5/4/2012

For reformers working on ending the influence money has on government policy – a supposedly nonpartisan issue – where is the line between being a reformer and being a partisan? Those who devote their time and energy to ridding our system of the corrupting influence of special interest money are naturally going to be politically active and likely to have strong feelings about most issues. For these people and groups, where is the line between fighting for core principals and being willing to set aside differences to cooperate on a critical area of agreement?

Those who champion this cause and know that success requires cooperation have a duty to lead by example; especially groups and individuals with high profiles. If money in politics is poisoning everything else, than all other problems are symptoms of this root cause; and thus ending the corrupting influence is really the only thing that matters. Traditional partisan quarrels only benefit the status quo.

People across the political divide are awakening to the fact that the corrupting influence of money is the main cause of government failure. Yet in a polarized environment, cooperation is difficult; even when mutually beneficial.

We must begin to look at our political opponents not as the fools and/or traitors we are constantly told they are, but as respected opponents worthy of consideration. The reality is that once you peel away all the nonsense, most Americans of all political stripes truly believe in merit; that no one is entitled to get something for nothing. We just disagree on what role government should play to ensure everyone has a reasonable opportunity to maximize their potential.

Pretty basic stuff, but thanks to special interest control of government we have been routinely ignored and forced to eat policies & politics that neither side finds particularly palatable…and so the discourse has gotten a bit crazy. People are ripe for a new paradigm, but old habits are hard to break.

Reformers who understand the need to cooperate have a duty to lead by example and ensure their actions and words align. If leading reformers calling for a truce can’t refrain from partisanship, how on earth can we expect the average voter to do so?

Unfair as it might seem, this is especially true for progressives & liberal-leaning reformers. The average conservative sees most efforts to enact campaign finance or other good-government reforms as attempting to rig the game in the favor of progressives. Attacking corporations while ignoring the influence unions still wield over the political process (no matter how disproportionate) is just one way reform groups’ can often act counterproductively.

A perfect example is the recent attack on ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) by ‘nonpartisan’ reform groups in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. For groups seeking to unite political factions to suddenly champion a highly partisan issue such as gun control is both puzzling and short-sighted.

It is perfectly reasonable to highlight how ALEC acts as a conduit between big donors and legislators; as well as to ask the very legitimate question of whether we want private groups writing the laws we live under. Attacking specific issues championed by ALEC on the other hand – such as gun control – reverts to the same old go-nowhere partisan politics we need to be rising above in order to achieve a much more meaningful victory.

This particular battle might yield a ‘win’ for one political side or the other, but waging it at all counts as a major loss in the broader and more important war to end corruption and repair our broken government. Reformers should certainly fight for what they believe to be moral & just, but they must also be mindful of which battles it is appropriate to wage and which they should let others fight in their stead.

Above all reformers must be aware of the broader implications of their actions and understand that the coalition necessary for success will never be built by attacking the political beliefs of prospective partners.

5/4/12

Guest post by Stephen Erickson. Originally published at www.RebuildDemocracy.org

In January of this year, Gallop continued its practice of polling Americans on their political ideologies. As you can see here, the pattern is fairly consistent over time, but in 2012, 40% of all Americans described themselves as “conservative,” 35% as “moderate” and 21% as “liberal.”

Given that a highly motivated supermajority of voters is needed to enact the kind of sweeping reforms readers of this page know is necessary, then isn’t the support of conservatives also necessary?

You wouldn’t know it to read and listen to the rhetoric of so-called “reform” organizations, who in this election year seem more interested in defeating Republicans and electing Democrats than they are in real reform.

Indeed, all of the big reform organizations couldn’t alienate conservatives more if they tried. Some of these groups help our organization in various ways, so out of a sense of diplomacy they will go unnamed.

First, any conservative who is even a little interested in reform has read or heard about Peter Schweizer’s book, Throw Them All Out. Many reform groups have in fact used Schweizer’s information on congressional insider stock trading in their advocacy for the recently passed Stock Act. That legislation was produced as a result of Schweizer’s reserach, though he says it does not go far enough.

