Bernie gets a $10,000 donation. Sends $7,300 back because that's the law.

[Fawke Em]

WASHINGTON — Donna Mae Litowitz, a Miami Beach retiree, likes Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont so much that three months ago she sent his presidential campaign $10,000. His campaign sent back all but $2,700 because it was more than he was allowed to take under federal election law, but she wishes he had kept it all.

“I like what Sanders stands for, and he says what needs to be said,” said Ms. Litowitz, who gave money in 2008 to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. “And I don’t like Hillary Clinton.”

In an election dominated by million-dollar donations to “super PACs,” Ms. Litowitz qualifies in Mr. Sanders’s insurgent campaign as a big donor. Unlike almost all of the other major Democratic and Republican candidates this year, Mr. Sanders has refused to accept support from super PACs, relying instead on supporters like Ms. Litowitz as well as tens of thousands of small donors giving as little as $5 or $10.

The average donation, according to campaign officials, is $31.30.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/us/politics/bernie-sanders-success-in-attracting-small-donors-tests-importance-of-super-pacs.html?_r=0

Character matters.

[HappyPlace]

1. $7,300 will buy a nice billboard ad for a few weeks...

I hope she thinks of a way to turn that money into support.

[Fawke Em]

6. Maybe we can find her on social media and suggest that!

[cantbeserious]

2. Integrity - Me Likes

eom

[artislife]

3. How you do one thing

is how you do everything....Harv T Eker....

[FlatBaroque]

4. nice

[Aerows]

22. "Start as you mean to continue." n/t

[Luminous Animal]

62. Nice.

[Fawke Em]

5. Just got an DUmail complaining that this post is stupid because

following the law was something people were supposed to do.

From VanillaRhapsody?? I don't even know that person.

In any case, I guess that person doesn't know how often campaigns violate federal campaign laws.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I'm getting them too for my "sexist" OP, never mind that the author of the piece is a woman, nor

that nothing in the article is misogynist or sexist, it all boils down to Bernie being a man with her.

[RobertEarl]

9. Has America ever elected a woman as President?

Ya know, other campaigns would have tried to figure out a way to laundry the extra $7,300. These Bernie people are honest. What a change!

[Uncle Joe]

12. Unfortunately no but I don't believe that in and of itself is a reason do so, it should be

all about ideas, issues, track records and policies.

I would have no problem lining up behind Elizabeth Warren.

[RobertEarl]

14. Well

Hillary does have lots and lots of money.

If it was all about issues, ideas, and all that.. well..... gives one an idea why there are so few Party debates, eh?

[Uncle Joe]

19. Precisely, if the DNC truly had faith in Hillary Clinton and her ideas/policies, we would be having

early debates and more of them, instead of ceding the stage to the Republicans.

I honestly don't believe that Schultz is focused or keen on electing Democrats so much as protecting establishment politics, that's what it's all about.

[RobertEarl]

21. That's her track record

Establishment politics. After all, that is where the money is.

[Fawke Em]

13. Nope.

And, being a woman, I'd LOVE to see a female president, but I don't want to vote for someone I don't trust no matter what plumbing she has.

Had Warren run instead of Sanders, I'd be all over her candidacy, too.

I'm a member of the Sanders/Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

[RobertEarl]

15. Yeah, there is something about Warren that is very appealing.

Maybe it's her ideas, issues, and all that?

[Buns_of_Fire]

103. I think it'd be great to have a female Head of State.

Think Golda Meir, Corazon Aquino, Margaret Thatcher... okay, scratch that last one...

I just don't think Hillary Clinton is that person. Elizabeth Warren, yeah, I could see that (after all, Bernie's running primarily because she didn't want to). But Hillary? I just can't gin up any enthusiasm there. It's Not Her Turn, as far as I'm concerned.

[Hydra]

8. Consider that a missive from Team Hill

They're positively grumpy lately- all message control and shifting goalposts. Oh, wait, that's a Tuesday

[aikoaiko]

10. That's funny about VR.

[arcane1]

11. Why not just reply in the thread? I don't understand this PM-response thing.

[Fawke Em]

16. Not sure.

I don't like calling people out, but if they have something to say, they can say it here. I don't bite.

