By SVETLANA SHKOLNIKOVA
STAFF WRITER
The Record
Print
FORT LEE — To prepare for increased traffic in the downtown area, the Fort Lee Parking Authority will roll out a license plate recognition system this fall that will revamp the process for parking meter collection and parking permit registration.
The system uses technology to read license plate numbers with cameras mounted atop borough vehicles, eliminating the need for physical permits and significantly cutting down on time spent on enforcement.
Fort Lee will start with one camera-equipped vehicle and probably add a second next spring, when the program expands from parking lots to residential parking areas, said Gloria Gallo, the authority administrator.
“Because of the new development, this district is going to become very busy,” she said, referring to Redevelopment Area 5 and downtown. “We want to stay up-to-date with the latest technology, and this will just be more efficient.”
Gallo hopes to open parking permit registration on Nov. 1, though delays are possible.
The technology will move the entire registration process online, allowing drivers to pay for their permits and register their license plate numbers all at once. They will no longer need to print out permits.
Confusion over doctor lists is costly for Obamacare enrollees in state
Fustration and legal challenges over the network of doctors and hospitals for Obamacare patients have marred an otherwise successful rollout of the federal healthcare law in California.
Limiting the number of medical providers was part of an effort by insurers to hold down premiums. But confusion over the new plans has led to unforeseen medical bills for some patients and prompted a state investigation.
More complaints are surfacing as patients start to use their new coverage bought through Covered California, the state’s health insurance exchange.
“I thought I had done everything right, and it’s been awful,” said Jean Buchanan, 56. The Fullerton resident found herself stuck with an $8,000 bill for cancer treatment after receiving conflicting information on whether it was covered.
NJ, NY lawmakers to unveil Port Authority reform bill in Fort Lee today
FORT LEE — Lawmakers from New Jersey and New York will unveil a bill aimed to reform the Port Authority at a news conference this morning in Fort Lee — the site of last year’s controversial lane closings at the center of the George Washington Bridge scandal.
The bipartisan legislation addresses “open government, transparency, and accountability issues” at the bistate agency that oversees bridges and tunnels between the Garden and Empire states, according to a news release.
The agency has come under scrutiny in recent months over unannounced lane closings at the nation’s busiest bridge last September, causing days of heavy traffic in Fort Lee.
Democrats have accused members of Gov. Chris Christie’s office and inner circle of shutting the lanes because Democratic Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich declined to endorse the Republican governor for re-election. Christie has denied any involvement.
A state legislative committee and federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New Jersey are investigating the matter. (Johnson/Star-Ledger)