But these same reform groups who embraced Schweizer’s work on congressional insider trading won’t go near the other findings in his book. They won’t touch the charge that the Obama Energy Department has probably engaged in the worst case of crony capitalism in American history. Schweizer, taking into consideration only one green energy loan program, reports that “$16.4 to $20.5 billion (that’s “billion” with a “b”!) in loans granted went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers-individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s national Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Solyndra is only the most well-known green energy boondoggle reeking of corruption.

Reformers won’t criticize Nancy Pelosi, who appears to have engaged in insider trading and corrupt land deals, according to Schweizer.

Instead one reform group has targeted conservative Senator Tom Coburn for his opposition to the Stock Act. Coburn said he was against the bill because insider trading was already illegal and he did not want to participate in what he saw as a charade designed only to make Congress appear responsible. He also curiously said that he did not believe members of Congress were trading on inside information. One can certainly disagree with Coburn’s position, yet it seems principled, even if potentially flawed.

Coburn has never been accused of the least bit of personal corruption, unlike Pelosi or those involved with the green energy loan program, which stinks to high heaven. Yet one powerful reform group is trying to make an example out of Coburn, one of Congress’ cleanest Republicans. It only makes sense if they are partisans first and reformers second. (You can watch this recent interview with Coburn on “Morning Joe” and decided for yourself if he sounds corrupt).

Second, reform groups are targeting – and successfully intimidating – the corporate funders of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC typically funds conservatives and conservative causes. One reform group has even shamefully exploited the Trayvon Martin–George Zimmerman tragedy by creating an alleged conspiracy between ALEC and Martin’s death. The campaign against ALEC seems coordinated with the White House, which is also engaging in intimidation.

Obviously no conservative would be interested in supporting any “reform” organization which only targets conservative funders and is obviously allied with the Democrat establishment.

Third, as has been repeatedly discussed, the focus on Citizen United is inspired by partisanship as much as by reform. Important Democrat politicians on Capitol Hill – who take money hand over fist from Wall Street – support overturning Citizens United because undisclosed contributions to ALEC or American Crossroads threaten their political careers. The undisclosed nature of contributions to some of these groups means that the funders cannot be intimidated by those in power, and that makes those in power unhappy.

Again, reversing Citizens United does not fix the system. Professor Larry Lessig, a true progressive and authority on the subject, has himself said it won’t fix the system. Yet partisan reform groups have effectively convinced their liberal base (and many moderates too ) that a constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United is the most critical reform. Without conservative support, they have virtually no chance of passing such an amendment, but imagine if they did. Can the nation really afford a constitutional amendment with limited reforming power about on the scale of McCain Feingold? Imagine the cynicism when people discover how feeble such an amendment would actually be? At least some Democrat incumbent politicians would be happy.

Professor Lessig has also warned that ending “corporate personhood” won’t necessarily even change anything about Citizens United, but language like “ending corporate personhood” is red meat (or is “fresh bean salad” a better analogy?) to the progressive base and sure helps with the fundraising for progressive reform groups. The funders of the reform groups, by the way, are undisclosed and therefore protected from the sort of intimidating pressures that the funders of ALEC are now experiencing.

The conduct of progressive reform groups infuriates and disgusts conservatives who understand reform issues and care about them. For conservatives who know less about reform, they just assume that reform is about progressive politics, and they’re against it. And who could blame them?

If we assume that a united front of citizen outsiders – including conservatives – is necessary to break the Washington establishment and enact real reform, then the many partisan progressive reform groups are doing more harm than good. They are their own worst enemies, unless of course their real missions are to elect progressive Democrats.

4/26/12

Guest post by Stephen Erickson. Originally published at www.rebuilddemocracy.org

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently wrote an interesting piece based on his interview with Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama, you may recall, is the author of The End of History in which he reassured us that – with the end of the cold war – democracy would triumph everywhere. Tyranny was doomed. Not only is reality forcing a revision in Fukuyama’s thesis, but he now tells Friedman that that American government has “a crisis of authority.” Authority?

So what we need then is not more democracy but more authority? What happened to “the End of History?”

Yes, we all know American government has become highly dysfunctional. And Friedman and Fukuyama get it right when they point out that our national government has been reduced to little more than a hoard of special interests vying for money and power. The Founders expected government to serve broad and long term interests. Preventing members of Congress from taking campaign cash from special interests would steer government toward serving the national interest, something Friedman only alludes to in this article.

