More quick links: news for learning

1. Political parties are an interesting blend of ideologies and interest grooups. So the following story should be easy to follow: conservatives prefer less involvement with government (ch 1) and tend to support the Republican party (chs 6 and 8).

U.S. Easing Fines for Mine Owners on Safety Flaws

By IAN URBINA
and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: March 2, 2006

CRAIGSVILLE, W.Va. — In its drive to foster a more cooperative relationship with mining companies, the Bush administration has decreased major fines for safety violations since 2001, and in nearly half the cases, it has not collected the fines, according to a data analysis by The New York Times.

Federal records also show that in the last two years the federal mine safety agency has failed to hand over any delinquent cases to the Treasury Department for further collection efforts, as is supposed to occur after 180 days.

2. Here is a story that marries Federalism (ch 3) and Regulation. One arguemnt for federalism is it allows states to experiment: "unity without uniformity." On the other hand, uniformity can be good, especially in the commercial realm, where companies may do business in many states.

Bill May Undo States' Rules on Safe Food

By MARIAN BURROS
Published: March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — The House is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would pre-empt all state food safety regulations that are more stringent than federal standards.

The measure would require uniformity on warning labels and set standards that would affect a wide variety of state regulations.

According to the National Uniformity for Food Coalition, whose members include trade associations, supermarket chains and food manufacturers, different laws in different states confuse consumers. "The citizens of all states deserve the same level of food safety," the coalition's Web site says. "Food cannot be safe in one state and unsafe in another."

But critics of the measure — including state departments of agriculture, state food and drug officials, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the California attorney general and a long list of consumer advocacy groups — say it would gut all state regulations, including food safety investigations and sanitation standards for restaurants. In some instances, they say, the bill would replace regulations with nothing because there are no federal standards.

In particular, the bill would pre-empt California's Proposition 65, a 1986 law that requires consumer notification about contaminants known to cause cancer or birth defects.

3. Just in time to follow up on our discussion of the weakening of labor, and its consequences for pluralism, mobilzatoin, and fund raising, the AFL-CIO has been meeting in San Diego this week:

Labor Leaders to Convene, Faced With Uphill Battles

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: February 27, 2006

SAN DIEGO, Feb. 26 — When the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s leaders gather this week at a luxury seaside resort here, they will once again be on the defensive, a situation made worse by the split the labor federation suffered last year.

Whatever those uphill battles, a second report is interesting for reporting that the Union is determined to be a player in the 2006 elections:

A.F.L.-C.I.O. to Spend $40 Million on Election
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: February 28, 2006

SAN DIEGO, Feb. 27 — With Republicans on the defensive over corruption, the A.F.L.-C.I.O's leaders said on Monday that there was a strong chance in this fall's elections to oust what they said were antiworker majorities in the House and Senate.

The union leaders voted to spend $40 million in the campaign, their most ever in a midterm election. ...
Union leaders said they would concentrate their efforts on 15 Senate races, 40 House races and governors races in California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

4. The role of rules in determining elections runs through Hacker and Pierson; as noted, the Supreme Court heard argument about redistricting today. This story also reports on on limits on campaign finance in Vermont: will the Court revisit its ruling in Buckley v. Valeo that spending is free speech, protected by the First Amendment, while donations are not protected speech?

Supreme Court Set to Weigh Central Election-Law Issues

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: February 28, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — The most pressing and unsettled questions in election law are those that concern the role of money, the role of race and the role of partisanship. The Supreme Court will take up all three this week.