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!

Bold Initiatives Needed

Who will make the really bold move, propose the truly bold initiatives we need right now to ensure a stabilized economic environment that will extend at least a decade, not just to the next election cycle?  A bold plan would address the long-term solvency of entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, establish reasonable and attainable debt reduction targets, establish a defense budget that reflects the realities of our role in world events, and establish a simpler and fairer tax structure that would benefit businesses and citizens alike.  Is this too much to ask?

Mr. Obama already had that opportunity but, when he put the Simpson-Bowles plan on the shelf, he backed away from the recommendations of the very commission he empaneled.

Mr. Romney has offered an outline as to how he would tackle such a task; but he is too busy telling the world how terrible a job Obama had done.

The simple fact is that no one seems to have a vested interest in doing the bold things.  Quite the opposite: money in politics is vested in maintaining status quo.

Maybe this is the starting point: campaign finance reform, reform that really gets the money out of politics.  Terms are too short (two years for the House), and members of Congress have to spend far too much time raising funds for the next campaign, leaving little time to work on any solutions, bold or otherwise.

The stability of our economy should be the number one issue in the campaign.  We need to invest in our nation’s infrastructure, retool our military, and rededicate our commitment to building our nation’s future on the strength of small businesses, better education, and a strong middle class.   

But the money in play today is pitted against these goals.  We will never be able to tackle the bold initiatives until we get the money out of politics.

How Money Is Corrupting Our System of Government

Much of what follows is based on having read “Republic, Lost” by Lawrence Lessig.  In my opinion, this book is required reading for anyone concerned about the future of our nation and how the money influence can be diminished.

At issue is the amount of time our elected representatives spend raising funds for campaigns (and how much time prospective opponents are doing the same).  Estimates are anywhere from 60% to 80% of a representative's time spent on raising funds.  This means we are not getting the best efforts of governing from them.

The underlying support for this is the "gift economy" (as Lessig describes it)--the mechanism by which money is channeled to influence governing and policy making.  There is no real quid pro quo (I'll do this for you if you do this for me).  That's bribery, and there are already plenty of laws on the books to address that.  In the gift economy the "this" and "that" are separated from each other in relationship and time.  Example: a lobbyist (or any form of “influencer”) tells a representative "We are going to sponsor a fundraiser for you," and does so.  Perhaps a month later, maybe 6 months, the lobbyist comes by the rep's office and offers some "knowledge" or "advice" on a particular piece of legislation to discuss how he (or who he represents) would like to see it work out.  There is no mention of the fundraiser, no direct implication or insinuation about "hey, remember what we did for you...” Subtle. Of course the rep might not vote in the interests of the influencers; the consequence will come later when the influencers sponsor a fundraiser for the rep's opponent in the next primary.  That's how money influence and campaign financing are linked (or at least one way).  This is the corruptive influence of money.

It’s not so much the politicians who are corrupt, it’s the system. The system exists in its seemingly impenetrable form because of how election campaigns are funded.  Money is at the heart of the corruption.

There are two “beneficiary groups” of the money system today: the elected politicians and the money-interests that fund their political campaigns. Even though we have changed politicians on a regular basis, the corruption has grown.

Changing the politicians has proven to be fruitless.  Even if we voted every incumbent out in each election cycle, the newly elected would become victims of the corruption system.  We are not talking about bad people--they are not people who are taking sacks of cash from anyone as a quid pro quo arrangement with some one or some organization interested in influencing the substance of what Congress deliberates or the Congressional agenda in general.  Therefore, rather than change the people we must eliminate the systematic corruption by changing the manner by which political campaigns are financed.

One approach is to amend the Constitution with respect to campaign financing.  With Congress being one of the “beneficiary groups,” a proposed amendment for campaign reform is unlikely to originate there.  The other approach available for amending the Constitution is for the states to set a proposed amendment in motion. It takes approval by three-quarters of the states to pass an amendment to the Constitution.  In these days of instant communication it might not be all that difficult to get this process started (consider how communications nourished the “Arab Spring” movement).  We have to start somewhere, and it must be a grassroots movement.

This is a classic case of the need to rally around an issue, not a candidate. If the grassroots movement is strong enough, it might send a convincing signal to Washington, and both of the system’s “beneficiary groups’ could feel the heat.  

We won’t be able to affect financing for this year’s election, but we can have an effect on elections to come.  If we want to get rid of corruption, it is up to us to say “Enough!” and follow up with action.

To get started, respected voices in local communities (NOT elected officials of any kind) must take the lead.  These voices should be business leaders, community groups such as churches and family centers, and the media (columnists and reporters local newspapers) to list a few. These are the leaders to whom we must express our dissatisfaction for status quo.

I urge readers to make their voices heard.  If you wish, send your contact information to me by email.  I am building a contact list to keep people engaged in bringing about change.  More on that in later posts.  You have my promise that your contact information will only be used for this purpose and no other.  I will not share contact information even with others who provide the same. 

Another blog? Really? Why?

I am dedicating this blog to “politics” in general.  My intent is to post “essays” from time to time.  I will NOT be posting on a daily basis.

Politics is a very general term.  Frankly, I am concerned about the role money is playing in the political arena today, about the influence it is having, and how it is corrupting our system of government.  I expect to have a lot to write about this topic.

Money in politics is a common enemy for every citizen … all of us … “We, the People”.   Our “enemy” is not a person, party, or policy; it’s a “practice”, a condition that has corrupted our system of government.  That practice is how political campaigns are financed.  So my first “essay” will be about how money corrupts politics.