What the ...?

By Jennifer J. Foster

You have heard the term “activist judges.“ You may think you know what it means.

But you have no idea until you read this story from AFP.

The short of it: Canadian dad has rebellious 12-year-old daughter who chats on websites he tries to block and posts “inappropriate” pictures of herself online. Dad enforces house rules by grounding daughter, precluding her from going on school field trip.

So far, nothing unusual. Actually, perhaps we don’t hear enough about parents standing their ground these days. And perhaps the rest of the story is the reason why.

Daughter gets court-appointed attorney. Daughter sues dad.

Canadian judge intervenes and overturns dad’s punishment, saying it was “too harsh.“

Dad’s lawyer files appeal in slim hope of salvaging remaining shreds of parental authority.

Holy smokes.

If I was that father, I would hustle my rear end to the nearest reporter/television camera/billboard/megaphone and demand a public statement from the judge indicating when she plans to take over personal custody of the girl. By overturning the father’s punishment, which was neither abusive nor inappropriate, she has undercut his authority and basically killed any hope he has of enforcing rules under his own roof. So since she, in all her judicial wisdom, saw fit to make that decision, surely she has the capability and willingness to put her “money”—her time and effort and resources and everything else it takes to raise a child—where her “mouth”—her gavel—is.

I don’t know if this judge is elected or appointed. But if I was that father, I would be making it my life’s mission to ensure that she bids a fond adieu to the bench—posthaste.

He should have enough time to ensure that outcome. After all, he has all this free time on his hands now, since he won’t be able to discipline his daughter.

More change in presidential politics

By Jennifer J. Foster

Barack Obama announced this morning that he will opt out of the public financing system for the general election campaign against John McCain.

In doing so, CNN says, “Obama would be the first the major presidential candidate to drop out of the modern campaign financing system for the general election since its creation in 1976 in the post-Watergate era.“

The move makes Obama ineligible for the $85 million in public funds that would have been made available to him after he officially becomes the Democratic nominee in August. But considering that his campaign had raised $285 million through April—through April, when his primary contest with Hillary Clinton was still going on—it’s not likely he’ll miss it. Obama is already marketing his campaign to supporters—and potential supporters—as the first wholly-citizen-owned campaign in modern history. (Yes, tax dollars once belonged to those same citizens. But pointing that out would have totally ruined Obama’s sound bite.)

The decision is a source of contention (imagine that) between Obama and McCain. On the surface, McCain is miffed because he says Obama broke a pledge he made last year to stay in the public financing system.

“The true test of a candidate for president is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people,“ said Jill Hazelbaker, McCain’s communications director. “Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics.“

Obama did promise, both through a spokesman and in a questionnaire last year, to “aggressively pursue” an agreement with the GOP nominee to stay within the public financing system. Whether Obama met that pledge depends on who you believe, because the candidates don’t even agree on that.

All they agree on is that there was a meeting involving each campaign’s general counsel on June 6. Obama’s folks say McCain’s side “offered no basis for any further exchange;“ McCain’s people say Obama’s side is lying about the discussion and there were no negotiations on public finance; the two counsels were meeting on a separate topic entirely. (Read more here.)

In an e-mail message to supporters, Obama wrote, “It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.“

This is a great move for Obama. Not only is it a practical no-brainer (seriously, if you could raise $100 or $150 million, why limit yourself to $85 million?), but it has the added political benefit of placing McCain in a difficult position: Either McCain will have to stand on the principle Hazelbaker so fervently described and hope that $85 million will be enough to keep him competitive with Obama—and, judging from McCain’s sour grapes, he knows that it won’t be—or Mr. Campaign Finance Reform will be forced to opt out of the system, too.

If you’re a regular reader of my columns or this space, you know I’m no fan of America’s campaign finance system. As much as I hate to see the unfettered flow of cash gushing from the campaign fountain, perhaps it’s exactly what this country needs to get a handle on the ugly reality of the issue.

At least, we can hope.