the division between the DNC and the actual campaign is pretty important. they are explicitly not the same thing.

like with sarah palin and sarahpac, campaigning is separate from the monolithic "strategy" concept you seem to be defining - but no single source of "coordination or connection" is actually needed. rosen is as equally disconnected from the DNC as palin is from the RNC.

the RNC strategy is not the republican strategy. it's the RNC strategy. i have repeatedly said that the RNC does not act as the arbiter of republican strategy. you are effectively excluding all kinds of independent political organizations from their actual partisan purposes - the term 'republican strategy' refers to a wide spectrum of things, not merely operations at the highest level.

there isn't One Republican Purpose - lots of action groups and political organizations come together with the single partisan purpose. sarah palin is a particularly important aspect of this, being a highly public and highly vocal former top tier candidate.

you insist on arguing against a claim that she is officially and explicitly connected to the RNC, but i did not make this claim.

-

look at what you are quoting. they have no ability to decide private civil matters.

because they have no legal authority to do so. they can not "prevent the workplace from discriminating against [an] employee" - they can convince two parties to settle through arbitration and then optionally file a lawsuit which goes back to judicial oversight.

but i did not mean that your entire plan was unconstitutional - only that in order for it to actually be effective in practice, it would have to be able to make final decisions, which certainly would be. agencies like the eeoc and opm already exist to serve the non-binding review and advocacy purpose you propose - this is not unconstitutional because it is not the final stage.

as a result, your issues with referring such discrimination resolution to "a already overburden court system" [sic] remains.