Bambenek/Kos FEC Complaint Dismissed

Thankfully, the FEC complaint that local blogger John Bambenek had filed against Daily Kos, arguing that the blog should be regulated as a Political Committee, has been dismissed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Score one for FEC, Kos, and sanity.

John Bambenek is a whackjob sycophant and makes every Republican look bad. I can hardly think of a dumber person on the face of this rock... I'm so glad he got royally spanked when he ran for office.

Dan Fielding's picture

A sycophant for whom?

Bambenek would have been better off suing the Illinois Arts Council to prevent any further public monies going into the UCIMC, as long as they continue to stridently promote their political ideology and engage in hate speech against local cops while at the same time censoring opposing viewpoints.

go for it Bambi, sue the IMC

Is this good for Bambenek's status as a non-notable?

Dan Fielding's picture

I just noticed I am the only non-"Anonymous (not verified)" in this thread.  Hmm.

Bambenek would have been better off suing the Illinois Arts Council to prevent any further public monies going into the UCIMC, as long as they continue to stridently promote their political ideology and engage in hate speech against local cops while at the same time censoring opposing viewpoints.

Hmmm... the more offensive posts and the practice of hiding dissenting comments haven't helped their credibility, but these things don't seem like grounds for suing the Illinois Arts Council.  The main questions I've had have been about the articles that look like electioneering, since they're a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

http://www.ucimc.org/node/1126&hidden=1 ("Why You Should Vote...")

http://ucimc.org/node/1194&hidden=1 (reference to "Dump Difanis" effort)

John Bambenek's picture

Sure, those posts could get the in trouble with the IRS... but if I filed a complaint I'd have to read even more diatribes about how I've signle-handedly repealed the First Amendment. ;)

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

Isn't hollow negative attention what you are looking for?

John Bambenek's picture

You tell me... anonymous web cowards seem to have more expertise about my intentions and motivations than I do.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

IlliniPundit's picture

Please take it easy, everybody. 

I'd rather not have this thread turn into another flame war.  Argue against issues and positions rather than insulting people, please.

From Daily Kos:

So remember über-wanker John Bambenek, who just got slapped around silly by a FEC that didn't just unanimously reject his claim, but did so in a scant two months because it was so patently absurd?

Well, he's now threatening Adam B (my lawyer in the case) with an appeal, insulting him (in an email) in the process:

But by all means, continue to proclaim your competence in the law while being obviously wrong...

Ha ha ha ha ha! That's some Bush-level delusions. The bipartisan FEC was unanimous in its decision, but it's Adam who is "obviously wrong". You can't make this stuff up!

I say "go for it"! The guy clearly has too much time on his hands and is too stupid to read simple regulations, listen to informed advice, or comprehend unanimous regulatory decisions on the matter. He's epically stupid. But he should provide for some continued comedy over the next couple of months.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/5/11354/52501

Brought to you by the guy who doesn't know the meaning of pro se.  What's even scarier is that he's also involved in some kind of push for a new state constitutional convention.

Give Bambenek a break. He is a regular contributor to this blog, others support him, and he speaks for many conservatives out there.

He seems to represent the views and politics of most regular Republican type commenters here.

He might even run for office again and his long coat tails will pull some otherwise losing Republicans up to victory.

long coat tails? um, he did not win

Mr. Bambenek has put up a spirited defense of conservative principles in the DI against an overwhelmingly left-leaning campus. He's got more balls than the rest of us who don't dare to really speak our minds for fear of grade retribution,  job selection discrimination, fellowship and scholarship discrimination, and the rest of it that is a real and present danger to conservative  thinkers by committed and vengeful left-wing campus faculty radicals.

John Bambenek's picture

Oh, by all means, let's take the Daily Kos opinion of what I'm going to do seriously... we wouldn't want to actually ask me what my intentions are... that would be actual journalism and we don't do that when we've got anonymous cowards lobbying insults from safe havens.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

To anon 9:15

He is not noble. He is a doofus.

He is not noble. He is a doofus.

Another typical left-wing ploy. Deflect attention away from the stated issue with an ad hominem attack.

Regardless of its political leanings, I find Daily Kos fairly credible. How have they misrepresented you, John?