Rather, for the United States today, Fukuyama and Friedman prescribes changes in the institutional rules of the US government to prevent what has become a “vetocracy.” He and Friedman say we have too many checks and balances, like the Senate filibuster. Is that really the problem?

The filibuster, while probably often used too casually, can be a pretty good unifying device. Consider the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. “Obamacare.” Everyone knows that the bill was completely partisan. Not a single Republican voted for it. It only escaped a Senate Republican filibuster because of a technicality that allowed it to pass through a process called “reconciliation.” The partisan passage of the Affordable Care Act set off a firestorm of ideological warfare that still rages. But what if the Republicans had been able to block the Democrat healthcare bill, then what? The President and his party might then have turned to the bipartisan Wyden- Bennett bill, arguably a superior bill, that would have resulted in a better healthcare law, more ideological peace, and would probably have the President in a better position for reelection today. The filibuster can be a useful tool, but like many tools, can also cause damage when used recklessly.

Friedman cheers Fukuyama when he calls for “heavy technocratic input.” That kind of tool sounds similar to a sledgehammer. Friedman and Fukuyama favor elitist solutions. They just can’t help themselves. All of those interests need to be “managed” in some top-down structure, they seem to suggest.

But the problem is not too much democracy. Rather, it’s not enough democracy. If our government was led by people more like average Americans – with the same priorities as average Americans, like balanced budgets, good education, clean water and air, a fertile business climate – then we’d have a healthy political system. Instead we are plagued by career politicians, enabled by special interests, whose primary focus is the maintenance of their own positions and political power. The filibuster will be used more responsibly when we have term limits and clean elections.

4/12/12

The claim is often made (especially by political insiders) that the case for money controlling things in Washington is overstated. They claim that in instances where voters make their wishes well known, money doesn’t stand a chance. This is actually true…sort of. But at the same time, nobody is really saying that special interest money literally runs government – it’s more subtle and tougher to pinpoint than that; which is exactly what makes it such a difficult problem to deal with.

On issues where the public is activated and aware, money doesn’t have nearly as much influence as it might otherwise. Under those conditions, it can only nibble at the fringes while lawmakers appease anxious voters. Of course moneyed interests still do okay, either by preventing certain options from being considered (a ‘la the public option, single payer or even tort reform during the health care debates) or by watering down legislation so lawmakers can say they did something without actually doing much of anything (there are countless examples of that).

Even when the public scores a win against a special interest, they are usually thwarted in the end by a captured & compliant regulatory agency who – with the public’s attention elsewhere – implements the new law in special interests’ favor. So yes…people can still win hollow & meaningless victories over moneyed interest when they are fully engaged and able to cow government into not completely selling them out on a specific issue. It’s just as the founders envisioned!

But wait. What about issues where the public isn’t engaged or even aware? Most of what government does takes place far outside the public view. Trade agreements, tax policy, regulatory policy – these and other obscurities are what government spends most of its time on. Absent the public’s attention, special interests and their money generally rule the day.

This isn’t to say that corporations or other special interests conspire to run the government or harm individual citizens; they are just looking out for their own interests with ruthless efficiency. The problem is that the most sure-fire way to profit or succeed is not to work harder, but to rig the game in your favor. Since we allow anyone with enough money to do pretty much exactly that, no one should really be surprised when they take full advantage.

But if someone is winning, that means someone else is losing; and decades of legislation designed to look out for these narrow interests has created a god-awful mess for our country. We now face a tsunami of unforeseen consequences and externalities hammering us from all sides. Yet inexplicably we keep turning to the same system with the same actors indebted to the same special interests which tied this noose around our necks to begin with.

Even though everyone can see where our current trajectory is taking us, those in power continue to do the same things…with predictable results. Politicians are stuck; to challenge the money would take a majority of lawmakers willing to stand up in defiance of the special interests. Since this is so unlikely, everyone just plays along so as not to be the peg which stands up and gets pounded down; and the knot around our collective neck gets tighter and tighter.

Of course, the best solution would be to somehow sever the link between money and policy so that government would be free to act independently; while also being held accountable to act for the greater good. As long as private money funds campaigns however, politicians will do whatever is necessary to ensure they have enough money to succeed. They won’t sell their constituents out and side with a special interest if doing so would harm their public standing; but they will change an “and” to an “or” in a trade agreement; eliminate a cap or limit in a tax exemption; or a million other things far beyond the notice or understanding of the average American. No enemy abroad can hurt us as much as we hurt ourselves by allowing these millions of small, self-inflicted wounds to continue to accumulate.

