What happens to leftover campaign donations?

I caught an article today in the Wall Street Journal (always sounds pretentious to start off any form of communication that way, doesn't it?) talking about President-Elect Obama's incoming donations for his inauguration ceremony. I think the whole notion is a bit ridiculous, but I certainly don't mean to single out the incoming administration as all incoming presidents have used their inauguration as a fund raising opportunity.

But anyway, my question is what exactly do they do with leftover campaign donations? Do they manage to spend every single cent of what's donated, planning down to the closing of the polls? Somehow I doubt it, and it's more likely that it's retained by the party or by the campaign, though I did hear that some of Obama's campaign staffers were to receive some somewhat lavish gifts when it was all over.

I guess that's okay, but given how much cash he ended up with and given how much he was able to point to all of the low-dollar donations from "average people," wouldn't it be somewhat patriotic of him and his campaign to hook up some of those folks who donated less than $500 with some of the leftover laptops and other swag from the campaign, to say nothing of at least a partial refund? Just a thought.

Seriously, though, if any of you know the law about surplus campaign funds I'd be curious to know. I've done some research on campaign finance reform but haven't ever seen that come up.

Interesting Situation on Campus

I know I'm not going to get a lot of pity from folks a bit more to the left, but there's an interesting situation on my campus that I find troubling. Of all the student organizations here at the law school, there are four that I would classify as right-leaning: the College Republicans and the Federalist Society on the political side, and the Christian Lawyers and J. Reuben Clark Law Society (Mormon Lawyers) on the at least facially apolitical or moral side.

The school's student organization governing body technically requires that any student organization have a faculty sponsor. Here's the interesting situation: not a single faculty member is willing to support any of those four organizations. Anecdotally, what few faculty members I know to have a rightward lean are unwilling to publicly present themselves as such for fear of peer ostracizing.

That about blew me away.

To a certain point, I'm willing to just cope with the fact that leftish viewpoints will largely dominate the personal persuasions of faculty members at most universities. It only allows faculty members who make objectivity and political neutrality in the name of open ideas that much more worthy of respect. But as more and more academic institutions and private enterprises make diversity a mission and a cause to be won, I'm not sure that this fits the bill. And when a university's career development center offers internship credit for volunteering as a pollwatcher for a specific party (I'll let you all guess which one) with no mention of the other, I'm concerned.

Isn't a university obligated to provide a friendly environment for people of any political persuasion? How far do we need to go to ensure that this happens?

It's OUR Job...

I came across this bit of numbers from Pew, and thought I'd pass this on. According to a recent study, 57% of Americans either mostly or completely agree that it's the government's job to care for the needy.


I want to clarify one thing. It's NOT the government's job to care for the needy. That implies that it's "someone else's" job. It's all of our jobs to care for the needy. All of us.

This is about as preachy as I'm willing to get, but I despise the notion that conservatives somehow have it in for the poor, the less fortunate, minorities in difficult situations, etc. when that's not usually the case. What is the case is that there is a strong mistrust of the government's ability to create and administer effective programs for the kind of relief that's needed that will most promote permanent extraction from a bad situation.

That being said, we cannot nor should not allow the existence of such problems to provide an excuse for not doing our part, nor should we assume that the government bears that responsibility alone. It's our job.

Thougts on Mormons and Prop 8

There has been a bit of press lately covering both protests to the passing of California's Prop. 8 and the LDS Church's (Mormons') reaction thereto. I've followed the back and forth from afar as it's been several years since I've lived in California. But, I have sought out and appreciated the opportunity for good dialogue with friends who opposed Proposition 8, while at the same time saddened to hear of my niece's experiences being spat on and cursed at for supporting it.

There's not much that I can offer on the subject that hasn't already been both against (Stay classy, Roseanne) the Mormons' participating in Prop 8 and in defense thereof, but I would like to put out a few thoughts for those who are interested.

First off, although I'm bummed that the Mormons have become almost the sole face of Pro-Prop 8 California when the church itself paid out no institutional money in support of the proposition, when the anti-Prop 8 campaign was in total better-funded than the pro-Prop 8 campaign, when at best I figure there are 200,000* voters in California who are actively-practicing Mormons of voting age, I forced myself not to be surprised by that despite my initial bewilderment once I thought about how involved that extreme minority of voters became.

I can only hope that Mormons in California behaved themselves civilly and with class, if for no other reason than to do as little as possible to justify allegations of bigotry and intolerance that are being cast. I hope that pro-Prop 8 folks did and continue to follow the official direction given by the church with respect to the appropriate mode of support for that proposition.

