Political Randomness

[Moliere]

Hand out flyers on jury nullification? Go to jail! On felony charges no less.

[Isgrimnur]

"Iannicelli has been released from custody on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond," the office said in a Thursday news release.

The devil will be in details on this case. Such as:

“At the time of the offense, a death penalty case was underway at the same location,” according to the court document.

[Moliere]

Why should that matter? Jury nullification is legal.

[Isgrimnur]

Which is why he wasn't charged with it. Educating people on jury nullification is one thing. Doing it while they're sitting in judgment on an active case is altogether different. If his booth was designed to appear in an official capacity, it's fraud or impersonating a court official. If he's on courthouse grounds, then he's trespassing or misappropriating the use of government property.

The articles are short on details, and he hasn't been formally charged yet. When the lawyers settle on what they're going after on the 11th, it will be worth a closer look. At the moment, I have no outrage on his behalf.

[Isgrimnur]

New SEC rule

After a long delay and plenty of pushback from corporate America, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved on Wednesday a rule that would require most public companies to regularly reveal the gap between the compensation of the chief executive and the pay of the rest of their employees.

The rule, which stems from the 2010 Dodd-Frank overhaul of financial regulation, gives companies considerable flexibility in calculating the pay gap, suggesting that the S.E.C. was receptive to concerns about cost and complexity that corporations expressed.

Still, the data point, which calculates the ratio of a chief executive’s compensation to the median compensation of a company’s employees, could further stoke the debate over income inequality that has intensified in recent months. Fifty years ago, chief executives were paid roughly 20 times as much as their employees, compared with nearly 300 times in 2013, according to an analysis last year by the Economic Policy Institute.
...
The rule starts to take effect in 2017, which means that companies will most likely start reporting the ratio in public financial statements that come out in 2018. The rule passed by three votes to two, with the S.E.C.’s two Republican commissioners voting against it.

Mary Jo White, the chairwoman of the S.E.C., who voted in favor of the rule, said the agency’s staff had written a thoughtful rule that honored the intent of Congress when it passed the Dodd-Frank Act.

[Moliere]

What value does that provide in reporting the company's health? It seems more like a shaming of executives for "making too much".

[Isgrimnur]

The rule was conceived to help shareholders assess the compensation packages of senior executives. The ratio, for instance, could provide a benchmark for comparing the pay of chief executives at companies in similar industries.

[noxiousdog]

The rule was conceived to help shareholders assess the compensation packages of senior executives. The ratio, for instance, could provide a benchmark for comparing the pay of chief executives at companies in similar industries.

It's a great rule.

[malchior]

Agreed - long overdue. But I'm curious how loose it was defined - I'm sure we'll see compensation plans altered to mislead shortly...

[Isgrimnur]

The rule allows companies, when calculating the median employee pay figure, to opt for a statistical sampling of employees rather than an actual survey of all workers. Companies can also exclude up to 5 percent of their employees who are not in the United States.
...
Representatives of corporations and the Republican commissioners had a particular dislike for the pay ratio rule. They disputed whether it would be helpful for shareholders, and they asserted that it was motivated by a desire to shame companies into paying their chief executives less.

The Center on Executive Compensation, which represented large corporations in lobbying against the rule, noted on Wednesday that shareholders in the past had generally voted against proposals that require companies to disclose pay ratios. “Only a small segment of shareholders, primarily unions, certain pension funds and social activists, are likely to use the pay ratio to drive their own narrowly tailored agendas,” the center said in a news release.

Daniel M. Gallagher, one of the Republican commissioners who voted against the rule, said on Wednesday at a meeting of the commission that it “may be the most useless of our Dodd-Frank mandates.”

[El Guapo]

I'm fine with and support the rule (especially since it's, you know, mandated by Congress and all), but I find it really hard to believe that it's actually going to accomplish much. It's not like it's a secret at the moment that CEOs make a ton of money.

[noxiousdog]

Representatives of corporations and the Republican commissioners had a particular dislike for the pay ratio rule. They disputed whether it would be helpful for shareholders, and they asserted that it was motivated by a desire to shame companies into paying their chief executives less.

Well, duh.

The Center on Executive Compensation, which represented large corporations in lobbying against the rule, noted on Wednesday that shareholders in the past had generally voted against proposals that require companies to disclose pay ratios. “Only a small segment of shareholders, primarily unions, certain pension funds and social activists, are likely to use the pay ratio to drive their own narrowly tailored agendas,” the center said in a news release.

That's because all the big endowments and pension/mutual funds are run by executives who don't want pay disclosed. It says nothing about what most of the underlying shareholders want.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas Voter ID law struck down:

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday struck down a Texas voter ID law, saying it violated the U.S. Voting Rights Act through its "discriminatory effects."

