Thanks for the ping. I think there is a key difference between Judicial Watch and Simcox - namely, that many current Simcox supporters on FR and elsewhere have said that if Simcox does not meet the November 15th deadline, there will be hell to pay. But apparently waiting less than four months is too much to ask for some. Nor is bothering to deal with inconvenient facts such as the current heat along the border and the regulatory obstacles fencing has faced, such as that by Cochise County. Best to get the attacks in now, lest Simcox produce the reports in November and take away the hammer before they can use it on him.
Please note that November 15 is the deadline only after requesting TWO three-month extensions to the reporting deadline.
In other words, the reports are not actually due 4 months from now, they were due over two months ago.
Please also note that this will be the report for 2005, and it's quite unlikely that any of the 2006 donations or expenditures, including those for the fence, will be included in the report.
Expecting MCDC to file reports on time and without multiple extensions of the filing deadline does not constitute holding them "to a different and improperly applied fiduciary standard than any other non-profit in the country"; it is expecting them to comply with the same standards others do, which is not unreasonable.
I'll wait, it's only fair. But I've put my donations on 'hold' until then too. I think it's significant that the Washington Times took on an advertiser, something that usually doesn't happen unless there's some fire accompanying the smoke.