What I do hope, most of all, is that we Mormons welcome the inevitable protests to Proposition 8 and other similar amendments nationwide as long as they are kept cordial and civil towards religious practice. The Mormon Church said this on the subject:

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

But I hope that we Mormons welcome the opportunity for dialogue and understanding that healthy protest can foster. Being overly defensive or overly zealous typically does little other than reinforce viewpoints either in your favor or against you, and without good dialogue and perspective we will never reach an understanding of how best to handle this issue that has potential to be so terribly divisive. No matter how future elections shape the policies of the varying states or, as I feel is inevitable, the nation, there will be a large body of people who will feel robbed of something special and sacred, and we will be forced to reconcile those feelings to continue to exist as neighbors in a spirit of social compassion and of patriotism. Both parties are under obligation to work together in a way that allows us to agree to disagree in some measure of harmony. Otherwise, we undermine what we view as the righteousness of our own position.

*My estimated number is based on the just under 800,000 Mormons in California. Figure only about half are actively-practicing, half of that half are under 18, and that's where I get to 200,000. It's a dirty method, but I don't know of nor could I find any information as to Mormon voter registry or turnout, though my suspicion is that it's not tremendously different than any other group of potential voters. Also, I know at least anecdotally of several Mormons who did not vote for Proposition 8 and I imagine that they are not terribly unique.

Daylight Savings Time is a Crock

Once again, Freakonomics is there to tell us how it really is. Thanks to Freakonomics blogger Stephen J. Dubner for finding this article providing good science in support of the notion that Daylight Savings Time is, in fact, a crock and a waste.

It's an interesting premise, but sadly a bit of a boring read unless you're really in to quantitative analysis where the bulk of the writing is just explaining the methodology behind the research; it's important for good science, but painful to read. In a nutshell, these Ph.D. types reminded us all that, contrary to popular belief, Daylight Savings Time isn't about agriculture at all, but it's supposedly about keeping energy costs down by playing with the energy demand.

They did a study of Indiana who until recently left it up to the individual counties to decide whether they would practice DST. What's more, the poor hoosiers have the time zone divide going right down the middle of their state. Anyway, because they recently passed a law that all counties had to practice DST, they have a pretty good natural laboratory to compare average energy consumption.

Our main finding is that—contrary to the policy’s intent—DST results is an overall increase
in residential electricity demand. Estimates of the overall increase in consumption are
approximately 1 percent and highly statistically significant. We also find that the effect is not
constant throughout the DST period: there is some evidence for an increase in electricity demand at the spring transition into DST, but the real increases come in the fall when DST appears to increase consumption between 2 and 4 percent.

On a personal level, I've never liked the time change because I find the abrupt transition to standard time in the fall a bit jarring. It always happens just as the weather's starting to get cooler and the general look of the season a bit more bleak. The sun sits lower in the sky anyway, there are significantly fewer leaves on the trees, it's cold and flu season, etc. My personal favorite is when I arrive at work before the sun's up and don't leave until the sun's down. As a child of summer and something of a sun-worshiper, it's just too much of a change. I'm pretty sure I suffer from seasonal depression anyway and this isn't helping.

But wait: I discovered yet another reason not to love the time change: the Daughter pays more attention to the sun than the clock. So, while "fall back" used to be a refreshing time to get an extra hour of sleep before Sunday's obligations began, this year--the Daughter's first--it became an opportunity to have an extra hour to get ready in the morning as she was up by a little after 6:00 instead of her previous a little after 7:00. Yeesh.

So for those of you who may be struggling to find something to get riled up about now that the elections have come and gone, let's get riled up about this: Down with DST! It has all the components of a great cause: it's easy to put on a bumper sticker, a t-shirt, or a sign to be held up at a rally. You can even apply vague rhetoric to it that sounds profound: "Keep Us Out of the Dark!" "EnLIGHTen America!" What more do you need?

A Day Late and a Dollar Short: Post-Election Thoughts

Everyone else has already said things that are far more profound than what I can add to the aftermath of a very interesting election, but in the interests of getting my own thoughts in order, I should probably weigh in.