I also don't have to agree with them.

[Doctor_J]

17. That one get sent to time out quite often

It is very sexist and sees every complaint about Hillary (IWR, DADT, DOMA, TPP,...) as a sure sign of misogyny.

[SMC22307]

20. I thought maybe she's on yet another time-out...

but she's only at three hides. Weird.

[progree]

37. I keep track. She had her 3 oldest hides (from May 31) drop off today, leaving 2.

Apparently she picked up another hide already, bringing her to 3 hides.

[font color = red]On Edit[/font] Correction: her last post as of 1 minute ago was August 2. So my theory that she got a hide today is false. Apparently my notes were wrong. She apparently had 6 hides when she went on "vacation" on August 2. The three May 31 ones dropping off the 90 day window leaves 3.

[SMC22307]

56. You keep track!

The other day there was a post about how many time-outs one should be allowed before being given the ol' heave-ho. I can think of three -- four, even -- right off the bat that I wouldn't miss.

[Luminous Animal]

64. I find it creepy that you keep track.

[Demeter]

72. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

SOME people think politics is a blood sport, and silencing opponents, shouting them down, shutting them out, is their game.

I've known people who think EVERYTHING is a blood sport. Psychopaths are strangely attracted to me....

[progree]

73. I find that one person to be a serial disruptor, that's why I keep track

Last edited Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:53 AM - Edit history (3)

A very disruptive, toxic person. With her McCarthyist style witch hunts. She's hijacked and ruined many a thread with her endless "are you a real Democrat or not" badgering. Or people being called "swiftboaters for Bernie" or misogynists who say anything negative about HRC. Apparently a lot of juries agree, given that she's rarely not on "vacation".

You will find numerous other similar opinions of this person if you read the subthread beginning at #5 all the way down through #69. Perhaps my sin is that I admit to keeping track of serial disruptors like that. Plenty of other people do (and not just psychopaths, Demeter, #72), I can assure you.

Another reason I keep track is that DU is a considerably more peaceful place when she's on vacation. And I don't have to worry about being called a troll if I say something negative about the ACA (of which I'm a strong supporter of overall) or some other Obama policy.

[Fawke Em]

80. It's not so creepy if someone is constantly causing trouble.

I mean, I don't even know who this poster is, really (have seen them from time to time, but had no real interaction with them) and they Imed me instead of just posting here. That's more creepy, IMHO.

How many hides does someone get to have before they're permanently banned? Do you know?

[MineralMan]

83. That's up to the admins. They're the only ones who can ban long-time

DUers. I can see why they might "keep track" of the users of this site. I cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone else would do that, though.

[progree]

88. It's just a matter of making a note, when seeing someone's transparency page

of how long they would be on time outs.

[font color = blue]>>I cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone else would do that, though.<<[/font]

I explained it in #73.

And I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you are making a big hoo hah out of this.

[MineralMan]

90. I'm just pointing out that it makes me uneasy.

Of course it can be done. Why someone would do that is what puzzles me. I can't see any possible legitimate use for the information, really.

[progree]

93. And I'm pointing out that badgering me for doing something that just about everyone on DU

does to some extent makes me uneasy too.

[MineralMan]

78. You keep track? Really?

Why? I find that strangely disturbing, actually.

[progree]

79. I find serial disruptors more than strangely disturbing, actually.

78. You keep track? Really?

Why? I find that strangely disturbing, actually.

My reasons are very well explained in #73. If that's not satisfactory to you, I don't frankly give a hoot.

[MineralMan]

81. Do you? I don't actually recognize your screen name, so I was puzzled.

Now, I can understand the administrators of this website keeping track of its members, especially ones who cause problems for the website. I can understand MIRT knowing about recurring sign-ups who are known to be trolls. Both groups have some responsibility for this discussion forum and keeping it running smoothly.

I do not understand, though, individual members of DU "keeping track" of other members of DU. Of what possible use is that information? Now, I know that there are people who keep track of what I post, both here and on other websites over 10 years ago. They don't like me. Occasionally, one pops up and posts something irrelevant about something I posted at some other time. At one point, there used to be a website where that information was stored for easy access. How strange, don't you think?

