Given your opponent's appearance of ineptitude and arrogance I am not surprised that he cannot meet a basic requirement.

Sarcasm mode: ON

"Initiative" does not seem to be a valued characteristic among neo-cons--conformity is next to godliness, or some such--maybe the RNC forgot to order your opponent to file the form.

If we can't expect Augustus Cho to follow his simple obligation as a candidate to file required FEC paper, how can we expect him to fulfill his simple obligation to defend and uphold the Constitution as our elected Representative? Heck, how can we expect him to even show up for work?

Dr. Lawson-- maybe the federal war on drugs is unconstitutional, but how do you plan to combat drug use in this country? Should it be simply a state issue? Either way, drugs are one of the most serious problems in our society. What are you Constitutionally are you willing to do?

In response to Duke Cheston's question: I cannot speak for Mr. Lawson, but as a nurse and medical professional, drugs are a medical problem, a physical problem of addiction that must be treated just as diabetes must be treated to get better. To just throw a non-violent drug addict in jail-- where it has been shown that drugs are readily available anyway-- does not solve anything because they'll be the same addict when they get out, just now with lessons they've learned from their fellow hardened inmates and less to lose, as a former prisoner anyway who may not care about getting caught again.

State and local efforts to combat drugs are going to be much more successful than federal efforts any day, and leaving our borders open wide is probably not a good way of going about trying to keep drugs out (although you can never keep all of them out).

Finally, the government has shown that it can do little, if anything at all, to "combat drug use in this country." Drugs are illegal and have been for a long time, yet drug use goes up as the Drug War goes on. Drugs get more potent and cheaper as a direct result of the drug war, it's a fact. We're having a hard time dealing with all the heroin in Afghanistan, which is grown for Americans to consume over here. This is a battle that the government cannot fight for you, it has been trying to battle it for a long time and has failed.

Even the program for schoolchildren, DARE, has been found to INCREASE drug use rather than decrease. (see http://www.fcda.org/dare.html for more information) There are more successful programs for kids that succeed because they require that PARENTS get involved and help teach their kids these lessons. This fight must begin with families and friends and neighbors and communities. You cannot look to the government to solve every problem. It's up to the parents to teach their kids to do what is right, and then it is up to the child to do the right thing. It is not the role of the government to protect us from our own stupid choices, it is the role of the government to protect our rights and freedoms.

My $.02 in response to Duke Cheston's question. I would ask you what YOU are going to do about illegal drug use in this country? Why ask BJ? - the first line of defense against illegal drugs starts at home with intrusive parenting to instill a sense of responsibility and accountability for ones actions. Too many parents these days (and I use the term 'parents' loosely) want someone else to raise their children. But heaven forbid, when their kid does something wrong and is standing in front of a judge, they will be the first to blame everyone else (school, the government, society) for their failure to be a good parent. It's quite simple - if you have a lousy kid, it's because you did a lousy job as a parent.

I don't want the Federal government to be responsible for something that can be taken care of by the person(s) truly responsible.

Cho is running both an attack and a sneaky campaign at the same time... well of course he's desperate when his stances on the issues contradict the principles that this country was founded on. But in one way he has also run a campaign against himself. He says he disagrees with libertarian views (libertarian views are smaller government) and then he says he agrees with Reagan. Well Reagan agrees with the libertarian views, so Mr. Cho, which one is it? Do you or do you not agree with President Reagan? I think it's pretty obvious that after Cho's attacks, he had to just add something about Reagan to make it appear to have substance. Mr. Cho is simply pretending... Is his idea of a good campaign to confuse as many people as possible?

Dear Mr. Lawson,

I have been following this primary in the last few months and i have made a number of observations.
Firstly it is pretty obvious with anyone with half a brain that you are by far the best candidate out of the two running to face David Price. Whereas you are willing to debate and discuss the issues Augustus Cho seems to be running in the opposite direction of anyone with a camera and microphone, except of course from the myriad of sycophants who will make sure not to ask him anything difficult. While you have shown you are a more than capable fundraiser Augustus Cho cannot even file a simple report on time for the handful of donations he has received so far. While it seems the Republican leaders of the 4th district have tried to anoint the candidate they want, they seem to have forgotten that we, the voters ultimately are the ones who make the choice. Why should I, a conservative republican be asked to vote, work and write checks for a man who wouldn't cause David Price to bat an eye.