But first, you have to love The Onion for giving us the right kind of insight. I thought this was funny:


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Here are some initial thoughts. Overwhelmingly, I'm glad it's over. I'm sick of having a president who no one respects. Though I can't deny that it's easy to find fault with how he's handled things, I also can't deny that he had the deck stacked against him since 2004. After he defeated Senator Kerry, he implored people on both ends of the spectrum to work with him to keep America moving. I'm fairly certain that he knew that he won by the skin of his teeth even in the midst of a declining approval rating. I'm also fairly certain that he would not have wanted to win if he knew that his victory would only ossify the resolve of the Democrats against him while at the same time set in motion a pattern of steady abandonment by his own party. Before we talk about what a debacle his second term has been, let's look honestly at how much support he's been given.

I'm prepared for the arguments of whether he deserved any support. I'll only say that when a president that we've elected hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment, spending all our time griping about why he's not the best president instead of figuring out how to get things done with him doesn't help and isn't his fault. Thank you, Nancy and Harry. I'll remind everyone that Republicans hated Bill Clinton. Hated him. Up until he perjured himself into lame-duck land and subsequently faced potential impeachment, he wouldn't have been able to get anything done and make himself the savior of the 90s that he's remembered as without bipartisan support. Once he backed off of the dumb ideas of his first two years, he was able to get stuff done.

That being said, as much as I am about 180 degrees off of President-elect Obama's politics, I'm pleased to live in an America that has no qualms about electing an African-American president. I sincerely hope that no nut out there tries anything stupid and that President Obama takes care for his security. It's the small fraction of nut jobs out there that make it scary for all of us.

I think it's appropriate that he is of mixed heritage. It's sort of symbolic of a society with mixed backgrounds, varied values, struggling to find an equilibrium that works for most of us. I like it. I'm interested as to how this will affect the general tone of race relations and discussions thereof. My understanding is that something like 61% of white America voted for Obama and that of the remaining 39%, 38% of them would have been happy to vote for an African-American were he merely a Republican. Obviously, that's a big stride for our country.

Here is my prediction: President Obama will preach patience as he struggles to get every one of his ideas for change. The tail end of his campaign saw a lot of attempts by his people to bring the expectations down a bit in attempt to bring his supporters back down to Earth. Given how emotional support for him has been, I'm not sure what that will mean for how he's viewed. I'm not sure that his grassroots support is ready to acknowledge that some of what he's proposed could take years. We'll just have to see if they're willing to bear with him. No doubt he'll be able to vilify Republicans along the way for hamstringing his efforts, and no doubt the media will be happy to oblige him in that effort.

I'm very curious as to how the transition in Iraq will happen. I suspect that even generals friendly to Obama will suggest that the withdrawl from Iraq proceed about on the course upon which it is currently set--gradual and dependant upon Iraq meeting certain milestones. Taking that into account, how accountable will a President Obama be held for his desire and promise to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately? It's interesting that this particular platform was quiet in the waning months of the campaign.

I'm interested how a President Obama will claim credit for the economy's eventual rebound. Apparently Wall Street has no large degree of confidence in what an Obama presidency will mean as we've seen the worst post-election slide since the 80s during the last two days. I believe the economy will rebound because I believe in the forces that are at play in our system. But I very much doubt that it will have anything to do with the bailout that's already happened (I know I feel bailed out. Don't you?) nor with any other efforts the government will make. Nonetheless, it will happen during Obama's tenure and so he'll gladly take credit for it. I'm very curious as to how that will all pan out.

I'm interested as to what shape the Republican party will take in the next little while. Republican big-wigs are talking about a need to drastically reshape the party's direction, image, and core. I heard some commentary (on ESPN of all places) that I'd tend to agree with: they don't need to reshape anything. They just need to come up with a better face than Senator McCain. I respect Senator McCain and I think he would have made an adequate though largely-unremarkable president, but he's certainly not transcendent. Democrats had similar woes when Senator Kerry lost, and I don't think that they've really reshaped who they are so much as they found a very compelling candidate at a time when the country has been starving for a compelling leader.

This is getting too long, so more will come later. I lost most of you about three paragraphs ago. :)

Print Media Bias, or at Least Endorsement

I recently posted some opinions and links on media bias in elections. My buddy Mike made a good point in a comment that it's a little vague to make a claim about "media" without defining it a bit better.

Point taken. So, here's a good post on the New York Times blog, "Freakonomics," that at least gives some good numbers on how the print media, if not biased, clearly has a tradition of endorsement.

MAIN STATS

Percentage of Daily Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 67.8%

Percentage of College Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 98.4%

Just a thought. Take what you read with a grain of salt (blogs like mine included). Best of luck getting in and out of a polling place in under 90 minutes tomorrow.