Hear, hear. Same goes for every level of gov’t in every state. Problem is that in every election, people usually look at any incumbent and publicize how few or many bills they have introduced/sponsored/whatever. So there’s huge pressure just to introduce something so you don’t look like you’ve just been, y’know, thinking, talking to your home folks, debating, and voting and stuff.

Same thing happens in academics - you only get promoted if you publish stuff, so people publish anything they can think of - worthy or not. It leads to a bunch of garbage literature, just like garbage legislation.

Personally, I’d like to see a system where for every bill passed, a legislature has to find a law that gets repealed. “Law neutral” government. It’d make things less complicated.

Posted by va displaced on 7 December 2007 @ 12am

There’s certainly an argument to be made that it doesn’t matter what the legislator intends — the only thing that counts is what the bill says. Thing is, we’re not attorneys. And the plain-English version of the bill often fails to describe what the bill will actually accomplish. I really want to see a justification. Why is this necessary? What problem is it solving?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 December 2007 @ 12am

HB53 addresses filings by organizations like ActBlue and RedStormPAC. Currently such PACs aren’t under any obligation to provide the state with a list of who donors wanted their money redirect to: all donations appear as to the PAC and all contributions to candidates come from the PAC. Federally, PACs are required to note which candidate each donations is meant to go to. It’s just about opening up the process and the books so no one is laundering money through these PACs.

Posted by Jason on 7 December 2007 @ 10am

First, there is no excuse for a campaign receiving money from ActBlue NOT to disclose the individual donors. I managed two campaigns this past year that received tens of thousands of dollars from ActBlue and we never once listed “ActBlue” as a donor. ActBlue provides a list of the donors, their occupations, employment and contact information online for campaigns.

Any campaign that doesn’t reveal their donors from ActBlue is just lazy. Virginia’s campaign finance system encourages disclosure, and campaigns that don’t are not honoring the system (probably because their staffers are from out-of-state and don’t understand or respect Virginia’s filing regime). The problem is not ActBlue, it’s the individual campaigns. I don’t know how RedState works.

Second, I don’t read Lingamfelter’s auto registration bill the same way you do, Waldo - I think it’s supposed to be the opposite, that he wants to REMOVE the requirement for antique car registration to be notarized. Am I missing something?

Posted by Adam Sharp on 7 December 2007 @ 11am

Yes, I don’t know if there’s a difference because of Virginia laws, but the DC PAC I’m familiar with that accepts donations through ActBlue definitely reports those donations as coming from the donors, not ActBlue. In fact, ActBlue’s documentation says that’s how it’s supposed to be done, and I assumed that was a legal requirement. If the donations count as from ActBlue, wouldn’t ActBlue be limited to giving $5000 (or whatever) to any individual candidate? But maybe there’s no limit for PAC donations to Virginia candidates (as opposed to federal candidates), and that’s the difference?

Posted by KCinDC on 7 December 2007 @ 12pm

You’re right, Adam, I’ve got that backwards, but I find it equally puzzling. I don’t doubt there’s some logic behind it — I’m sure I could invent an example — but it sure would be helpful if the patron would just provide a few words of justification.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 December 2007 @ 1pm

I don’t know what the differences are for PACs, KC, but in Virginia, there are no limits as long as everything is properly disclosed. It’s probably one of the reasons races have gotten so expensive in Virginia lately, when one person can cut a $10000 check to a Board of Supervisors race.

Posted by Dan Kachur on 7 December 2007 @ 1pm

I can’t think of any particular reason why we should all be demanding that those antique vehicle registrations be notarized. Thus it should be regarded as a pointlessly burdensome bureaucratic requirement and kudos to Delegate Lingamfelter for taking the trouble to get rid of it.

Posted by Jackson Landers on 7 December 2007 @ 3pm

And yet I just read a few weeks ago about the problem — here in Virginia — of people registering vehicles as antique when they fail to meet the requirement of being an occasional use car. I gather an antique registration is less expensive, so some people figure they can skirt the law. So this would seem to be the opposite of the direction in which it appears we’d need to go in, assuming my memory is accurate.

I’m not claiming to know what the right thing is here, but I do wish that Lingamfelter would specify his reasoning.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 December 2007 @ 3pm

Waldo,

How could getting the application notarized prevent that from happening? It can’t. It’s not like the Notary Public is following the applicant around for a week to see how often he drives a given car. The applicant pays him the $2 or whatever it is he stamps it with a seal. Notorization doesn’t prove anything except that an approved person saw someone sign something at a particular moment. Pretty useless in terms of preventing abuse of antique vehicle registration.

Posted by Jackson Landers on 7 December 2007 @ 4pm

Speaking of vehicle registration abuse, a couple of weeks ago I pulled up at a stoplight in C’ville behind a beautiful shiny late-model white muscle truck, not enough of a car person to remember the make but it was one of those huge beasts with extra-wide beds and four tires in the rear. Not a scratch or speck of mud on it. With a “FARM USE” license plate.

Of course it could have been, say, from Patricia Kluge’s farm, who knows?

I’d be curious to know how often people get cited in VA for abuse of farm vehicle registration. The qualifications are quite specific, but proving a violation that would hold up in court is probably tricky.

Posted by David Sewell on 8 December 2007 @ 11am

David,

I have seen people get pulled over here for using their Farm Use tags at night, which is definitely a violation, and easily able to be proven.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 8 December 2007 @ 7pm