So, when I see someone claiming to "keep track" of individual DUers, it sends up alarm signals for me. It makes me wonder why that person is "keeping track" of some complete stranger and wonder what use is being made of that information. It just makes me wonder. It's rare for someone to admit that they're "keeping track" of someone else. There is a reason it's rare.

Again, I find it strangely disturbing, somehow. I'll bet others also find that disturbing.

[Fawke Em]

84. Progree is not keeping track of everyone, MM, just a couple

of people who, apparently, disrupt and upend threads a lot.

I don't think that's creepy or strange. I think it's preparing.

DU has made that information public, so it's not like progree is doing something untoward.

[MineralMan]

85. Yes, whatever.

Anyone can "keep track" of other DUers. I find it strange and disturbing that some people do that. Just my opinion, really.

"Preparing for" what, exactly, I wonder. Odd.

[Fawke Em]

94. "Preparing" to be called names and/or have their threads disrupted.

Progree said that's why he/she monitors that poster.

I find it strange and disturbing that certain posters are on so many time-outs from disrupting threads and calling other posters names and still aren't banned out-right.

Let's put it this way: You live in a high-crime area and can't afford to move - or don't want to because, outside of the crime, you like the area. You try to do your part by reporting suspicious behavior, drug deals, confrontations, etc. to the police, but the police, for some reason, don't take your concerns seriously, even though you and your family and neighbors feel threatened. What option do you have? You start writing down license plate numbers, you start taking pictures of those you feel are breaking the law and you build your case so that the police and district attorney can no longer ignore you.

I see nothing creepy with that.

On edit: DU is a community. We are Internet denizens and don't commit actual "crimes" against one another, but disrupting threads and name-calling are the "crimes" of this community. I don't mean to equate name-calling with murder, but used the above as an example why keeping tabs on specific posters you think are disruptive isn't strange.

[MineralMan]

97. On DU, we can Ignore specific users, and never see their posts again.

I don't use that feature, but it's available for use by anyone. Seems simple enough to me.

As for bannings and the like, that's strictly an option for the administrators of the website. With the exception of new registrants with less than 100 posts, nobody but the admins can ban anyone. It's their choice and they use their own reasoning to make such decisions. Individual DUer's can't do that, and I'm pretty darned sure that none of the admins welcome people sending their lists of transgressions about other DUers and asking that they be banned.


DU is DU. It's not the neighborhood where you live, and nobody can cause you any physical harm here. The two things are not even remotely equivalent. Since any DUer can put any other DUer on Ignore, it's simply to completely avoid contact with those you don't care for or who you find repugnant.

[Fawke Em]

98. I added an edit because I knew you'd say something

about "physical harm."

That said, it's still a community where many people spend their lives. Even if you put someone on ignore, they can still cause thread shut-downs and disruptions. I guess there is also something to be said for favoritism. Yeah, there are posters who come here as trolls from the Republican side and they should be shut out without impunity, but if someone, even a long-time "regular," is given special treatment, it makes other members feel slighted.

[MineralMan]

99. Oh, well...

I'm out...

[progree]

86. Again, my reasons are explained in #73.

[font color = blue]>>It's rare for someone to admit that they're "keeping track" of someone else. There is a reason it's rare. [/font]

But they do, as you noted. So in other words, honesty is rare.

[font color = blue]>>Again, I find it strangely disturbing, somehow. I'll bet others also find that disturbing.<<[/font]

And I find it disturbing that you are badgering me about it. I'll bet others also find that disturbing.

Don't you have something else better to do. I didn't plan on having my whole Sunday fucked up responding to sanctimonious nonsense.

[MineralMan]

87. Yes, well, OK then...

I'll leave you to it...

[artislife]

18. Probably trying not to get an alert....

[brooklynite]

23. Care to name one?

Every campaign reports all money in and out to FEC.

[Fawke Em]

82. Since the FEC doesn't really crack down on it, it's hard to know.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/06/3655397/fec-already-throwing-towel-enforcing-campaign-finance-law-2016/

According to new federal data released Tuesday, in the few instances where the FEC has investigated and brought action against campaign finance law breakers, the penalties are the lowest they have ever been. The agency fined all violators just under $600,000 in 2014, less than half of what they charged the year before and the lowest amount on record. Ravel points to the current gridlock at the agency — three Republicans and three Democrats who have split on just about every major vote and decision and have taken to blasting each other in the press.