Ironically, the sort of centralized control by corporations or special interests often used as a straw man by those arguing against reform would actually be preferable to the status quo. If we can’t have a government responsive to its constituents, we’d be better off just letting GE or Nike or Disney run things. At least then there might be some coherence and consistency to our policy.

By placing the power of money in elections above all else, we have made government minimally accountable to voters and it shows. Government is similar to a teenager who we have virtually no control over; who is out driving our car (on our insurance), has our credit card and is using our ID to buy alcohol…but for whom we are still 100% accountable. Whenever we demand to be heard, our government humors us until we are placated; just like a teenager. But this is not accountability, and the reality is we have very little control over what our government does the majority of the time. Until we fix a rigged system, giving ourselves the leverage we need to demand such accountability, we never will.

4/10/12

Guest Post by Stephen Erickson. Originally published at www.RebuildDemocracy.org

The President signed the “Stock Act” into law this week.

Passing the Stock Act was probably a good thing, though some say the kind of insider stock trading (exposed by Peter Schweizer in his book, Throw Them All Out) it’s meant to address has been illegal for years.

Perhaps now they are signalling that they are really, really serious about policing themselves.

Even with the Stock Act as law, the problems associated with stock ownership by Members of Congress are still there.

Consider the case of House Minority Nancy Pelosi and her stock ownership in Clean Energy Fuels Corporatation (CLNE).

It’s well known that Democrats have been putting the brakes on the development of America’s natural gas resources because many environmentalists are concerned that the means of retrieving the gas – a process known as “fracking”- is polluting groundwater.

But the Pelosi’s stake in Clean Energy Fuels suggests that environmentalists are about to be betrayed by the Democrats and that Pelosi and her husband are poised to cash in.

Clean Energy Fuels is positioning itself to own a monopoly of natural gas automotive refueling stations all across the country. If the government were to ever get behind a serious exploitation of domestic natural gas – a move essential to energy independence – it would be a bonanza for Clean Energy Fuels, and those who own stock in the company, like Nancy Pelosi and her husband.

No matter where you stand on the issue of fracking (I am for it, with regulation), wouldn’t you feel better knowing that the economic self-interests of our law makers were not tied to legislative outcomes?

As documented by Peter Schweizer, the Pelosi’s have a history of insider trading and using the power of Nancy’s position for personal gain. Progressive reformers almost never talk or write about the corruption of the Pelosis. It’s too painful for them and it might help elect Republicans. But in the end, partisan muckraking discredits the cause of reform .

The most important reform offered up in the Stock Act debate was a proposal by Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), which would have forced all members of Congress to place their stock holdings in a blind trust while they serve in office. It was voted down 26-73.

(Full Disclosure: I own shares in CLNE. You should too, because Nancy Pelosi does)

4/3/12

Guest post by Shelly Bernal. Originally published at www.streetjusticesociety.com

Sometimes things are not as they seem. We all understand that the Americans for Disability Act has improved accessibility for persons with disabilities over the last two decades. However, what we don’t know is that the manipulation of a detail of a good thing can be a really bad thing.

Eric Holder and our Department of Injustice has determined that every community, school and hotel pool must have a permanently fixed pool lift for each body of water, so 1 for pool and 1 for hot tub. Since September 2010 when guidelines for “recreational facilities” were issued, most people in the swimming pool industry thought that one portable lift would be enough for both bodies of water. As of January 31, 2012, the DOJ clarified that is not enough and that compliance is necessary by May 15, 2012. There are an estimated 300,000 public pools and spas in the country that need to comply and less than 5,000 pool lifts were sold in the U.S. in 2011. With only a FOUR month window given from DOJ to comply, there is no ready source to provide an adequate number of pool lifts to meet this demand, despite desperate efforts by manufacturers to design and produce them. Even those who tried to comply by purchasing portable lifts in 2011 will not be in compliance now. Manufacturers have been working round the clock to develop retrofit solutions to “fix” their lifts to pool and spa decks.

