On Ames/responding to Eric [Liz Mair]

Eric, you wrote:

I can’t help but wonder how Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson might have done if they’d actually participated.

That’s a good question.  But ultimately, given the amount of money that it likely would have cost them to play, and given that not playing doesn’t seem particularly damaging (unless any of them are neurotics and personally susceptible to Romney’s schoolyard taunts that "they’d have played if they thought they could have won"— a.k.a., "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, I know you are but what am I"), I’m inclined to think they did well to sit this out.

Re: Ames [Eric]

Liz:

I also agree with Soren that Giuliani, Thompson and McCain all have got to be pretty happy about this. The way certain Romney supporters were crowing about Romney’s organization, you might have expected to see Romney pull 40%. But he didn’t, and that is significant.

I can’t help but wonder how Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson might have done if they’d actually participated. This result does make you think that while Romney’s Iowa organization is impressive, it might not be quite so amazing a group as we’ve been led to believe.

But then again, that would have required Fred Thompson to abandon his fake draft act — and he doesn’t actually have his script written yet for Act II.

Ames results and thoughts [Liz Mair]

Tomorrow, I’ll cool it some on blogging about Republican this-and-that.  But, for the time being, let me offer my thoughts on the Ames Straw Poll results.

Romney won with 31.5%.  Mike Huckabee came second with about 18%.  Sam Brownback came third with 15.3%.  Tom Tancredo came fourth with 13.7%.  Ron Paul came fifth with 9.1%.  And Tommy Thompson came sixth with 7.3%.  The rest is not worth mentioning, except to say that McCain came second from last, and Duncan Hunter, who I believe had a presence at Ames, did really, really badly.

The first thing, beyond the results themselves, that bears mentioning here is that in 1999, when (as I recall) pretty much the entire then-declared field played at Ames (unlike this year when Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson– i.e., 3 out of the 4 frontrunners– did not)– making a 30%+ win at Ames something very noteworthy and indicative of much greater organizational prowess and popularity in Iowa itself– George W Bush won with 31%.

In other words, Mitt Romney, playing a field uncrowded by other presidential heavyweights, only managed to pull off the same percentage as Bush did in 1999, when Bush was competing against the likes of Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Dole (who were treated as credible candidates at that time– Patrick Ruffini notes that Steve Forbes threw millions at the straw poll in 1999, something Huckabee clearly did not do this year, and something that Romney apparently did).  So, while a win for Mitt is a win, him taking 31% isn’t really that much of a big deal.  In some ways, when he was competing against a number of go-nowhere candidates, you might have expected him to do better.

My friend Soren Dayton rightly notes that if you combine Huckabee’s votes and Brownback’s votes, you more than equal Romney’s votes– which can’t be a great sign for Romney.  Of course, then again, that would have been true for Bush in 1999, too– but then as I’ve alluded to, that wouldn’t be such a surprising result in a year when all the big dogs played at Ames, which this year, they did not.

I also agree with Soren that Giuliani, Thompson and McCain all have got to be pretty happy about this.  The way certain Romney supporters were crowing about Romney’s organization, you might have expected to see Romney pull 40%.  But he didn’t, and that is significant.

Ultimately, this is a very good result for one person, and one person only: Mike Huckabee.  He may not be my favorite candidate (I totally disagree with him on social issues, and he is more big government than me), but he deserves kudos for pulling off what he did today.

www.lizmair.com

Straw poll results due shortly… [Liz Mair]

So, with the Ames Straw Poll results due shortly, I’ve had a couple of emails from some folks out in Iowa who have expressed lots of concern about the effect that Mitt Romney allegedly paying off grassroots activists in order to earn their support in today’s vote will have had.

I guess we’ll find out shortly whether Romney’s efforts– possibly including those alleged–have paid off.  But until then, I’m posting a video produced by the Iowa Values Not for Sale people, which covers the ground of what is being alleged, and uses a Pink Floyd tune (something I’m always a fan of).

Litigating Priest Sex Abuse [Stephen]

Right Coast blawgger Tom Smith is worried that Judge Louise De Carl-Adler, the bankruptcy court judge in charge of the bankruptcy of the San Diego Roman Catholic Diocese, may be prejudiced against the Church.

… she strongly supports causes which promote and protect the education, health, and the reproductive freedom of women.