If Augustus Cho wins this primary and we lose more good Republicans due to Price spreading his wealth around the 4th district the leadership of the Republican party should be held accountable for their behavior. We are not that far from being a one party state but i never thought i would see the day that elected Republican officials and executive committee members in the 4th district would be so blind and have so little foresight as to ignore the bigger picture and push us over the edge.

This must be pretty embarrassing for the Cho campaign, to say the least. Even I managed to turn in all my receipts in for Student Congress this year.

With freedom comes responsibility and Cho's equation isn't adding up to much. How can he ask people for contributions and then not file the appropriate papers? Is that even legal?

Chock up one more question to add to the ever growing list of questions that Mr. Cho won't answer. So, Mr. Cho, what do you do with the money that is donated to your campaign? Or are you hiding the fact that you indeed do NOT have anyone willing to support you financially? Understandably, it is hard to put money behind a fraud.

M brings up a good point, perhaps this failure to file papers is to put off the inevitable embarrassment when the media and everyone finds out that only about 2 people have donated to Cho's campaign. He'll probably keep this under wraps until after the primary. John Cannon: of course this is illegal, it's against FCC regulations.

Um.... so what will happen? Why is his name even on the ballot if he's not following the rules?

I'd like to give my 2 cents regarding the so-called "war on drugs." The most important thing in regards to a FEDERAL "war on drugs" is that it is unconstitutional. For this reason alone it should be ended. That begs the question, should the states be the ones who fight such "wars on drugs"? Well, they can. Unlike the federal government the states are not bound by the enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment, which states in effect that any power not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people, respectively.

But even if the states *can* have "wars on drugs" *should* they? I don't think so. Just like with alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition has been a complete failure and has actually caused more crime that it has prevented. Just as with the mafia during alcohol prohibition, criminals and lowlifes benefit from drug prohibition because of the massive black market that it creates. Drug prohibition allows them to make money by selling drugs through the black market, just as members of the mafia where able to do the same by running alcohol and operating "speak easy's" during alcohol prohibition.

Think about how much crime has resulted from trying to enforce drug prohibition. It's not hard to figure out someone being shot and killed over drug enforcement is a lot worse than someone simply using drugs, as bad as drugs are for people. On this point, Nurse Shirley hit the nail right on the head. Drug use in and of itself is a health problem, not a criminal problem, and the government should not be involved in policing people's personal habits, as bad as those habits may be for them.

All of that said, at least when the states are in charge of drug enforcement it makes more sense because each state can tailor their laws to their specific state and moreover, the specific challenges their state faces. In other words, we know that drugs are a bigger problem in California than North Carolina so why should there be a "one size fits all" standard for both states? Why shouldn't each state have their own, unique, individual laws? That makes far more sense, but as I said above, what makes the most sense is to end drug prohibition completely because it causes more problems than it solves.

But as far as the federal office B.J. is running for he won't have any say in what goes on at state and local level, just federal level, and at federal level there's no question that a "war on drugs" is not only a bad idea, but unconstitutional as well.

"What can I do for my country?"

I can vote for someone who best represents my belief systems.

I can vote for someone who has connections to experts; one who has the courage to boldly go where most politicians will not.

I'm not familiar enough with the topics of this blog to make a meaningful contribution, but I have become familiar enough with the way BJ Lawson thinks, communicates and acts to state with confidence that he has earned my vote.

RE: War on Drugs

Firstly, drugs are mostly a problem precisely because they are ILLEGAL. If you know anything about the economics of drug trade, the illegality of drugs create a situation of very little competition in the drug market, which allows for sellers with market power who can boost prices due to the riskiness of having a drug operation. These drug lords with market power establish power in many other ways, building networks and practically armies to both shut out competition and have their way in society. The illegality of drugs is what feeds all of the negative externalities associated with them (gangs, violence, etc.). If drugs were legalized, their prices would plummet, drug rings would bust, and we would see the negative externalities associated with drugs would be vastly decreased.