The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was pertaining to one of a series of laws enacted in Republican-governed states requiring voters to show certain forms of identification before being allowed to vote.

"We affirm the district court's finding that SB 14 (Texas Senate Bill 14) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effect," a three-judge panel from the New Orleans-based court said.

[LordMortis]

How is the deflategate thread doing? Sometimes the crime is the coverup even when there is no crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... ver-it-up/

Waiting for Stess' head to pop.

[GreenGoo]

Representatives of corporations and the Republican commissioners had a particular dislike for the pay ratio rule. They disputed whether it would be helpful for shareholders, and they asserted that it was motivated by a desire to shame companies into paying their chief executives less.

Well, duh.

The Center on Executive Compensation, which represented large corporations in lobbying against the rule, noted on Wednesday that shareholders in the past had generally voted against proposals that require companies to disclose pay ratios. “Only a small segment of shareholders, primarily unions, certain pension funds and social activists, are likely to use the pay ratio to drive their own narrowly tailored agendas,” the center said in a news release.

That's because all the big endowments and pension/mutual funds are run by executives who don't want pay disclosed. It says nothing about what most of the underlying shareholders want.

What I don't understand is that if you think you're getting a fair wage, why you'd be ashamed of it being public knowledge.

[GreenGoo]

Most of that I happened to post about while you were editing, but it's not a purely private matter. The U.S. government is involved because the federal courts are a part of the United States government. So the U.S. government is in the position of ordering the relief, which can be awkward for the foreign policy branch of the U.S. government.

Thanks. I actually had a disconnect there where I felt we were talking about 2 separate entities, because they sort of are I guess, given the separation of powers.

Typically the administration can't just come in and change sentences and/or rulings because they feel like it, and a letter of interest doesn't do that, so I guess it's simply political pressure. It seems a clear conflict of separation of power though, even just trying to influence the result seems inappropriate.

[El Guapo]

Most of that I happened to post about while you were editing, but it's not a purely private matter. The U.S. government is involved because the federal courts are a part of the United States government. So the U.S. government is in the position of ordering the relief, which can be awkward for the foreign policy branch of the U.S. government.

Thanks. I actually had a disconnect there where I felt we were talking about 2 separate entities, because they sort of are I guess, given the separation of powers.

Typically the administration can't just come in and change sentences and/or rulings because they feel like it, and a letter of interest doesn't do that, so I guess it's simply political pressure. It seems a clear conflict of separation of power though, even just trying to influence the result seems inappropriate.

A letter long the lines of "here are the foreign policy issues involved, we take an interest in them, and they're pretty serious" would be entirely appropriate. There are various judicial doctrines that courts cite that are designed to keep judges from stepping into purely political / foreign policy matters, and whether there is a live foreign policy issue is very relevant to those.

In other words, if I am a judge, I want to know whether I am going to start a war or something before I make my ruling.

A letter like, "you'd better rule this way or else" would be inappropriate, of course. It would also be a pretty transparently hollow threat, since there's not much that the administration could do to the 2nd Circuit in reprisal anyway, even if it were so inclined.

[LordMortis]

Representatives of corporations and the Republican commissioners had a particular dislike for the pay ratio rule. They disputed whether it would be helpful for shareholders, and they asserted that it was motivated by a desire to shame companies into paying their chief executives less.

Well, duh.

The Center on Executive Compensation, which represented large corporations in lobbying against the rule, noted on Wednesday that shareholders in the past had generally voted against proposals that require companies to disclose pay ratios. “Only a small segment of shareholders, primarily unions, certain pension funds and social activists, are likely to use the pay ratio to drive their own narrowly tailored agendas,” the center said in a news release.

That's because all the big endowments and pension/mutual funds are run by executives who don't want pay disclosed. It says nothing about what most of the underlying shareholders want.

What I don't understand is that if you think you're getting a fair wage, why you'd be ashamed of it being public knowledge.

I don't think elite wage earners are ashamed of their wage or ratios. I think they are afraid. They are afraid of the reaction of their underlings and afraid of the reaction of the rabble we like to call the public.

Using shame as a descriptor instead of fear to drive home that these elite earners are potential victims, precisely because the agenda of publicity is an agenda to reduce the wage gap, which likely means reducing their wages.

[noxiousdog]

I disagee. Most of the salaries are measuring sticks against their peers and the actual numbers are already available.

The employees already know the gap;this will explain it to the ceo's that probably rarely, if ever, see what the rank and file make on a per person basis.