There is danger of government legislation without industry consultation. These same recreational facilities were just required to comply with a mandated public safety upgrade, VGB legislation, which made pool drains safer – at a cost of $5,000 to $10,000 . Each of these lifts cost between $3,000 and $10,000 and installation can add $5,000 to $10,000 to the total. In addition to the lack of foresight regarding production or availability, expense certainly was not taken into consideration-even during this downturn in the economy.

As the perfect storm swirls, voila! – an instant payday for unscrupulous trial lawyers whose only objective is to file lawsuits for immediate settlements, otherwise known as legal extortion. The point is not whether the case could be won or not by the property with the pool. The point is that it would cost the property tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to win the lawsuit so it is cheaper to simply pay the parasitic leech to go away. I refer to this perfect storm as a campaign contribution payback because the trial lawyers generously donated more than $45 million to President Obama’s campaign in 2008. In defense of the trial lawyers though, at least they are getting a return on their investment with those campaign contributions. But then again, isn’t that why they donate in the first place?

3/27/12

If you’re at all politically inclined, chances are that in addition to a deluge of campaign mailers, you also receive the occasional (or not so occasional) entreaty for money from a candidate, political party or interest group. These solicitations usually focus on a recent hot-button issue or make a more general ideological driven appeal to sway supporters to pledge money. The one constant is political opponents portrayed in the most unflattering way possible (to say the least). Is it any wonder we are so polarized when in addition to increasingly vitriolic campaigns, we must also endure non-stop year round appeals for money to stop the demonic hordes from the other party?

Is it any wonder compromise has become a dirty word when people are led to believe at every turn, in the basest terms possible, that the other side is one to be despised and feared?

The relentless and never-ending effort to finance the campaigns of those running for office has helped coarsen the discourse in this country to the point where we are now barely governable. You often hear people talk about speech needing to remain free for a democracy to function, and that is true, but democracy also requires respectful discourse so that mutually beneficial compromises can be reached. Our system has become a bi-annual system of mutually assured destruction in that, no matter which side wins, the public’s belief in the institution erodes that much more. In the end, it doesn’t matter who is in charge if all that remains to rule is the rubble of our once great country undone by our inability to cooperate.

Yet how do we improve the quality of discourse without infringing on freedom of speech? As long as the driving force in elections is money, pursuit of money will trump all else. Lessen the need for money, and the incentive to pull out all stops – including demagoguery or slandering of opposition – lessens as well.

A few options:
~ Clean money systems which provide qualifying candidates funding to compete with the candidates who are little more than mouthpieces for special interests – corporate, union or otherwise – would offer voters alternatives, but wouldn’t completely forestall fundraising efforts.
~ Increased transparency might discourage some of the nastier stuff. Just as candidates tend to be more polite at debates when their target is standing there ready to defend themselves, so too would the tone modulate if people knew who was financing all the political activity. Politicians know who’s behind these ads – instant transparency would ensure voters and regulators (or whatever passes for them at the FEC) would as well. This alone would not significantly improve the quality of discourse, but amongst its many other benefits, it might take some of the harder edges off political rhetoric.
~ An opposing approach is to create a blind trust for political donations so no one would know who funded campaigns and there would be no quid-pro-quo. This is the hardest to predict the outcome of – it could have a huge effect, or none at all as campaigns would still need anonymous money and the pleas would continue unabated.
~ Finally, constitutional amendments attempting to take private money out of elections or allowing Congress to regulate political spending might have an impact; but would also (likely) leave independent groups unaffected, and so the affect would be negligible. Even so, such an amendment is unlikely to gain the broad support necessary to gain passage, and might have unintended consequences if it did.

Clearly this is not an easy question to answer, but it is important to note the constant barrage endured by the most politically active people in this country – one which constantly paints the opposing side in the worst possible terms – and the corrosive effect this has had on our ability to govern ourselves. Under such relentless reinforcement of this narrative, it takes a conscious effort to remind ourselves that most people who disagree with us politically are not our enemies, just people working towards a similar goal with a different idea for how to get there. Unfortunately few are willing or capable of making this effort and the quality of both discourse and governance have suffered accordingly.