 

 

Regardless of its political leanings, I find Daily Kos fairly credible.

Wait a minute, this is Thursday.  Save your Friday Funnies for tomorrow.

Actually, when Danielle Chynoweth ran for the Urbana City Council, the UCIMC promoted her and "unofficially" campaigned for her. The same went for Carl Estabrook when he ran against Tim Johnson in 2002. Why hasn't the UCIMC been investigated by the FEC and the local County Clerks office?

 

----

Robert Dunn

Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American

Left wing attack? You don't have to be a left winger to know he is a doofus.

You don't have to be a right winger to know Kucinich is a doofus.

You don't have to be a left winger to know Ron Paul is a doofus.

He's not a doofus solely because of the Kos/FEC issue, he has been a doofus for a long long time.

Sorry, I don't mean to flame, I just call 'em as I see 'em.

John Bambenek's picture

The misrepresentation, at least in the post cited by Anon 3:08 was the quote attributed to me.  The conversation I was having with Adam at that point wasn't the merits of the case.  He was threatening to sue me if I appeal (look up SLAPP suit).  If I appeal, the case would be between me and the FEC.  Kos wouldn't even be a party.  He was insisting he could do it while saying he was oh so competent.  I threw it back in his face.  Kos then took that quote out of context and implied I was talking about the merits of the case.  I wasn't.  I was simply talking about the pattern of threats and intimidation by his lawyer and his fellow goons.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

And yet you don't consider a meritless complaint to be a threat or intimidation? In the courts, people can be strongly censured for filing junk suits.

 

You know John, the really cool thing about having you here in Champaign is that you completely fill the void left when Andy Martin moved to Chicago.

John Bambenek's picture

I find it absurd that a multi-million dollar corporation that has every democratic presidential candidate on speed dial and has them show up at their conferences is in any way intimidated by some nobody out in the corn sending a letter to the FEC.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

"some nobody out in the corn" Yoiu got that right.

Then why not just admit that your complaint was frivolous and had no merit and it's sole purpose was to draw attention to you?

John Bambenek's picture

PB-

I'm well aware you don't like me, that you think I'm unable to have a coherent thought in my head and that you consider me a reprehensible human being.  Just why in the world should I even put up with your sophist interrogations about my motivations?  You've made your conclusions.  You've met me twice, tops, and now you think you've obviously got me pegged.  You ask series of inane questions and when I don't play your bitch, you think its because I don't know the answer.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you have to say about me.  If you want to talk about the issue, fine, but you've even proven that is useless.

If the complaint was frivolous, why did the FEC have to factually misrepresent it to dismiss it?  We can argue all day long about what complaint has merit, but the FEC ruling couldn't keep straight whether I was accusing Kos Media of being a PC.  When they issued their rationale, they said I made no such allegation.  A plain reading of my complaint says otherwise.  That makes an appeal easy... I don't even have to bring up the merits, all I have to do is show the FEC didn't actually answer the complaint and even people who disagree with me see that.

But of course, this doesn't matter because you've made your decision about who John Bambenek really is and facts be damned.  There exists no argument or piece of evidence that you won't twist... so again, why are we having this discussion?  No one else wants to read it, and quite frankly, I'm done with your bickering,  If you want to carp at me like a nagging wife I'm not going to waste my time responding.  If you want to have an intelligent discussion about the issue, that's a different story.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

"Carp at me like a nagging wife" is awesome. You are totally wrong--I love being at the kids' table because the conversation is so fun to watch.

I don't see where the FEC factually misrepresented anything. In fact, their documents are all straightforward and consistent. They didn't say you made no such allegation. They said you didn't prove your allegation. They gave you the two conditions you had to prove in order to show that Kos Media is a PC and you couldn't stand either one up.

 

For those that want to read the original documents click on this link to the FEC Enforcement Query System and enter "5928" into the Case # field.

 

Appeal all you want, you're only embarrassing yourself.

 

And, nice slew of ad homs there, buddy. I think I'll just chalk that onto the ever growing list of apologies you owe me.

