Quick business links for Friday:

• Continuing an argument that neither side of the debate on the bankruptcy bill passed in August will never win: April Bankruptcies shot up to 170,000, which either is or is very close to a single-month record. Of course the people who supported the law will say this proves that people are playing the system and want to get in while they still can. Those of us who opposed it, as I did, believe that people have seen how punitive and unfair the new bankruptcy framework will be when it kicks in on October 17, and are taking advantage of the few months that remain of the current flawed but at least tolerable system.
• Watchdog wasn’t watching (link may require subscription–HT to Mises Economics blog) The Washington Post runs an AP story that notes a damning Government Accountability Office report about lack of internal controls at, of all places, the Securities and Exchange Commission:
  

  WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission, which enforces rules mandating strong internal controls for public companies, itself lacks effective oversight of its financial reporting, congressional investigators say.

  Congress’ Government Accountability Office, in a report released Thursday, found “material internal-control weaknesses” in the SEC’s recording of fines and restitution to investors that it wins in settlements with companies and individuals, its preparation of financial statements and the security of its information. As a result, the report says, the watchdog agency “did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of Sept. 30, 2004.”

  The inadequate controls over the information systems increase the risk that confidential and sensitive SEC data could be altered or lost, possibly without agency staff being aware of it, the report says

  File this under “Sarbox 404 for thee, and not for me” (The reference is to a provision of the Sarbanes Oxley law passed in the wake of Enron mandating, in a nutshell, that companies monitor and report on the adequacy of their systems of internal control). Interesting, to say the least, that SEC Chairman William Donaldson resigned this week. Linkage, anyone?

  UPDATE, June 4, 11PM: Biz Weak (link requires paid subscription) totally ignores the control problems as a contributor to Donaldson’s departure, and blames it on “a backlash by business.” If form holds, Chris Cox, the new nominee, will clean things up and get no credit.

• Intel Inside Apple appears to be more than a rumor. There’s a lot of marketing material they’ll have to throw away in Cupertino.

Today’s Tidbits:

• The specifics on Bob McEwen’s seniority claim: Based on a discussion with a person at the House Speaker’s Office in Washington, McEwen would get credit for past service on committees on which he served. The person at the Speaker’s Office cited Dan Lungren of California as an example. Lungren left Congress years ago to run for other offices in CA and had (if I remember the conversation correctly) 10 years on the Judiciary Committe when he left. When he returned to Congress, Lungren got to leapfrog everyone else but a few Judiciary members based on that past experience.McEwen’s most important committee experience was on the Rules Committee (don’t know how many, obviously the max is 12), and his years on that Committee would enable him to jump past many other Rules Committee members. If he wanted to be on a different committee on which he never served (doubtful), he would have no seniority there

  There’s one difference in my mind. Lungren never lost his congressional seat. McEwen did, and then failed to get another one. In my opinion, that should zero out his seniority. Incredibly (again in my opinion), it doesn’t. Finally, in my opinion, it would be ethically incorrect for McEwen to accept the seniority because of his past losses. But that’s clearly too much to ask of someone who’s posing as the incumbent.

• Values, schmalues: Howard Wilkinson’s Enquirer column today proves the point I made about outside endorsers trying to shut down voter curiosity about other candidates.
  

  McEwen’s campaign has been touting its endorsement from the Right to Life PAC, but it has also trumpeted McEwen’s close ties to religious conservatives at the national level.

  Last week, the McEwen campaign began running radio ads featuring Dr. James Dobson, the Colorado preacher who founded Focus on the Family.

  In the ad, Dobson makes it clear that it is he and not his organization endorsing McEwen (zheesh, as if-Ed.), but he describes the former congressman as a man “guided by his strong Christian faith.”

  The influence of a national figure such as Dobson, whose radio program reaches 220 million people in 160 countries, “could be enormous in a race like this,” Burress said.

  “You do not underestimate James Dobson,” said Burress, who has given his own endorsement to McEwen. “This is a man who has taken out five United States senators. He is a political powerhouse.”

  Burress is right, though a bit hyperbolic. Dobson’s “takeout” of five US Senators can be defended on the basis that his endorsements were in two-person races with defined ideological differences.

  But now Dobson the “political powerhouse” is trying to install a Washington outsider while there are plenty of fine local GOP candidates with essentially the same views as Bob McEwen, who (unlike McEwen) actually live here and know the area and its people. As noted before, Dobson cannot possibly know the other candidates and therefore cannot possibly conclude that McEwen is better. Dobson’s endorsement is indefensible, and is an irresponsible use of his power.

• Taxes, schmaxes: The Washington-based Club for Growth PAC heavily criticizes Jean Schmidt’s record on taxes in a radio ad just released. I have not heard the ad yet, but was told by Club Executive Director David Keating in a phone call this morning that no other candidate’s name is mentioned in the ad.Note that in contrast to Dobson and the outside endorsers of McEwen, The Club endorsement is perfectly appropriate, because they actually investigate candidates’ voting records and positions and opine only on them (vs. the “he’s a great Christian guy, and please don’t bother looking into any other candidate” nature of the Dobson et al endorsements).

  But I told Mr. Keating that I believe the comparison with the other candidates in the web site announcement for the ad is incomplete at best and inaccurate at worst: “Pat DeWine, Tom Brinkman, and Bob McEwen all have much better records and positions on the issues of taxes and spending. Any one of them would be highly preferable to Jean Schmidt.”

  I told Mr. Keating that the announcement commenting on McEwen’s “record and positions” is incomplete because Bob McEwen has no record for the past 12 years, and (since Mr. Keating sounded a bit younger than yours truly and may not remember) that the Club probably failed to take into account that McEwen was a classic “pork for me and not for thee” congressman when he served. Mr. Keating appeared to acknowledge the validity of the points and said they would consider revising the web announcement.

  They probably won’t, but at least I got to vent. And you, dear reader, got to digest and evaluate my argument.

• Redefining “low budget campaign”: Democrat candidate Charles Sanders is running again in this district, having lost to Rob Portman in at least three general elections. The obvious consensus is that a primary victory by Sanders would guarantee a GOP victory on August 2, and thus there has been a so-far unsuccessful effort to persuade Mr. Sanders to withdraw.Mr. Sanders certainly can’t be accused of trying too hard. This page at his web site compares him to his “opponent” (obviously Portman, not his current Democrat rivals), and it appears that none of his other pages have been updated since the 2004 general election (delayed HT to Ohio 2nd Blog).