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.