Government without representation

We might still elect our representatives and heads of government, but in the end who do the elected “represent”?  The money interests.

For example, how likely is tax reform?  The fact is there is too much money supporting not closing the “loop holes.”  If the candidates supported closing the “loop holes” they would certainly find themselves cut off from their “funders.”

Campaign finance reform can really get the money out of politics.  But what kind of reform should we support?  There are a number of solutions (some good, some less good).  I think this is the challenge of our time.  But it is also the opportunity.  We can (and should) make our candidates abide by simple campaign financing rules and reward or punish them with our votes as they abide or choose not to do so. But until we as the electorate unite behind “something”, change will never happen.

Congressman Sarbanes  (D-MD) did something critically important for the anti-corruption movement in the past few days: He introduced, with a significant number of co-sponsors, the most ambitious set of ideas for “Citizen Funded Campaigns” that we have seen in many years — The Grassroots Democracy Act.

There are many aspects of this legislation to take into account, but the fundamental characteristic of this plan is “grassroots” which means relying only on public funding (money you and I donate to candidates), in small amounts but, hopefully, in large volume.  This is very similar in nature to the  “Roemer Rules” I wrote about on in my post September 9^th.  It’s worth anaylsis.

Not Criminal or Illegal ... That's the Real Crime!

In a recent letter to the local Charleston newspaper about campaign finance reform, the writer referred to "under-handedness" and implied that those in government might be "guilty of some of the biggest white collar crimes on Earth." 

While I agree our system of government has become corrupted by the influence of money, the real crime is this: it's not a crime!

The insidious nature of government corruption in our nation is that most money influence isn't criminal.  In fact it is perfectly legal.  To be clear, bribery IS criminal, and those involved are prosecuted (think Rod Blagojevich).  But the use of money to influence campaigns hardly ever occurs in the form of bribery.

It’s the system that is corrupt, not the politicians. No candidate (incumbent or not) can run a campaign (successful or not) without funding.  The systematic corruption of government lies in how election campaigns are funded.  Until we understand this subtle aspect of the corrupting influence of money, we will be attacking only the symptoms, not the root cause, and we will not achieve campaign finance reform.

As in a tango, campaign finance reform requires two sides working together: candidates must refuse funding from lobbyists and PACs, and the electorate must use the voting booth to reward candidates who refuse special interest money and punish those who don’t.  We need to get our candidates to pledge that they will not take special-interest money to fund their campaigns, and we need an electorate willing to hold them accountable to that pledge. Our elected officials should be working for us, “We the People”, and not for the lobbyists and special interest groups.

Full Disclosure

-->This past July (7/24/2012) Larry Lessig testified before a Congressional Committee investigating the effects of Citizens United and the rise of Super PACs (a video of a small part of his testimony posted is at http://www.rootstrikers.org/nbastek).  

Just recently Ezra Klein of the Washington Post published an article, “The DISCLOSE Act won’t fix campaign finance.”  I have posted a link to Klein’s article on the home page of my website (scrootstrikers.org).  In his testimony Lessig presented an unsettling list of who (by percentage not name) in America contributes to political campaigns and candidates.  In part, he stated, “… in the current presidential election, 0.000063 percent of Americans — fewer than 200 of the country’s 310 million residents — have contributed 80 percent of all super-PAC donations.”  The full video (over 1.5 hours) can be found by here.

President Obama supports the Disclose Act, but Klein writes, “The deeper problem is that the Disclose Act is addressing the wrong problem. Citizens United focused attention on the failures of our system of campaign finance. But it did not create them." As Lessig puts it, “On Jan. 20, 2010, the day before Citizens United was decided, our democracy was already broken. Citizens United may have shot the body, but the body was already cold.”

Sitting next to Lessig during the testimony is Charles “Buddy” Roemer.  In my post last week I wrote I was skeptical of the positive effect of politicians calling for campaign finance reform.  Buddy Roemer is an exception to that skepticism.

Buddy Roemer is my political hero in this cause.  How many remember that he was a Republican candidate for president this year?  He was, but he was not allowed to participate in any of the debates.  Why?  We were told his polling numbers weren’t sufficient.  Buddy served the State of Louisiana as governor and in Washington as a member of Congress.  Suffice to say he has experience in public policy.  The same cannot be said of, say, Herman Cain.  Cain had “star quality”, a celebrity factor (later one of notoriety) but no experience in government or governing.  Yet he was practically featured in the debates.  Polling numbers or ratings numbers?