The ironic part is that we don’t even like the people shoveling this swill. Opinion polls would not be so universally low if most Americans agreed with the platforms of the two major political parties, yet our willingness to buy into the two-party dynamic ensures that nothing ever changes. The problem isn’t that left and right can’t compromise, it is that the Democratic and Republican Parties stand in our way from doing so. They cannot effectively raise money if they work harmoniously with the other side for the greater good, and because money rules all in Washington there is zero incentive to do something so damaging to the bottom line.

The rot of money is not just in the direct (and disastrous) effect it has on specific policy decisions, but also in the pervasive coarsening of public discourse that is making us increasingly ungovernable. Whatever the solution to this problem, it must deal with the effect money currently has on our political system and eliminate the incentive to constantly paint the opposition as evil.

Cooperation shouldn’t be a dirty word, and those with different political beliefs don’t need to be sworn enemies demonized at every turn. Money in political campaigns creates a motive for political players to pretend otherwise…especially when we keep rewarding them for doing so.

3/26/12

Guest post by Stephen Erickson. Originally published at www.RebuildDemocracy.org.

An educative moment for clean election advocates occurred in one of the Republican 2012 presidential primary debates when New Gingrich was asked to defend one of his attack ads against Mitt Romney. Gingrich, with his Cheshire cat-like grin, refused to attack his opponent in person the same way he had in the ad, even when pressed by the moderator. Instead Gingrich called for civility in the GOP debates, but it was clear that his ad was not civil. And maybe not fair.

Most politicians will smear their opponents and twist the truth in political attack ads, but they are far more reluctant to do it in their own voice and in person, especially when their opponent is standing right next to them ready to refute any spurious accusations. There is a lesson here for clean election advocates.

Debates contribute to voter education far better than political advertising. Like it or not, the current ongoing GOP debates are highlighting the weakness of the Republican field. This could end up being good for President Obama if a crippled GOP nominee ends up staggering out of the convention. But a brokered Republican convention is looking more and more possible because, under scrutiny, nobody in the field – not Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul – is inspiring a majority of Republican voters.

If a superior Republican candidate were to emerge from a brokered convention – say a Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie – then the many debates should be credited for improving the process by vetting weak candidates and producing a stronger one. This would be good for the Republicansand highly illustrative for those of us who want to fix our broken political system.

Mandatory debates and first-person political statements could be an essential part of a clean elections solution for the United States. All media pay taxes, and some pay broadcasting fees. In lieu of such taxes and fees, media could provide debate time and free first-person political statements from the candidates. Such a system could contribute to a robust vetting of candidates and guarantee a certain amount of civility in the election process.

Many details would need to be worked out. Which candidates would qualify for these free media appearances? Certainly the nominees of the major parties would. Representatives from smaller parties, Independents, and primary election candidatesmight qualify for participation if their party’s voter registration reaches a certain threshold in their districts or by collecting some set amount of signatures on petitions.

Exactly how (and how much) the media would be compelled to contribute would need to be determined. Media pay taxes unevenly. Some pay little or no taxes at all due to write-offs. Some companies, like Google or Yahoo, only make a portion of their profits through the delivery of content. Establishing a system equitable to the media would be challenging, but not impossible Some debates, even if mandatory, could make money for broadcasters. The 2012 Republican primary debates have had good ratings. Commercial sponsorship of the debates could be permitted, which would give media some incentive to help make the debates attractive to viewers and offset costs.

Timing in all things is important. Debates would have to be in prime time. Voter education would be maximized by concentrating debates and written first-person political statements into segmented time frames running the course of a few days or a couple of weeks. In advertising, this is called a “media pulse.” The citizen’s thought process will tend to be more activated if he or she is presented with related content multiple times during a set period.

Taking this process a step further, one or two week segments could be devoted to debating specific subjects: economy, foreign policy, environment/energy, social issues, etc. The debates need not be confined to the media. The political discussion could be brought into the schools where our children are not sufficiently versed in civics or critical thinking about important public policy questions.

To some libertarian purists, such a system – which aims to drive a national conversation – may seem too top-down. But, as the founding fathers understood, civic engagement is absolutely necessary for a healthy republic. A distant government and corrupt political system have alienated and disengaged too many Americans. Decisive measures are required to reverse this trend.