Secondly, the War on Drugs has been about as successful as the 18th Amendment was in getting rid of liquor. The 18th Amendment wasn't successful at all.

Thirdly, no one has a right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their bodies. What is in the interest of someone is that person's decision. When that person's exercise of liberty coerces another persons (i.e., someone driving under the influence of drugs kills someone in an accident), then there must be a penalty for it. But that is a separate issue from the legality of drugs. Alcohol is legal, and we have laws against drunk driving, and further punishment for manslaughter if it is done while intoxicated. Drug intoxication should be treated the same way.

Fourthly, not only is it no one's right to tell another person what they can do with their bodies, it is no one's right to take property at gunpoint from someone else to fund their mechanism for telling other people what they can do with their bodies. That is theft.

BJ, it appears to me that you didn't file a 1st quarter report with the FEC which was due April 15. At least, that's what their website says

Susan -- The FEC informed us that based upon the timing of our primary, we did not need to file a Q1 report. We, did, however, need to file a Pre-Primary Report:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00442657/335933/

Paige, what's up buddy? In regards to the War on Drugs:

you say "If drugs were legalized, their prices would plummet, drug rings would bust, and we would see the negative externalities associated with drugs would be vastly decreased." First of all, if drugs were legalized and prices of drugs plummeted, wouldn't it be easier for people to obtain them? While drugs remain illegal, prices go up and some people have more incentive to sell them, but most people have less incentive to purchase them (high prices and it's illegal). Aside from constitutionality, should it not be the purpose of any drug laws (let's say state laws) to discourage drug use? I have seen several close friends ruin (or end) their lives not because of mafia-style or gang-related violence but because of the nature of the drugs they were taking.

Furthermore, this whole topic brings up some interesting Constitutional issues: First, if the DEA and the war on drugs is unconstitutional, does it not follow that the FBI is unconstitutional? Second (for Paige), you say "it is no one’s right to take property at gunpoint from someone else." I assume you're talking about the Federal Income Tax, which "fund[s]
their mechanism for telling other people what they can do with their bodies." Should we do away with the Federal Income Tax? Is that what you're getting at? It sounds fine to me, but there is a constitutional amendment that allows for it, though.

Cheers

BJ,

It seems then, that you really have very little on Mr. Cho on this subject. He filed a 1st quarter report on the day it was due. The four business days cited in the letter you posted from the FEC isn't up until tomorrow. It's not like he hid what tranpired from January 1-April 16 since his first quarter report covers January 1-March 31. He simply needs to send in his report for April 1-April 16. Of course, laws are important to follow and Republicans hope all our candidates follow the law.

Susan -- It's not a matter of "having" something on Mr. Cho. I just thought I'd give him a gentle reminder so he can file it in time.

If I wanted to be mean, I could have waited until the deadline had already passed. Given that he didn't get the message about the Pre-Primary Report in the first place, one must assume there is a reasonable chance he might not respond to the warning letter in time either.

Like I said in my email, just trying to help.

These rules are really complicated, though. That's the Price of big government!

Now BJ, let's be honest! If you were only trying to help, you would have written or called him personally instead of posting this on your blog and sending out emails to your list.

Susan -- earlier in this campaign, I had previously attempted to contact my opponent on several occasions via email and phone. He never responded, nor even acknowledged my attempts to contact him.

Given the lack of common decency he has demonstrated in the past, this method seemed like the most appropriate compromise.

I have also emailed him a series of questions regarding the stances he has taken on the issues. I did not receive any response.

Hey Susan,

Augustus Cho is in violation of the FEC filing law from April 17th. The four day period is only to avoid the publication that his Campaign is in violation of FEC statutes. He will be fined from the 17th until he gets his report in. If he does not get the report in today (the 4 day includes Friday as a working day because that is when he would have received the registered next day mail from the FEC) then he could be seriously fined, audited or taken to court over it.