The real reason Buddy was excluded was because he was running on a platform based on campaign finance reform.  Buddy said you had to “run like you would serve – Free to Lead.” Leaders must be free to lead and not be dependent on who is ready to finance them.  He offered a very different formula for campaign financing:

1.     Fully disclose every contribution;

2.     Accept no contributions above $100; and,

3.     Accept no PAC money, Super PAC money, corporate money, or lobbyist money.

This is a simple formula, one that any candidate could adopt if they really wanted to break the corruption cycle.  This is the challenge.  But it is also the opportunity.  We can (and should) make our candidates abide by those simple rules and reward or punish them with our votes as they abide or choose not to do so.

Politicians in favor of campaign finance reform

Overall, I am skeptical about the positive effect of politicians calling for campaign finance reform.  For the most part they are just too invested in the "system of corruption" to try to fix their own problem.  Unless they ALL support it, they will all revert to what best serves their own interests.

However, just last week the President responded on line to the direct question--

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2012/08/29/13552352-obama-does-first-presidential-ask-me-anything-chat-on-reddit?lite

Question: What are you going to do to end the corrupting influence of money in politics during your second term?

"Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds-barred flow of seven- and eight-figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and [has] been sponsored in Congress — to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change."

The intent of the Disclose Act is to require greater transparency.  But this alone might not be sufficient to stop the corruption.  I will have more to say about that next week.

Another movement going on today is the Fair Elections Now Act.  That bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from the constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want.  For more information go to http://fairelectionsnow.org/.

We the People

"We the People" is one of the most compelling declarations that defines our democracy.  It is "our" government, and those we elect to do the business of America should be our best and brightest. They should also remember that they are elected to serve. "We the People" represent the collective interests for a strong Nation with a clearly defined future for all.

We the People deserve better from our government.  Apparently Evan Bayh thinks so, too.  Our government is in a broken state right now, and the reason is evident: We the People are electing representatives (House and Senate) who are more interested in looking out for their own interests than ours or what’s best for the Nation, working harder to get re-elected than getting America working.  Bad people?  No.  It’s a bad system, a system created and sustained by special interests with a lot of money.

If insiders (like Sen. Bayh and others) know the system is broken, if they know they can't get anything done, why don't they fix it?  It's a good question that has a disquietingly bad answer: Congress will not take the steps to fix the system because it is simply not in each member's individual interest to do so.  It's just too risky a political proposition because his or her seat would become too vulnerable.

It will take courage for sure to stand up for campaign finance reform, for a better system that doesn’t require a candidate (incumbent or not) to spend so much time and energy raising money—time and energy that should be spent on debating and developing solutions to the serious problems our Nation faces.

"We the People" deserve better, but we won't get it until we force Congress to address campaign finance reform.   And we won't get it as long as we are willing to support any candidate who is not openly in favor of campaign finance reform.

Another Way to Skin the Cat

At a social meeting the other night I got into conversation with an attorney who, as it turned out, has a connection with Chief Justice John Roberts.  We began talking politics, and when I told him about our efforts with Rootstrikers, he had some very interesting observations.

He is certain the Citizens United case will be reopened, albeit with a new set of facts and circumstances (otherwise the Court would not hear the case).  With the possibility of new Justices being appointed under the next administration (regardless of whose administration it is), the mix could change sufficiently that we could end up with different verdict. 

What new “facts and circumstances?”  The most likely approach to establishing those would be based on new legislation from Congress.  But what issue would Congress be willing to take up for new legislation?

A grassroots effort, we agreed, for full and open disclosure of campaign donations might provide the basis for new legislation.  Who would oppose it?  The corporations are not likely, but the unions might. Why?  The unions might not want their respective members to know to whom their unions are contributing.  Unlike corporations where shareholders could come and go (with little respect to political campaign finance involvement), union leaders hold their positions as a result of the vote of their membership.

Regardless, my major “take away” point from our discussion was yet one more way to energize and mobilize people to action.  In addition to a new Constitutional amendment and to candidate/electorate pledges, we should consider establishing a firm campaign for full disclosure.  If Congress senses a large level of heat on that issue, perhaps they would be more inclined to write new legislation.

How Much Is Enough?

In July the Republicans raised over $100 million in campaign funds while the Democrats raised about $75 million, marking the third consecutive month the GOP raised more than the Dems.  Why aren’t the Dems keeping pace?  But is that really the right question?

The right question is, “Should that much money be needed to finance a campaign for federal office?”  How much money does it take to manage a political campaign?  How is the money spent? How many 30-second ad spots does a campaign need to run to ensure victory?  And who is expecting what for their donation?  $175 million dollars in one month, and if the campaign ads to date are any indicator of what is to come, there is nothing of substance for a real national debate on real issues that can lead to positive change.  $175 million, and our elected federal representatives still are spending more than half of their time raising even more money for their campaigns.  The Presidential campaign for 2012 is projected to spend collectively over $2 billion!  This is simply mind-boggling.

No wonder people believe that money buys results in politics!