Meanwhile, the possible electoral shenanigans are already piling up.

In January, the FEC accused GOP operative Karl Rove’s organization Crossroads GPS of violating its tax-exempt “social welfare” status by spending millions of dollars to support conservative candidates. The agency took no action against Crossroads GPS, meaning the group is still allowed to shield the identity of its donors.

Similar complaints have been made about Americans for Job Security, the American Action Network, and the American Future Fund, but the agency’s Republican members have blocked investigations into their activities.

[cali]

25. I know that person.

[C Moon]

33. I got a raving email from someone a few weeks ago.

I didn't know them either, in fact, I didn't even know what they were talking about. Pretty strange.
I noticed the person was barred from commenting, so I guess he/she was just emailing hateful remarks. Pretty sad waste of energy.

[IVoteDFL]

36. They sent me mail as well

Obviously someone has too much time on their hands.

[davidpdx]

39. Harassing people to the point where you go on vacation apparently isn't enough

Yet the Clinton supporters will morn and make people martyrs who have broken the rules. Ridiculous....

[beam me up scottie]

52. I had to block her.

I don't think people who aren't allowed to post here should be allowed to harass others when they're on a time out.

There's a reason why they're blocked from posting.

[djean111]

67. I blocked that poster from sending me messages. Word salad irrational stuff. nt

[morningfog]

69. That poster has an unhealthy obsession.

Forced timeout and can't pull themselves away. They are a disruptor, ignore them.

[dsc]

74. If violating this particular law is so common I am sure you can find links of people

doing exactly that.

[Fawke Em]

91. See my post No. 82

It's not that it doesn't happen: it does and probably at record numbers, but the FEC can't investigate it because the Republicans on the board won't let them.

It's just refreshing to see someone doing the right thing AND have the media report on it.

[dsc]

100. This is one that is followed

in no small part because the people who make the donations in question can be prosecuted by the Justice Department which isn't gridlocked. It also is one that can be easily seen by anyone since these donations are reported.

[sibelian]

95. Oh, THAT one. PMs abound from that quarter. Block them.

Influence is all they seek, they have none on the boards so they stuff people's inboxes.

Pf!

[awoke_in_2003]

101. That's the new "in" thing

Sending your crap via PM so as to not risk a hide. It is spineless BS, and so are the one who do it. Yes, I will risk a hide m

[marlakay]

24. all she needs to do

is have her husband and kids each give full amount. nice lady.

[mythology]

110. That would be shady at best

Dinesh D'Souza was recently convicted for getting other people to donate and reimbursing them for the donation.

Unfortunately D'Souza managed to skate on going to jail, but was sentenced to 8 months in a half-way house.

That said, I don't see why it's a news story that the Sanders campaign did what they are supposed to. I don't want a cookie because I use my blinker to indicate turns when driving.

[marlakay]

112. Well i didnt mean she would pay them

If her family was into Bernie as well and the money is family shared money nothing wrong.

[napi21]

26. I'm proud that Bernie & Co. is so honest. I just hope something positive for his

campaign can be done with the $7,500. Maybe some yard signs, newspaper ads, of something like that. I'd love to give more than I have, but I just don't have the $$.

[philosslayer]

27. Why is this a story?

Any Democratic candidate would do this. Its standard procedure. Bernie is now a saint just because he obeys the law????

[retrowire]

30. wow you sure have a lot of faith in people. n/t

[Adrahil]

40. Not really....

Those donations ar all reportable. Every candidate has to keep track of your donations and refuse to accept any money in excess.

It's not like they can't still benefit. Not with Citizens United, you can just donate to s super PAC.... NO LIMITS.

[NanceGreggs]

28. Must be a slow day in Bernieland ...

... when a story about how he didn't break the law is big news.

[retrowire]

32. you mad tho? n/t

[NanceGreggs]

34. Mad that Bernie didn't break the law?

Hardly. I never expected that he would.

Which is why I'm perplexed as to why the fact that he didn't do so prompted an OP.

