[UPDATE Monday, 12:40pm: On two computers that I tried this morning, the Powerblogs page that we use for posting and updating the Volokh Conspiracy was unreachable. Also, I noticed that there were no posts from other VC bloggers on Monday morning, typically one of our heavier posting times. At some hours this morning, I also had trouble reaching the main VC site, but at other hours I had no problems. After I contacted Powerblogs directly, our site was running normally within minutes (thanks to Chris Lansdown).
Some commenters below thought I should have been even more emphatic in emphasizing what I wrote below: "I do not know what Mr. Jefferson's precise position is at MyDD, but I should point out that many sites with diarists know little about them, so one should not judge the website MyDD by Mr. Jefferson."
The plagiarized story by Mr. Jefferson has now been removed from MyDD, though Mr. Jefferson's other posts remain. Here is a picture of the original MyDD story as it appeared on MyDD early this morning.]
Did Obama Violate the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act?
by Thomas J Jefferson, Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM EST
Paul Caron has Barack and Michelle Obama's tax returns on his website, TaxProf Blog.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/ 2008/03/obama-releases.html
The first thing that jumped out is that in some years Barack received no speaking fees or honoraria. Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
But what about Barack Obama's 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a "Foundation director/Educational speaker."
2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for "Legal services/attorney" (and nothing for speaking).
2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for "LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES."
These "speaking fees" are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (apparently last changed in 1995) provides:
(5 ILCS 420/2-110)
Sec. 2-110. Honoraria.
(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.
(b) As used in this Section:
"Honorarium" means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech, excluding any actual and necessary travel expenses incurred by the member of the General Assembly (and one relative) to the extent that those expenses are paid by any other person. "Honorarium" does not include (i) cash payments made on behalf of a member of the General Assembly to an organization described under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (ii) an agent's fee or commission, or (iii) funds reported under Article 9 of the Election Code [i.e., campaign contributions].
"Travel expense" means the reasonable cost of transportation and the reasonable cost of lodging and meals incurred while a person is away from his or her residence or principal place of employment.
(c) Any honorarium or honoraria accepted in violation of this Section shall be surrendered to the State Treasurer and deposited into the General Revenue Fund. (Source: P.A. 89 405, eff. 11-8-1995.)
Did Barack Obama violate this over-restrictive Illinois ethics act? Without knowing the precise situations and sources of these "SPEAKING FEES" in 2002 and payments as an "Educational speaker" in 2000, it is impossible to be certain whether any of this compensation meets the statutory definition of "a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech."
Also, I wonder whether Obama has rectified this problem in some way that I have not heard about. If not, I wonder whether Barack or his campaign has some explanation for accepting "SPEAKING FEES" or whether at this late date he should "surrender" several thousand dollars to the Illinois State Treasurer.
(Of course, my quick analysis assumes that Obama received no speaking fees besides those reported on his 2000 and 2002 tax returns — and thus has paid all the federal taxes he owed.)
Note the purported author, John[Thomas] J. Jefferson, and the date, March 26.
I would be guilty of extreme understatement if I were to say that this post sounded awfully familiar when I first read it, since I had written and published the same post (with only a few words different) on the Volokh Conspiracy the night before before Mr. Jefferson's post.
Here was my post at the Volokh Conspiracy on the evening of March 25:
[Jim Lindgren, March 25, 2008 at 9:55pm] Trackbacks
DID BARACK OBAMA VIOLATE THE ILLINOIS GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS ACT?--
Paul Caron has Barack and Michelle Obama’s tax returns on his website (tip to Instapundit). The first thing that jumped out is that in some years Barack received no speaking fees or honoraria. Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”
2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).
2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”
These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (apparently last changed in 1995) provides:
(5 ILCS 420/2-110)
Sec. 2-110. Honoraria.
(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.
(b) As used in this Section:
"Honorarium" means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech, excluding any actual and necessary travel expenses incurred by the member of the General Assembly (and one relative) to the extent that those expenses are paid by any other person. "Honorarium" does not include (i) cash payments made on behalf of a member of the General Assembly to an organization described under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (ii) an agent's fee or commission, or (iii) funds reported under Article 9 of the Election Code [i.e., campaign contributions].
