Okay, I missed his March 13 column in the wake of the Jay Bennish controversy, its pitiful media coverage, and its disgraceful resolution.

Here’s the best part of it, which of course is at odds with the illogic of Mr. Bennish and his school district’s administration:

Academic freedom is the freedom to do academic things — teach chemistry or accounting the way you think chemistry or accounting should be taught. It is also freedom to engage in the political activities of other citizens — on their own time, outside the classroom — without being fired.

Nowhere else do people think that it is OK to engage in politics instead of doing the job for which they are being paid. When you hire a plumber to fix a leak, you don’t want to find your home being flooded while he whiles away the hours talking about Congressional elections or foreign policy.

Here’s how it is:

• On Thursday, February 16, on Bill Cunningham’s WLW Radio Show, David Smith told Mr. Cunningham he had raised $10,000, with a goal of getting $250,000.
• Within 15 calendar days of either raising or spending $5,000, a candidate is required to file the FEC’s Statement of Candidacy Form.
• David Smith’s Statement of Candidacy was received on March 7, 19 days after the Cunningham interview, and more than likely several more days after he actually crossed the $5,000 threshold.
• Within 25 calendar days of either raising or spending $5,000, a candidate is required to file the FEC’s Statement of Organization Form.
• David Smith’s Statement of Candidacy was received at the FEC on March 22 (confirmed by phone at the FEC; I was told that it will get posted at his page on the FEC site within 2 days), 34 days after the Cunningham interview, and more than likely several more days after he actually crossed the $5,000 threshold.

Somebody could file a federal election complaint against David Smith that would ultimately involve civil penalties if a violation were indeed found, which appears certain if Mr. Smith’s radio statement about contributions received was indeed not true.

Now it’s possible that David Smith meant to tell the truth to Mr. Cunningham on February 16. Maybe he meant to say “pledged.” Maybe he meant to say “promised.” Maybe he meant to say “but I haven’t collected it, because my givers don’t want to be known until after the election, so I won’t actually collect until that delay in disclosure can be accomplished.” But he said “raised.” In the English language that means “collected” (meaning #13 at link).

If he wasn’t telling Mr. Cunningham the truth, hasn’t he automatically disqualified himself as a worthy candidate?

If he was telling Mr. Cunningham the truth, and he is therefore in patently obvious violation of campaign finance law, doesn’t that also disqualify him on the basis of fundamental worthiness? (For an Accounting and Finance guy who is supposed to know what it takes to meet deadlines, and one who has told people that HE is responsible for handling and/or managing $3 billion of his employer’s money, this is more than a little surprising.)

So does David Smith want to stay in the race and get dragged before the FEC by some enterprising individual, including any one of 3 million Democrats if he would by some incomprehensible miracle become the GOP nominee (while other juicy tidbits like the one above get casually dropped along the way)? Or would he rather drop out and more likely than not see the violations get overlooked (and the tide of tidbits stemmed)?
_______________________

UPDATE: Even if Mr. Smith was not telling the truth to Mr. Cunningham on February 16 about raising $10,000, the 15- and 25-day clocks on FEC compliance started ticking on February 16, because that was the last date to file formal candidacy papers in the State of Ohio.

UPDATE 2: I thought it would be worthwhile to post Mr. Smith’s employer’s core values (from Page 9 of the document downloaded at this company web page, at the start):

• treat the Company’s assets as you would treat your own;
• behave with the Company’s long-term success in mind;
• always do the right thing; and
• operate within the letter and spirit of the law.

UPDATE 3: This post, including updates, has been posted at Columbus Townhall, where a lively discussion may ensue.

UPDATE 4: Info about filing an FEC complaint is here (roughly three pages if printed out).

Go there.

(You mean this wasn’t the Carnival of Ohio Politics?)

(No, that was “Nightmare on Rich Street.”)

Today, following through on a threat/promise described in this BizzyBlog post from March 14, French legislation to virtually decriminalize content piracy and to force require open music-player systems as a condition of being able to sell them in that country passed its first hurdle, and got a reaction from its obviousl target:

French lawmakers approved an online copyright bill Tuesday that would require Apple to break open the exclusive format behind its market-leading iTunes music store and iPod players.

The draft law - which also sets new penalties for music pirates - would force Apple Computer Inc., Sony Corp. and others to share proprietary copy-protection technologies so that rivals can offer compatible services and players.

Lawmakers in the National Assembly, France’s lower house, voted 296-193 to approve the bill. The legislation now has to be debated and voted by the Senate - a process expected to begin in May.

Breaking days of silence late Tuesday, Apple said such a law would “result in state-sponsored piracy.”

“If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers,” the company said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. “IPod sales will likely increase as users freely load their iPods with ‘interoperable’ music which cannot be adequately protected. Free movies for iPods should not be far behind in what will rapidly become a state-sponsored culture of piracy.”

The Cupertino, Calif. company did not address the issue of whether it might withdraw from the French online music market, and refused further comment.

Under the bill, companies would be required to reveal the secrets of hitherto-exclusive copy-protection technologies such as Apple’s FairPlay format and the ATRAC3 code used by Sony’s Connect store and Walkman players.

That could permit consumers for the first time to download music directly to their iPods from stores other than iTunes, or to rival music players from iTunes France.