[retrowire]

38. so why are you mad that an OP was made?

it's just a celebration of his integrity. an integrity most don't expect or see from a politician.

[NanceGreggs]

41. Who said I was mad?

I'm just amused.

I'm sure that Bernie didn't torture any small animals today either. Will there be an OP celebrating that fact?

As I said, it must be a slow news day in Bernieland.

[retrowire]

43. funny thing to be amused about. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

44. Actually, it's not.

Wouldn't you find it amusing if someone posted an OP about the fact that Hillary didn't break any laws today, or O'Malley not breaking any laws today?

I'm sure you would find such posts to be wildly amusing!

[retrowire]

45. I'd actually shrug and go about my business. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

46. Well, I prefer to ...

... comment on the absurd - and this site has given me untold opportunities to do so of late.

And when it comes right down to it, commenting on the absurd is pretty much all this place is good for.

[retrowire]

109. See? You're annoyed. Weird. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

48. Must be a slow day in Hillaryville when her supporters have to pee on positive Bernie threads.

[NanceGreggs]

49. I didn't realize ...

... that announcing that Bernie didn't break the law was meant as a "positive Bernie thread" that shouldn't be commented on.

Maybe you can post an OP about how Bernie doesn't have any overdue library books. Surely no one would dare pee on such a positive discussion thread - given its importance and all.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Maybe you should post something positive about Hillary instead of insulting Bernie supporters.

But that's not your style, is it Nance?

[NanceGreggs]

53. Maybe Bernie supporters ...

... should post something positive about BS instead of insulting HRC supporters.

And if the best "positive" anyone can come up with is the fact that Bernie didn't break the law today, maybe that just speaks for itself.

In fact, it does.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Well that would sound righteous except for the fact that YOU came in HERE and insulted US.

Get it now?

I'm not in a Hillary thread mocking you guys.

Like the op said, character matters.

[NanceGreggs]

55. Excuse me?

I came "in here"? This is posted in GDP - where "in here" isn't the exclusive domain of BS supporters.

If the BS fans can't take anyone outside of their own "group" replying on OPs, perhaps those OPs should be confined to the BS Group - where no such comments are tolerated.

[beam me up scottie]

57. *Here* being a positive Bernie thread. Where you came to insult us. Makes someone a Hypocrite.

With a capital H.

I wonder who...

[NanceGreggs]

58. Oh, I'll remember that ...

... the next time someone posts a positive HRC thread. I guess I can count on the non-hypocritical BS fans to stay out of it - ya know, like they always do.

Either you can't be serious, or you're not to be taken seriously. Comes down to the same thing, either way.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Didn't like what you saw, eh?

Be the change that you want to see on DU.

[NanceGreggs]

60. This discussion started ...

... because you didn't like what you saw.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Yepper it did. I saw NanceGreggs insulting Bernie supporters in a positive Bernie thread.

Then go on to complain about mean Bernie supporters.

That's where the hypocrisy part came in.

[NanceGreggs]

63. I'll say it again.

Either you can't be serious, or you're not to be taken seriously. Comes down to the same thing, either way.

[beam me up scottie]

65. And because you said it Nance, I'll give it all the serious consideration it deserves.

[NanceGreggs]

66. What ev. n/t

[brooklynite]

70. I trust you're willing to acknowledge that no other D candidate has accepted more than is legal

[morningfog]

92. Lol! Following all the "Hillary broke no law threads."

Lol.

[sibelian]

96. Now, now. Hilberforce is a *proper* politician.

Of course we must not suggest that she broke the law, that would be rude.

[Gormy Cuss]

111. Haven't heard of this, eh?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/24/1414365/-Far-right-working-on-next-big-sting-an-attempt-to-break-federal-campaign-laws

[WillyT]

29. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[EEO]

31. I like Donna Litowitz very much, and agree with her on Bernie and Hillary.

I know O'Malley and the former governor (and senator) of my state - Rhode Island - are in it (heck, Chafee was even the mayor of my city), but Hillary and Bernie are definitely generating the most interest.

Oh, and some guy named Jim Webb is running, but I believe he accidentally ran as a Democratic candidate for president instead of a Republican candidate.