The political system of the United States demands more public policy discussion, more dialogue and more critical thinking, to be followed by responsiveness in government. It’s essential that politicians be banned from taking campaign money from the same interests that they regulate. That old system must be replaced by a vigorous new one. Free media for political candidates in the form of debates and first-person essays in the candidates’ own words should be part of our new clean elections solution.

2/27/12

Guest post by Stephen Erickson originally published at www.rebuilddemocracy.org on 2/23/12

Surging Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was declared one of the “most corrupt” members of Congress in 2006 by a group called CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington). The charge is often used against Santorum in the presidential campaign by his Republican opponents. Santorum denies any wrongdoing and claims that CREW is a politically-motivated left-wing organization. Let’s take a closer look.

CREW makes a number of connections between contributors to Santorum’s campaign organizations and legislation he sponsored or supported while serving in the Senate. Most damning is the $44,750 Santorum received from hospital-related interests in Puerto Rico, which appears to have been in exchange for Santorum sponsoring the Medicare Puerto Rico Hospital Payment Parity Act in the US Senate.

Santorum also sponsored legislation that would require the National Weather Service to provide data to private weather forecasting companies but prohibit the government service from disclosing the data itself in most cases. The founders of AccuWeather had “contributed $40,000 to Santorum and the Republican Party since 2003,” reported CREW.

There’s more. The day after a vote in support of tobacco interests, Santorum’s leadership PAC received $10,000 from the tobacco industry. Santorum also took in $6,000 from Miller Brewing Company and Anheuser-Busch while sponsoring legislation to cut in half the excise tax on large brewers.

Rick Santorum engaged in crony capitalism when he secured a $100 million loan in an earmark for Waste Management Processes, a Pennsylvania company that converts coal to diesel fuel. The company’s CEO and his family members donated a total of $16,500 to the Senator’s campaign committee and $8,500 to his PAC.

CREW also makes some lesser charges against Santorum, but the above examples seem to substantiate accusations that Rick Santorum is indeed what most ordinary citizens would consider a corrupt politician.

But is Santorum among the most corrupt? Here is where CREW gets into trouble. To look at CREW’s list for 2006, one would think that being a Republican is as much of a problem as the corrupt system. They list twenty-one Republicans and only four Democrats. Most of the Democrats are such egregious cases that leaving them off the list would have been impossible without CREW losing complete credibility. For example, CongressmanWilliam J. Jefferson of Louisianawas caught with his refrigerator full of cash from a bribe. CREW goes after only token Democrats.

CREW’s 2011 list of the most corrupt members of Congress is at least better balanced. But it’s not good enough. Partisan reformers discredit the cause of reform. Progressive reformers still refuse to go after the most corrupt and most powerful progressive politicians, like President Obama, Congressman Barney Frank, or former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Consider the case of Pelosi, who was exposed by conservative muckraker Peter Schweizer in his book Throw Them All Out. Pelosi and her husband were able to secure shares ofVisa’s initial public offering (IPO) at a price unavailable to the public while important legislation affecting Visa was before Congress. The Pelosis’ investment in Visa was quite substantial, representing 10% of their total stock portfolio. The IPO soon paid them a handsome 203% return. Pelosi, a credit card reformer, chose to focus on regulations that affected the banks that issue the cards, and not the card companies like Visa, which were targets in some other unsuccessful pieces of legislation. The Visa IPO was just one of several that Pelosi and her husbandconverted into big personal financial gains.

Schweizer also shows how Nancy Pelosi secured transportation infrastructure projects near property she owns in California, dramatically increasing the value of that property. Schweizer spotlighted a similar deal that Speaker Pelosi’s Republican predecessor, Dennis Hastert, got for himself by funding a highway project near land he owned. By calling his book Throw Them All Out, and going after powerful Democrats as well as Republicans, Schweizer models a non-partisan muckraking approach that progressive reformers need to learn to emulate.

Was Rick Santorum one of the most corrupt members of Congress? Sadly, he is probably more typical than especially corrupt, but that important point gets lost when partisanship and reform get mixed together.