Apple has most to lose because of its phenomenal penetration of the digital music market, according to analysts. Critics of the French move say legislators have no business forcing Apple to share its proprietary format - arguing that customers know its limitations when they choose to buy an iPod.

A spokesman for Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, who backed the crucial amendments, dismissed suggestions that the bill would unfairly damage Apple.

“We’re targeting absolutely no one with this bill,” Paul Rechter said.

Rather, he said, the legislation is designed to discourage online piracy by offering additional legal ways for music players and online stores to work together.

“When this happens, iTunes will have the French government to thank for making it possible to draw so many Internet users toward legal platforms,” Rechter added.

Isn’t it amazing how government hack Mr. Rechter knows more about how to improve Apple’s branding than the people who actually run Apple’s business in Cupertino (and Sony’s for the matter)? (/sarcasm)

Free Links:

• Proving That Credit Cards Are Marketed Aggressively, and That You Need a Shredder (HT RG Combs) — A guy tears a credit card app into pieces, tapes it together, fills out the app, changes some info …… and gets a card. Good, scary story.
• Hackers Get Windows XP (to work) on Apple Computers — Smart-aleck question: Why? Oh, and here’s a reason why not (besides the usual haha reasons).
• Maybe 7 Years Ago, This Rumor Would Have Put Janet Reno’s Knickers in a Knot — Now the story (”Report: Microsoft Working on iPod, PSP ‘Killer’”) is probably producing (quiet and discreet) yawns at Apple and Sony.
• This Is Why the Previous Item Isn’t Taken So Seriously Now — Microsoft, which first thought that it might have a comprehensive operating system to replace Windows (then codenamed Longhorn) in 2005, now says that Vista (the official name) won’t released until January 2007. Uh-huh.
• S.O.B. Alliance member Weapons of Mass Discussion reminded me that I need to note for the record that the there was a disgracefully light sentence in the case involving the illegal acquisition and use of Maryland US Senate candidate Michael Steele’s credit report (covered at BizzyBlog here and here back in September). The low woman on the totem pole will get no time behind bars, and ultimately no permanent criminal record. There is no tieback to Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer of New York (sure, the gal sentenced and the one who received no punishment were free-lancing). A total wristslap (with a feather). And, as expected, there is almost non-existent coverage by the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as The Mainstream Media). Update: S.O.B. Alliance member Porkoplis has more, including the irony that Charles “no comment” Schumer “frets about personal data in public records” in a section called “The Losers,” and is pictured as “The Law” on personal privacy in an Information Week cover story.
• This Is Why the Overhead Compartments in Planes Are Jammed — “An estimated 30 million bags were temporarily lost by airlines in 2005, and 200,000 of those bags were never reunited with their owners, according to an industry report released Monday.”

While he was rappelling, he got trapped. An impressive array of help arrived:

(more…)

This is so much fun, I thought everyone should sing a song before reading the post in question:

(To the tune of “The Brady Bunch”)

Here’s the story,
Of a forum posting,
That went up at 8-4-9 on March 2-2.
It discussed the State GOP and a person.
And the person is one David you-know-who.

In Columbus,
Was a Townhall posting,
That was up for maybe three (give or take) hours.
Then sometime, before the strike of midnight,
It was taken down and took an early shower.

The forum post, the Townhall post,
That’s what happened to the C-bus Townhall post.

From Columbus Townhall last night (from “Peter”):

NEWS FLASH…

I have just personally met with the individual that was at the meeting and in the room when Smith went to the ORP Headquarters. This person was the original source of the buzz about Smith being a shill for the ORP.

This individual has indicated that Smith was listed on the meeting agenda and he was presented with a list of “contributors that will be donating to [Smith’s] campaign.”

At the time, this individual didn’t think anything of it, because he wasn’t aware of who Smith was.

The question for doubters: why would the ORP present a list of contributors to a non-endorsed candidate? Is this against the ORP’s charter? Is this potentially illegal behavior?

You now have the inside story.

I have had a conversation with a person other than “Peter,” the screen name of the original poster, who confirms that the meeting described in the post took place (but not the contents of the meeting).

Should the song be called “The Bennett Bunch”?
_____________________________________

UPDATE: I have received indications that the Columbus Townhall post needs revision, and that the only definitely conclusive point is that Smith was seen at the ORP (and there are two people who claim that). Regardless, there’s certainly enough here to make one wonder what was cooking in Columbus several months ago.

UPDATE 2, March 23, 2AM: Well, the post reappeared. It’s here.

UPDATE 3: March 2, 8:55 AM: I report, you decide — the post was revised overnight, and now says the following:

Boy, this has been a busy night.

The news flash about Smith being in cahoots with the ORP that was previously here has been removed.

The originator of the claim has confirmed that Smith was at a meeting with the ORP, but will no longer confirm the agenda of the meeting or what was or was not said.

I suppose there could be any number of reasons why Smith, a non-endorsed candidate who is going up against the ORP’s endorsed candidate, was at a meeting with the ORP. But without the originator’s backing, the story again becomes nothing more than heresay (sic). Therefore, I apologize to the members of Columbus Townhall, to the Smith campaign and to anyone else that read the story here first.