[GreenGoo]

I don't think elite wage earners are ashamed of their wage or ratios. I think they are afraid. They are afraid of the reaction of their underlings and afraid of the reaction of the rabble we like to call the public.

Using shame as a descriptor instead of fear to drive home that these elite earners are potential victims, precisely because the agenda of publicity is an agenda to reduce the wage gap, which likely means reducing their wages.

That's a good synopsis, and I agree.

As for Nox's position, I'm not sure it will have the effect he thinks it will, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or another.

Nox, can you elaborate for us why you think this is a good rule? And also why you think there was resistance to the rule in the first place?

[Moliere]

George W. Bush not selected to be on the jury.

[noxiousdog]

As for Nox's position, I'm not sure it will have the effect he thinks it will, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or another.

I don't think it will have any effect. Just because they are ashamed doesn't mean they will give any back. Have you ever seen an actor apologize, and most of them are bleeding heart liberals.

Nox, can you elaborate for us why you think this is a good rule? And also why you think there was resistance to the rule in the first place?

I'm - always - for more transparency and competition. I'm pretty sure that's why there is resistance. If I'm making less than median salary at my company, it's going to piss me off. I don't really care how it compares to the CEO though. I do care about it against my peers.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not following.

You think this will increase visibility between different company salary grades? Isn't the ratio based on an aggregated value? Seems like it would cover too many roles to be useful for comparison for the little guys.

[Kraken]

Why do I suspect that it will be used to set a minimum wage for CEOs? "Our guy's only making 250x the median wage? Bump him to 300x stat!"

[raydude]

Why do I suspect that it will be used to set a minimum wage for CEOs? "Our guy's only making 250x the median wage? Bump him to 300x stat!"

The thinking there is that market forces will play some effect in dampening the wage gap. Either a company will advertise that their wage gap is lower (i.e. they are more 'fair' to their workers) compared to their competitors or other people will point it out. An example would be Walmart raising its minimum wage due to public pressure. I remember seeing some facebook memes circulated comparing Walmart's wages to another stores. If it was purely based on the bottom line then Walmart could have kept its former wages and dared the public to shop elsewhere. But they were concerned about their public image and so raised the minimum wage.

[noxiousdog]

I'm not following.

You think this will increase visibility between different company salary grades? Isn't the ratio based on an aggregated value? Seems like it would cover too many roles to be useful for comparison for the little guys.

The little guys don't think they deserve to be little guys.

As an example, the demographics of Occupy Wall Street skewed very young.

As an anecdote, if I found out I was less than the aggregate salary here, I would start looking for a new job in a heartbeat. Now, I may find that's market value, but it would absolutely give me the motivation to look.

[The Meal]

Deez Nuts

'Deez Nuts' filed as an independent candidate for President recently so for the sake of entertainment we tested him(?) as a candidate in a three way contest with Clinton and Trump. Deez Nuts haven't had much exposure to the American public- 89% say they have no opinion about them either way. Among those few who are familiar with Deez Nuts, only 3% rate them favorably to 8% who have an unfavorable opinion. Nevertheless 8% say they would support Deez Nuts for President, to 41% for Hillary Clinton and 36% for Donald Trump. When you look at how supporters of Deez Nuts split in a head to head between Clinton and Trump 25% are for Clinton, 15% are for Trump, and 60% are undecided. So Deez Nuts are largely providing an outlet for voters to express their frustration with the other candidates.

Oh Minnesota

[hepcat]

[Isgrimnur]

If you want to win the presidency, stop spending money on ads and pay off Google:

Imagine an election—A close one. You’re undecided. So you type the name of one of the candidates into your search engine of choice. (Actually, let’s not be coy here. In most of the world, one search engine dominates; in Europe and North America, it’s Google.) And Google coughs up, in fractions of a second, articles and facts about that candidate. Great! Now you are an informed voter, right? But a study published this week says that the order of those results, the ranking of positive or negative stories on the screen, can have an enormous influence on the way you vote. And if the election is close enough, the effect could be profound enough to change the outcome.

In other words: Google’s ranking algorithm for search results could accidentally steal the presidency. “We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” says Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and one of the study’s authors, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”

[LordMortis]

Just don't cover up that you're paying google off.

Really. It makes a lot of sense, as a politician, to bribe google a la the Matrix Park Bench Internetting, though. I can't imagine there are any laws explicitly on the books about it yet.... Or maybe there are.... <shrug>

[Isgrimnur]

Religious employers can't block contraception coverage:

Four Roman Catholic nonprofits in New York must allow employees access to contraception, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Friday, reversing a decision by a lower court that allowed the organizations to get around a requirement in the Affordable Care Act.
...
Under the Affordable Care Act, religious nonprofits that object on religious grounds to providing contraception can opt out by completing a one-page form. Then, a third party, either an insurance company or a health insurance administrator, takes over providing and coordinating payments for the employees’ contraceptives.

