March 17 — The “More to Come” Part: Four-Item Election Law Complaint Filed Against Bob McEwen Relating to 2006 Primary Campaign Conduct
___________________________

The Ohio Elections Commission decided to issue a reprimand in the case of Blumer v. McEwen this morning. I’m not sure what the vote was, except that it was heavily in favor of a reprimand. (Update: The vote was 6-1. Only Chairwoman Catherine Cunningham, a Republican, voted to oppose the reprimand.)

NOTE: The next paragraph was revised slightly on March 20.

Though the verdict of a violation was in my opinion the correct one, the punishment was not what I was seeking, I believe the punishment was limited to a reprimand about because Mr. Saxbe, Mr. McEwen’s lawyer, in Mr. McEwen’s presence, acknowledged that Mr. McEwen had indeed violated Ohio Election law by calling himself “Congressman McEwen” and “Congressman Bob McEwen” during the 2005 Second District Congressional Primary in May and June of 2005, and in essence put his client at the Commission’s mercy.

I am disappointed that I was not permitted to make my full case as to why there should be no mitigating circumstances because the Commissioners appeared eager to render a decision, and even resisted the idea of listening to the radio ads, TV commercial, and Channel 5 News report that bore the evidence of the violations. After I presented the ads and the TV report, the Commission moved quickly to render a decision. Expecting the opportunity to speak during the penalty phase, I let it happen (lesson learned). So, I was not given the opportunity after the Commission rendered its decision to make a number of other points about the nature of the violations that I believe argued for a more severe penalty than ultimately came about.

I may choose to present what I was going to say but was not permitted to at some future point, but may need to consult with legal counsel before doing that.

Having said all that, I would describe the result as disappointing, but not discouraging. Mr. McEwen is on record now as having violated Ohio Election Law in the 2005 Second District Congressional Primary, and is to my knowledge the only one of approximately 16 candidates of both parties who ran in that primary you can say that about.

He is also, to my knowledge, the only candidate of either party who has been found to have violated Ohio Election Law of all the candidates running in the 2006 Second District Congressional Primary.

That’s not small potatoes, despite the lack of tangible punishment beyond a reprimand.

How a candidate who has been found to have violated Ohio Election Law makes the case that he’s more worthy of someone’s vote than the other three candidates on the May 2, 2006 GOP Primary ballot will indeed be interesting to observe.

There is more to come, as some of you appear to have expected, based on some of the comments I have seen at other blogs, and it will be revealed as soon as I have something specific to report.
_______________________

As I’ve consistently done at posts relating to this matter, I’m not going to allow comments at this post, but will allow trackbacks, subject to review. I’m simply not in the mood to let people post comments like the dreck I’ve been seeing at some of the other blogs (yeah, that means you, Politics Extra, but there are others). You are of course welcome to e-mail me directly.
_______________________

UPDATE: Speaking of Politics Extra — Hey, since you guys and gals managed to report on another matter before The Elections Commission today, maybe you’ll see fit to report on this one. But I’ve learned, not to expect anything. — Surprise, see Update 2.

UPDATE 2, March 17: Just got a call from Jon Craig who is apparently the Statehouse Reporter for the Enquirer who asked for my opinion on the Reprimand. I referred him to this post, so something may yet appear in the Enquirer or at Politics Extra.

UPDATE 3: The Politics Extra entry is here.

Previous Post: What’s French for “Legalized Piracy”?
__________________________

Yes, this post from Tuesday picked on the French for trying to dictate to Apple how it should run its iTunes/iPod business.

But it’s not as if the French are alone in trying to dictate what the market will look like.

In 1993, airline executive and entrepreneur Frank Lorenzo was prevented (last sentence at link) from starting up a new airline in the US. An ordinarily strange-bedfellows coalition of existing airlines and airline unions sought to prevent a man who had a long history of conflict with everyone else in the industry from getting back in again. The new Clinton Administration’s Departement of Transportation. The rejection had nothing to do with Mr. Lorenzo’s management skills, and everything to do with his aggressive competitiveness and confrontational labor tactics.