And furthermore, I've made no such claims as to "having you pegged". But looking at this situation there are only two possible conclusions:

 

1. Because the FEC statutory language is perfectly clear about exemptions to political committees and yet you persist in this, you've got to be a complete idiot.

 

2. Because the FEC statutory language is perfectly clear about exemptions to political committees and yet you persist in this, you're not an idiot but you've got to have an ulterior motive. Hence, drawing attention to yourself.

 

Personally, I hope you do appeal and that Kos asks for sanctions against you for wasting their time and the taxpayers' monies.

John Bambenek's picture

I would have thought with the immensity of your legal experience being the premier legal scholar in the northern hemisphere you'd know that if I appeal, it would be me against the FEC... Kos wouldn't even be a party.

I'll repeat what's already out there.  "The FEC, in their ruling said "First, the complaint does not allege, nor does publicly available information indicate, that Kos Media is owned or controlled by a political party, committee, or candidate." (Page 5, lines 17-18)."

That was exactly what I did allege.  By relying on a factually wrong statement about my complaint, it makes appealing easy.  Even people who disagree with the case agree with me on this point.  The FEC really was sloppy here.

Further, we aren't even talking about statutory language... we're talking about an advisory opinion.  Probably some CFRs too, but not statutory language.

Lastly, learn what an ad hominem attack is, because re-reading my post there wasn't one single one in there, unlike your response calling me a complete idiot.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

That's not what you alleged at all.

 

I quote "an organization I allege operates as a political committee" directly from your complaint.

 

So, how is that an allegation that they are "owned or controlled by a political party, committee, or candidate"?

 

The problem is that your language is sloppy, not the FEC. If you wanted a better result, you should have given them a better argument. Words mean stuff, John. And, I didn't call you an idiot. I gave you a choice. If that's the one you picked, so be it. Who am I to argue?

He's right there, he called you either an idiot or someone who had ulterior motives. If both of those are wrong, what other possibilities are there? Defender of Truth, Justice and the American Way?

Well, after more than 48 hours with nothing to say, I think it's safe to conjecture that forced with admitting that either he had no clue what he was doing or his actions were completely frivolous and malicious, John decided to give up.

 

Oh, and John, I am fully aware that an appeal would be between you and the FEC, but if the ruling goes against you and they find that your actions are frivolous, Kos will be entitled to seek from you a recovery of the funds they had to use for their defense.

 

And despite how solid you may think your position is, you should read the case of the complaint about "The Pink Sheets" before you go any further.

Bambenek kindly put up an answer to my questions on his blog. I then politely showed him why he was wrong and what he could do about that.

Entertainingly enough, he deleted my comment. I wonder what he's afraid of?

John Bambenek's picture

I didn't answer any of your questions on my blog, I put up a post on the subject (one that was written before you asked your inane questions).  Now, if you want to make IP a wasteland and drive all intelligent discussion away, that's your perrogative.  I'm not going to waste my disk space on your sociopathology.  You may think that using f-bombs every third word constitutes a polite remark, civilized society disagrees.

That doesn't make me afraid, that indicates I'm not going to waste my time on you.  You aren't a serious component of the debate anymore. 
--
j
Part-Time Pundit

John Bambenek's picture

[[duplicate]]
--
j
Part-Time Pundit

John,

 

Don't start telling lies now. I didn't use any profanity on your blog. I only replied to you personally that way when you started emailing me about this.

 

And since you have no idea what you're doing in regards to your complaint, you haven't been a serious part of the debate from the beginning. All you're doing is further embarassing yourself, your community, your family, and conservatives and Republicans everywhere.

IlliniPundit's picture

"All you're doing is further embarassing yourself, your community, your family, and conservatives and Republicans everywhere."

I'm not embarrassed.  I've been very clear that I've disagreed with John's actions on this all along, nor am I aware of any other Republicans or conservatives who are active online and agree with John on this complaint.

Someone else pointed out to me that people tended to get a lot angrier about stuff that appeared to come from their own sides.  This makes sense when you look at some of the internecine squabbling within parties, the complaint discussed in this thread, and even my reactions to some of the posts on UCIMC.  I think it's a lot easier to just snicker when folks on the other side of the aisle do stupid stuff.