First off, apparently Shark Week is coming up. I don't know this because I have a TV (I don't) or because I went on the Discovery Channel website (I didn't) or because I am especially fond of Shark Week (I mean, it's fine but I don't really care). I know because when I walked to work Monday morning I was greeted with this:
And yes, there's a giant fin on top of the building.
My main project for the week (my first as a paid part-time employee) has to do with the Citizens United decision. I get to explain what it has to do with corporations and unions and elections within the space of about half a page. Condensing 100 years of history into three sentences (to preface the decision) is a bit... difficult. I did an informal poll of my coworkers to see what your typical well educated adult would know about Citizens United and all of them got the fundamental premise wrong, so I'm not sure how I am supposed to make this work for high school students.
To sum up (skip if you don't care about campaign finance law- the only reason I do is because I have to read about it.):
1904- (General Sentiment) "Roosevelt is in the pockets of the corporations!"
1907- (Roosevelt and Congress) "Corporations aren't allowed to donate money to ANYTHING involved with elections" (P.S. We have no way to enforce this law.)
1907-1970's- (Congress) "No really, corporations aren't allowed to give money to elections because that will make it seem as though they are purchasing the favors of the candidate." (But really, we still have no way to enforce this law.)
1971 and 1974- (Congress) "Let's toss on a cap for campaign expenditures and give candidates public funds so that they can run without being filthy rich. Oh, and here's an agency to enforce these laws!"
1976- (Supreme Court) "Yeah, that doesn't work so well, you know, with the Constitution and all. How about this: corporations and unions engage in 'express advocacy' within campaigns."
1977-2001- (Corporations) "Good thing it isn't 'express advocacy' to just make the other guy look terrible in a series of advertisements 'unrelated to' the campaign." (Soft money.)
2002- (Congress) "Very funny, corporations. We're redefining 'express advocacy' so you can't do that, either."
2008- (Citizens United) "We want to air this movie about Hillary Clinton."
2010- (Supreme Court) "Well, you weren't directly coordinating with any campaign so that seems like a reasonable, First Amendment thing to do."
2010- (District Court) "Well since it's okay for anyone to air anything about candidates as long as they weren't coordinating with them, then by logical extension corporations should be allowed to donate as much as they want to any organization that is not an actual campaign."
And THAT is why we have more negative attack ads than positive issue ads.
Anyway, the good news is that because I'm part time I get to spend my free time actually spending time with my friends and getting ready for the next school year. A lot of my time this week has been spent at the new house tearing down walls. On Tuesday I tore down a couple of walls with Jeff and today I took town a couple more with Sara. The ones that Sara and I took down today were especially difficult because there was piping and other things that we weren't supposed to be destroying. Destruction is much easier when you don't have to worry about collateral damage. At this point, I have what you could call an "open" floor plan in my room-to-be.
After demolition, Goo kindly had us over to her place for dinner (both nights I was there this week, at least). It's going to be really great living so close for the next couple of years. We've also been meeting some of the neighbors, and the people on our street seem very nice. I'm keeping a chart with all their names and the names of their pets, just so we will be prepared.
When not demolishing things or working, I have been doing school preparations. I got my fingerprints done so that I can teach law in the DC public schools and I went to a DOJ career fair. My favorite people at the fair worked in the Office of Professional Responsibility. I asked them what they did and they said that they investigated misconduct charges of DOJ attorneys. Then I asked whether everyone else in the DOJ ostracized them because of that. I was expecting a "we all get along great" answer, but instead the guy looked at me and said "yeah... people aren't generally too happy to see us." I appreciated his honesty. I may apply there some day.
Also, I have had time to revisit some of my favorite places, like the museums:
Sid the (Giant) Sloth says hello.
No comments:
Post a Comment