Ancient history, right? Wrong. Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, in a subscription-only editorial, notes that the same cast of characters is attempting to prevent the startup of another airline, though the fig leafs available as reasons for stopping Lorenzo aren’t there this time:

Not So Virgin Territory

Which brings us to Virgin America, a start-up carrier seeking approval from both the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. The new company is the latest brainstorm of United Kingdom mogul Richard Branson, who wants to start a low-cost carrier in the mold of Jet Blue. Aside from the Virgin brand, the new company has nothing to do with Mr. Branson’s better-known British airline, Virgin Atlantic.

That hasn’t stopped U.S. airlines from trying to torpedo the application (and avoid more competition) on the basis of a few antiquated laws. Since the 1920s and ’30s, the U.S. has limited foreign ownership in domestic airlines to a maximum of 49%, and 25% of voting rights. The rules date to the days when lawmakers considered U.S. ownership of any air fleet to be vital to national security — an argument that has become increasingly absurd given today’s self-sufficient, high-tech military. Only last year the Transportation Department proposed new rules relaxing the ownership requirements.

None of this even matters to the Virgin America filing, since the company has structured itself to comply with current law.

….. Nonetheless, within weeks of Virgin filing its application on December 8, Continental Airlines — joined by Delta, American, United and various unions — filed an objection. The group is alleging that, contrary to all evidence, Mr. Branson is secretly controlling the whole show.

….. It seems far-fetched that Mr. Branson would endanger all of his interests by breaking multiple federal laws for the sake of a small start-up. Far more likely is that the billionaire is merely following through on his long-stated ambition to get in on the ground floor of a U.S. airline — albeit as a minority investor. The incumbent U.S. carriers surely know this but seem to think that the answer to their own high fuel prices, temperamental labor unions and crippling pension costs is to use regulation to kneecap any new competitor.

And the strategy may be working. The Department of Transportation, which evaluates the “economic fitness” of proposed airline entrants, has long been a promoter of competition and sports a good record of approving new carriers — from JetBlue to AirTran. Yet the department is also legally obligated to investigate any allegations, no matter how bogus or protectionist, a process that can take considerable time.

So the airlines and the unions are trying to kill an airline startup that has major involvement from a legend in the airline industry who has none of the baggage of Mr. Lorenzo by stalling for time, and holding up the creation of what the new company believes will be 3,000 jobs.

Please, people. Put your largely bankrupt houses in order (if you can), and let the new airline and Richard Branson get on with it.

Free Links:

• This is a Sirius Slump (as of close on March 14) — Note that Howard Stern collected his big payoff on January 5, and the company announced Stern could sell his shares any time he wanted (i.e., that he is, incredibly to me, not considered an insider) on January 11.



March 20 update: Kevin at Pundit Review notes the plenitude of insider selling and stock option redemptions — with no buying. Many financial advisers would suggest that when insiders are heading for the exits, even when the stock is already in the tank, you should join them.

• The Japanese Have Developed a Robot That Can Carrya 20-Plus Pound Person (HT Drudge, if it’s still there) — “Government-backed research institute Riken said the 158-centimeter (five-foot) RI-MAN humanoid can already carry a doll weighing 12 kilograms (26 pounds) and could be capable of bearing 70 kilograms within five years.” I guess it will just need the proper diet and workout regimen. :–>
• Michiganders, How Did You Let This Happen? — U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow was last seen on these pages supporting the “Bankruptcy Reform” bill last year, earning her the moniker “Democrat Senator from GMAC.” In this picture from earlier this week she appears to be flaunting her most obvious trait, but at least she’s color-coordinated:

  

  (I should never have delayed posting this 24 hours. Now I’m the 10,245th person to post this picture — Ed.)

• This Is a License to Print Money — Apple is offering college basketball fans a chance to download the games or game highlights through its online iTunes Music Store. Something tells me that a partnership with ESPN to get classic NCAA tournament games and other classic sports events isn’t far off. One example: I’d say the list of Duke fans who won’t purchase the Christian Laettner buzzer-beating double overtime game against Kentucky in 1992 will resemble a blank piece of paper — as will the list of buyers in The Bluegrass State.

The saint who is supposed to be the reason for all the merrymaking coming up tomorrow (this is posted today for those who will be getting a head start) was the man who converted an entire island country to Catholicism:

(more…)