(Emphasis added.)  Of course, just because somebody is a big supporter of abortion rights does not mean they have anything against the Catholic Church.  But the Diocese has, to say the least, been getting a rather hard time from the judge, which is not to say it does not deserve the same; I haven’t followed the case closely enough to really know:

SAN DIEGO – In a blistering, six-page statement, a judge is threatening to throw the San Diego Catholic diocese’s bankruptcy case out of court because of a financial report that found problems ranging from parishes withholding money to the diocese failing to report the fair market value of properties.

I am just wondering out loud here whether Judge De Carl-Adler might not be the biggest fan in the world of the Catholic Church, and whether that makes a difference in this case. 

Tom continues:

Having raised this delicate subject, I will note more substantively that my problem is also that not much weight seems to be given, in the press accounts at least, and as far as I can tell, to the substantive fact that the assets of the parishes really are separate from one another and the diocese, in practice, though perhaps not in law.  At least they are supposed to be. 

For example, I gave some modest (and I mean modest) amount of money to help build an education building at my parish and another sum of money to build some building or other at the parish my kids go to school at.  In each case, I was to get a brick with my name on it.  But now I am given to understand that that money is just gone, poof, sucked into the maw of this case.  I suspect any effort by the parishes to stop this from happening is part of what the judge and her independent expert are outraged about, though possibly less benign maneuvers as well.  But, if we assume the Diocese is not supposed to start closing down some of the best schools in this educationally-challenged county so as to pay the sex abuse victims, and their lawyers, just how exactly is that aspiration to be accounted for?

I addressed many of the relevant legal issues in my article The Bishop’s Alter Ego: Enterprise Liability and the Catholic Priest Sex Abuse Scandal:

Abstract: Since 1950, more than 11,500 sex abuse claims have been filed against priests and other agents of the Roman Catholic Church. The eventual direct costs to the Catholic Church of the priest abuse litigation are predicted to range from $2 to $3 billion.

The corporate structure of the Church under civil law can have a substantial impact on the ability of priest sex abuse claimants to recover on favorable judgments or settlements. In many U.S. dioceses, all Church assets are owned by a single corporation, typically a corporation sole, by virtue of which the local bishop becomes the legal titleholder of all Church-affiliated property in the diocese. The dominant view is that all assets of such dioceses, including those of individual parishes and other so-called juridic persons, are available to satisfy tort judgments against the diocese.

Some dioceses, however, long have separately incorporated at least some of their affiliated juridic persons. In response to the priest sex abuse liability crisis, there is a growing trend for diocesan assets to be divided among multiple incorporated entities. Although separate incorporation of diocesan assets implicates a number of legal doctrines, alter ego claims likely will play a central role in any litigation seeking to reach the assets of such corporations for the benefit of diocesan creditors.

There is no constitutional bar to a court using the alter ego doctrine to treat a diocese and its separately incorporated parishes as a single enterprise for liability purposes in the priest sex abuse scandal litigation (or any other dispute, for that matter). The analysis in this paper, however, suggests that appropriate cases for invoking the alter ego doctrine in this context will be few and far between.

Two entities will be treated as alter egos where (1) one entity exercises such a high degree of control that the other has effectively lost its separate existence and (2) the controlling entity has abused its power of control in an unjust or inequitable manner. As to the former prong, a diocesan bishop who comports himself in accordance with the requirements of canon law is unlikely to exercise the requisite degree of day to day control over a separately incorporated parish. As to the latter prong, the courts have discretion to consider the potentially severe deleterious impact of liability on the ability of innocent parties to exercise religious practices implicating constitutionally protected values. In other words, while the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses do not bar judicial application of the alter ego doctrine to churches, the values protected by those provisions appropriately may be weighed in the balance. Given the ready availability of alternative doctrines better suited to the problems at hand, particularly fraudulent transfer law, there case against invoking alter ego in this context thus becomes quite strong.

Iowa Caucus — Why? [Eric]

A source at the DNC reminded me of an interesting piece of history: the Iowa caucus is a great predictor who of who won’t become president. The caucus has only been the country’s first nominating event since 1972, and its record is pretty awful: George H. W. Bush in 1980, Bob Dole and Dick Gephardt in 1988, favorite son Tom Harkin in 1992, Bob Dole again in 1996, and John Kerry in 2004.

In fact, the 2000 election was the only time since 1972 that the non-incumbent victor in Iowa managed to win the presidency — and in that year, both parties’ nominees were Iowa winners.

So why exactly does the Iowa caucus have this exalted status in the primary/caucus system? How did it worm its way into our political traditions, and why does it deserve to keep its position?