The four New York groups — a Catholic high school in the Bronx and another on Staten Island, as well as two Catholic health care systems — argued that the opt-out sheet imposed a “substantial burden” on their religious freedom. Either they had to offer “access to products and services they find objectionable,” as Judge Pooler summarized it, or they faced high fines.
...
Judge Pooler wrote that the opt-out form was, in fact, “a modicum of paperwork” that “relieves, rather than imposes, any substantial burden” on the plaintiffs’ religious freedom.
...
Judge Pooler compared the completion of the form to a conscientious objector’s alerting the military to his position. “There must be some method by which the government can be notified of the objection,” she wrote. “Otherwise there is no way that the government can know which organizations it needs to accommodate. Here, the government has provided flexible, largely effortless and essentially cost-free options for notification.”

[Defiant]

Couldn't find a thread about Russia, and didn't think it would be worth creating one so....

Russia's economy contracts by 4.6%

[GreenGoo]

Good.

How's that investigation into flight MH17 going, btw?

[Max Peck]

Good.

How's that investigation into flight MH17 going, btw?

Russia vetoes UN resolution for international tribunal

[rshetts2]

Sanders/Stewart in 2016 and Trump/Palin as well. Yep you heard it here first, Jon Stewart will be Bernie Sanders running mate for the Presidency for the sole purpose of driving Donald Trump and Sarah Palin completely berzerk. Yeah, its a pipe dream but damn, just imagine if it came true! Most awesome election ever! Ok Im putting the pipe down...... for now.

[Defiant]

Trump/Palin

Yeah, no. I don't think Trump's ego would allow that - just watch, he'll nominate himself as vice president.

[Pyperkub]

Good.

How's that investigation into flight MH17 going, btw?

Russia vetoes UN resolution for international tribunal

From a link on that page - a reporter's investigation:

I visited the site several times and, after months of seeing evidence lying at the scene undisturbed, I decided to take some small fragments with me. At least three of them were later linked to a surface-to-air missile by forensic analysis and experts.

[Max Peck]

Good.

How's that investigation into flight MH17 going, btw?

Russia vetoes UN resolution for international tribunal

From a link on that page - a reporter's investigation:

I visited the site several times and, after months of seeing evidence lying at the scene undisturbed, I decided to take some small fragments with me. At least three of them were later linked to a surface-to-air missile by forensic analysis and experts.

And some more...

MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

Fragments of a suspected Russian missile system have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in Ukraine, investigators in the Netherlands say. They say the parts, possibly from a Buk surface-to-air system, are "of particular interest" and could help show who was behind the crash. But they say they have not proved their "causal connection" with the crash.
...
How a missile could have brought down MH17

[Moliere]

Which is why he wasn't charged with it. Educating people on jury nullification is one thing. Doing it while they're sitting in judgment on an active case is altogether different. If his booth was designed to appear in an official capacity, it's fraud or impersonating a court official. If he's on courthouse grounds, then he's trespassing or misappropriating the use of government property.

The articles are short on details, and he hasn't been formally charged yet. When the lawyers settle on what they're going after on the 11th, it will be worth a closer look. At the moment, I have no outrage on his behalf.

Denver D.A. Charges Another Activist for Promoting Subversive Ideas

This week Morrissey announced the same jury tampering charges against Eric Brandt, Iannicelli's accomplice in this dastardly exercise of First Amendment rights. On July 27, Morrissey says, Brandt joined Iannicelli in "staffing a small booth with a sign that said 'Juror Info' in front of the courthouse and provided jury nullification flyers to jury pool members." The flyers reportedly included "All You Need to Know About Jury Nullification," produced by Jury Box, and "Your Jury Rights," produced by the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Morrissey warns that Brandt "remains at large," adding that "anyone with information about Brandt is encouraged to contact local law enforcement." Stop him before he informs again!
...
The criminal complaint lists seven charges of jury tampering, each tied to a specific "jury pool member" who received a flyer. (The names are blacked out.) Although the probable cause statement mentions that "a death penalty case [this one] was underway" at the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse when Iannicelli and Brandt were handing out flyers, there is no allegation that they were trying to sway jurors one way or another in any particular case. They were merely distributing general information about the rights and responsibilities of jurors. If Colorado's jury tampering law sweeps as broadly as Morrissey claims, it is plainly unconstitutional.

[Isgrimnur]

Still waiting on the published charges.