"Travel expense" means the reasonable cost of transportation and the reasonable cost of lodging and meals incurred while a person is away from his or her residence or principal place of employment.
(c) Any honorarium or honoraria accepted in violation of this Section shall be surrendered to the State Treasurer and deposited into the General Revenue Fund. (Source: P.A. 89 405, eff. 11-8-1995.)
Did Barack Obama violate this over-restrictive Illinois ethics act? Without knowing the precise situations and sources of these “SPEAKING FEES” in 2002 and payments as an “Educational speaker” in 2000, it is impossible to be certain whether any of this compensation meets the statutory definition of “a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech.”
Also, I wonder whether Obama has rectified this problem in some way that I have not heard about. If not, I wonder whether Barack or his campaign has some explanation for accepting “SPEAKING FEES” or whether at this late date he should “surrender” several thousand dollars to the Illinois State Treasurer.
(Of course, my quick analysis assumes that Obama received no speaking fees besides those reported on his 2000 and 2002 tax returns — and thus has paid all the federal taxes he owed.)
At the moment I write this, I am not named in Jefferson's post and The Volokh Conspiracy is neither named nor linked to.
The commenters to Jefferson’s post at MyDD appear to treat him as the author, one stating: “If you understand that it's impossible to be certain; why do you use a dozen paragraphs to ask the question?”
An earlier post by Jefferson sparked complaints about his linking practices, though (at least after adding a link to the original story he was quoting) no plagiarism was involved in that earlier post.
I do not know what Mr. Jefferson's precise position is at MyDD, but I should point out that many sites with diarists know little about them, so one should not judge the website MyDD by Mr. Jefferson.
Correction: The purported author is "THOMAS J. Jefferson."
Perhaps, Professor Lindgren, it would be appropriate for you to place an update at the top of your post informing your readers that MyDD is not responsible for the writing of its diarists anymore than the Volokh Conspiracy is responsible for the writing of its commenters.
You could only know that the pseudonymous author is a "random diarist who in no way affiliated with the owners or staff" if you know the identity of the poster. Otherwise, he may or may not be affiliated with or identical to the owners and/or staff. Put up or shut up, as they say.
Admittedly MyDD's guidlelines only deal with Democratic-based politics ("Users ... being Republican trolls, will be banned." and "Do not create a diary that attacks another user.") and do not mention the usual 'don't steal, don't break the law . . .' rules that 99.9% of sites use.
But it's —at least remotely— possible that MyDD cares whether their community is seen as liars and thieves; or not. They should be made aware of the plagiarism and at least have the opportunity to take action.
... and, sure, it COULD be possible that Prof Lindgren registered and posted it himself to make MyDD look bad. Heck, maybe it was Hillary Clinton herself. OR KARL ROVE.
You can't prove it's not Karl Rove, can you? Put up or shut up, as they say.
The burden of proof is on the party making the assertion. Lingren's post disclosed that the relationship beetween the poster and the site was unclear. Why are you and Erk so eager to exonerate the site?
To see what I mean, check out my 3 minute 36 second YouTube video: Fox News Creates Obama Contradiction That Isn't There?
The main difference between the two is that Prof. Lindgren corrected his error, unlike Fox News
Nick
Yes, prove that I am not in fact Senator John McCain. Put up or shut up.
Jim Lindgren
If you are, in fact, Senator McCain, then I will have to re-evaluate my support, since the majority of your posts here and your statements elsewhere are so contradictory that you really are suffering from a multiple personality disorder.
Isn't it enough to avoid laches for me to point to the plagiarism, which resulted in a take down, though not any noticing from MyDD to me (so far)?
Jim L.
I would note that that ALSO undercuts the rather stupid idea posted by some commenters here that the myDD owners created sock-puppets at their own site in order to plagerize Lindgren.
It's the internets. The problem with open-diary formets like Kos and myDD is that anyone can create diaries, and it's really too much for the owners to police for anything but the most egregious offenses. They're not going to google each diary looking for plagerism, but I'm glad to know that the owners seem to be quick enough to remove plagerism when it's brought to their attention.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.