[mountain grammy]

35. The fact that Bernie takes no corporate cash and has no dark money in pacs

is one of the main reasons I support him. The money in politics is obscene and the corporate agenda is affecting our lives and livelihoods though our bought and paid for representatives. The only way to break free of the corruption is to get money out of politics, and Bernie not only supports this, he lives it.

This is a nice story, but the real story is, Bernie is raising money without large donors and political action committees.

Just an opinion from this old lady: sometimes I wish Bernie would take just one little old pac. You know there are plenty of wealthy liberal celebrities out there who could easily write a check for $1 million or more, and they're great donors because they usually do it for the right reasons and not for a reward. More money usually translates to more votes but, guess we'll just have to do this one the hard way.

[brooklynite]

71. But those wealthy liberal celebrities don't understand what "real" people are going through...

...at least, that's what I keep being told about Hillary and her supporters.

[mountain grammy]

75. I think it's the corporate cash and big bank donations

to the pacs that don't disclose donors that is so troubling to a lot of people.. me anyway. Endless money giving us endless bullshit. I don't know about the rest of the country, but here the RNC is running dreamy ads about how wonderful it is to be Republican. I don't watch that much tv, but I hear those ads every time we turn it on so I imagine they are aired often. Lot's of GOP cash buys a lot of propaganda and just who is paying for these ads? It's not the average Republican voter.

Unless we somehow get the secret money out of our political system, and right now Bernie is the only one refusing to take pac money, we really are doomed. I respect and agree with his stand on this issue and nearly every other issue.

[brooklynite]

76. PAC money isn't secret

it gets recorded in searchable FEC records like personal contributions.

Your concern is with SUPERPAC money, which is mot reported and is spent independently. Both Hillary and Bernie have called for CU to be overturned and are committed to apointing SC Court Justices to do so.

[questionseverything]

102. before this is over bernie will have policy pacs supporting him

the one law that is still in place is candidates are not to coordinate with pacs/super pacs...so if some liberal millionaires want to support his campaign by highlighting their issues that bernie supports and is the best on...bernie can not control them

now he could say he disavows the pac even tho he agrees with their message but that seems counter productive

at least that is how i understand things

[mountain grammy]

104. We'll see what happens as the campaign progresses.

and it seems all candidates disavow superpacs. The commercials don't mention candidates, just the message.

[Enthusiast]

42. 'Character matters.' To some it matters.

Character is what has been lacking.

[moondust]

47. He'll never become a billionaire doing that.

I think you're supposed to get a lawyer who can find a loophole that lets you pocket every last dime so you can one day be a member of the 0.001%. Amirite?

This integrity stuff is just too weird.

[RandySF]

51. How is this special?

The FEC would have taken the $7,300 away and slapped him with a fine if he tried to keep it.

[jberryhill]

77. It's news to people unfamiliar with how the FEC works

Every campaign does this, but people new to the process don't know that.

[djean111]

68. Nice little human interest story, thanks! Plus - got the thread jackers out!

Amusing how some think that their opinion of what should and should not be posted is relevant.

[MineralMan]

89. All candidates do that. The FEC requires it.

It happens frequently. People who don't understand the limits send in donations in excess of the $2700 maximum. When that happens, whoever is handling such donations refunds the overage with an explanation. I've worked with candidates on their campaigns, and have done exactly that. It's not unusual at all. In fact, it all gets audited at some point.

[JDPriestly]

105. I hope that Ms. Libowitz can volunteer.

[blackspade]

106. He has a great campaign staff.

Very aware and on the ball.

[pnwmom]

107. Hillary and Martin would do exactly the same thing, and probably have.

Bernie followed the law. So?

[a2liberal]

108. So would everyone else though

Especially on the D side, but I suspect even the Rs... it's the law, nobody's going to risk a sting over it when they can just have SuperPACs...

[BainsBane]

113. The same sting operation that went after the Clinton campaign?

Or someone who just doesn't know campaign finance law? The Clinton campaign didn't take the money either. It's amazing you think that a sign of character. It's the fucking law.

[Gonzalo]

114. It is the Law.

Of course is great that people follow the law, but make it to the NEWS for following the LAW? really?, i see many americans following the law every day and nobody tells them how great are they or at least a thank you.

But still we appreciate people following the Law.