.
2/15/12

Now that the battle over Voter IDs is afoot, it becomes clearer & clearer that increased voter cynicism and a weakened democracy are the most likely outcomes; barring a change in the terms of the debate. The biggest problem at this point is that whatever the political motivations behind efforts to enact Voter ID laws, those opposing these new laws fail to acknowledge the fact that most Americans required to show photo ID in so many facets of their day-to-day lives aren’t likely to have much sympathy for people who can’t be bothered. They might be sympathetic to the plight of the millions of voters now potentially disenfranchised, but that won’t make them think it’s a bad idea to require ID to vote; they’ll just think people without ID should go get one. Of course that is sometimes easier said than done, especially when political operatives pushing Voter IDs are simultaneously creating new roadblocks to securing that ID. All of which adds up to more cynicism and little chance that voting conditions will actually improve.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There is a way to combat voter fraud without disenfranchising anyone. Even better, it can make our election process much more secure than Voter IDs alone could ever accomplish, while providing immeasurable benefit to communities across the nation. All that is required is to conditionally embrace Voter IDs as part of a more extensive reform making it “easier to vote and harder to cheat” as GOP Party Chairman Reince Priebus put it. Here’s how:

1. Create a new federal photo ID which could be used in situations requiring ID, including voting. Provide federal funding to libraries and law enforcement agencies who agree to take on the task of helping citizens procure a federal photo ID. The extra funding could be used for any purpose, as long as basic requirements were met in regards to assisting with photo IDs. This approach to the Voter ID problem kills two birds with one stone – reversing the counterproductive trend of decreasing funding for these public resources at the exact moment when public need is increasing – while simultaneously providing voters a convenient outlet to procure a free photo ID.

2. Ensure that lack of one form of documentation (such as a valid birth certificate) doesn’t prevent procuring ID if another means to verify identity can be produced; a major issue for older, minority and/or rural Americans. Library or law enforcement officials would review required documentation, enter the person’s relevant information, take and record a digital picture of the person, and then send this information off for processing. The ID would be produced centrally, most likely by a private company contracted to do so by the government, and mailed either directly to the person or available for pick up where the ID was generated.

3. Disabled, elderly or rural voters (living more than 10 miles from any library or law enforcement office assisting with IDs) would be able to schedule in-home appointments to procure photo ID. A contractor – much like a notary public – could be hired to drive to that person’s house, verify documentation, input data, take a digital photograph, and send it off for processing. Hospitals, Long-Term Care and Elder-Care Facilities could be serviced similarly.

4. Provide funding to states who voluntarily expand access to voting via early voting, voting by mail, or similar ways to give voters greater ease & opportunity in casting their ballots. Similarly, in states where photo ID is required to vote, allow voters with photo ID to register to vote on Election Day.

5. Require voters in any state using computers to either record or compile votes to initial a paper record of their vote. This paper verification could come in the form of a punch-hole or mark next to the candidate’s name, or a print-out from a computerized voting machine. The voter would simply verify his/her choice(s), initial the paper copy and place it in a receptacle. There would be an automatic audit of a small sample of paper records contrasted against the computer result. Discrepancies would trigger a wider audit or even a recount, ensuring that it is the will of the voters and not that of computer hackers (or those employing them) being carried out. Finally, states would receive funding to update their election equipment and train election officials in order to become compliant with these changes.

This approach would put people’s right to vote – and to have that vote accurately counted – above petty partisan politics. The first four reforms would protect against voter fraud by requiring ID, something the Democrats would need to accept as part of a larger compromise, while making ID easily available and thwarting Republican attempts denying ID to Democratic-leaning constituencies. The fifth & final reform deals not with the individual fraud that Voter ID targets, but the system-wide fraud perpetrated by computer hackers; which is the greater threat by far.

If the Department of Defenses, CIA and FBI can be hacked, it’s probably safe to assume that the unsophisticated array of voting systems we have across this country wouldn’t be too great a challenge to any hacker even mildly determined to tinker with voting results. Yet even as we require people to show ID when voting at the risk of disenfranchising millions, we remain completely trusting of the computers recording and/or compiling votes; so much so that we require absolutely no means to verify the accuracy of their count. Does that strike anyone else as odd?

If we are going to protect our vote, let’s really protect our vote from all threats of fraud; without forcing voters to choose between allowing voter fraud or disenfranchising voters. We can do far better than that. Adopting this solution has the potential to transform a looming dark chapter in our electoral history into a reaffirmation of our commitment to a government chosen by a popular vote of its citizens. Join us in demanding of our leaders a better approach to protecting our vote, our right to vote, and ultimately…our democracy.