The FEC do not care one jot that he has filed his 1st Quarter report. He didn't need to file that at all. He was however supposed to file the Pre-primary and one does not exempt the other. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, BJ is entirely correct and Augustus Cho IS in violation of the FEC even if he did get his report in since the 25th.

Adam

I've heard a lot of people say they haven't heard back from him on anything. I think that BJ did the right thing by reminding his opponent publicly to file his reports, Mr. Cho has filed for public office and must answer in the public domain to issues raised.

On another note:

Congrats on breaking 100k you guys!

BJ, the "friendly reminder" comes across as insincere and taunting. I think you should rise above that. Let the FEC fine him and publicize it if they wish. Besides, I am sure the N&O is watching carefully for any shortcoming by a Repubiican and will report it with relish.

Regardless of whether Mr. Cho has filed or not filed, his name is on the ballot and B. J.'s supporters
need to vote in the Republican Primary. I am an unaffiliated voter. When I voiced my intention to
a precinct worker to vote Republican (I voted early), she looked at me and said "Well you can't vote
in the Presidential Race...you know that?

In response to Mr Cheston's comments above:

You ask "First of all, if drugs were legalized and prices of drugs plummeted, wouldn’t it be easier for people to obtain them?" Yes, of course. But that isn't the point. The point is that under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government is not permitted to have an opinion, or take action on, that issue.

"Aside from constitutionality, should it not be the purpose of any drug laws (let’s say state laws) to discourage drug use?" The question here is the propriety of any level of government to "discourage drug use." As has been repeatedly demonstrated, official government "discouragement" of drug use is causing far more harm to society as a whole than the drug use it's intended to discourage. Drug abuse itself, like alcohol abuse, is an individual problem far more than it is a social problem and thus should be no more subject to legal attention than any other individually self-destructive berhaviour such as smoking or excessive drinking. Certainly the consequences of drug abuse, to the extent that abuse endangers society, merits legal attention, but such laws are, and should be, with respect to the harmful actions themselves. Killing someone while driving a car is illegal regardless of whether you're stoned (or drunk) at the time--it's the action that merits legal consequences, not what you may or may not have ingested prior to taking that action. Simply possessing a drug, or the simple act by an individual of voluntarily ingesting it, has never harmed anyone but that individual, and that's not, or ought not to be, the concern of any government.

"I have seen several close friends ruin (or end) their lives not because of mafia-style or gang-related violence but because of the nature of the drugs they were taking." While this is tragic for the individuals involved, and perhaps for you as well, depending on the nature of your relationships, protecting people from the consequences of their own actions is not the proper role of government. Certainly not at the Federal level--the U.S. Constitution is utterly silent on that point.

"First, if the DEA and the war on drugs is unconstitutional, does it not follow that the FBI is unconstitutional?" Of course not--the FBI has many, many, responsibilities, some of which may actually be constitutional. :-)

"Should we do away with the Federal Income Tax? Is that what you’re getting at? It sounds fine to me, but there is a constitutional amendment that allows for it, though." The implication to that is that if the Federal government intends to pursue the "War on Drugs," it ought first to be necessary to amend the Constitution to that effect. That was exactly what the Eighteenth Amendment was about--and as disastrous is the "War on Alcohol" was, it at least had the appropriate legal underpinnings.

In response to Duke's idea that drugs would be easier to obtain if they were legal-- they may be easier for adults, but they would be harder for children. If drugs were legal, one presumably would have to be 18 to buy them, etc., just as we have today for alchohol and cigarettes. I have heard from my kids and their friends that it's hard for them to get alchohol if they wanted it, but every day at school kids try to sell them (currently illegal) drugs.

When something is illegal and at a high price point, there is more motivation for someone to break the law and sell it anyway. If it's legal and can be sold in stores for a market price, there won't be dealers. When was the last time someone came up to you on the street and asked if you wanted to go into an alley and buy alcohol from them? Never, for me, and my kids aren't being asked at school if they want to buy alcohol, either.

As I mentioned before, drugs are now more potent as well since before the drug war. That means that on average, they are getting cheaper. The drug war is making it easy for kids to buy drugs at school unregulated.