Mo Money Mo Problems

Recently, I wrote about the potential implications of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Since the ruling, several counteracts to the outcome have been proposed to retain some semblance of order in the campaign finance system. To recap, the ruling in favor of Citizens United overturned standing laws and limits on campaign finance by corporations. As a result, corporations will be allowed to spend freely on political campaigns out of corporate treasury funds. I, like many, believe this decision will be detrimental to the fairness of the political process.

Last week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D- NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D - Md.) designed a bill, which Schumer introduced to the Senate, to amend the ruling. Schumer, who called the decision, "one of the worst the Supreme Court has ever issued," voiced his desire to pass a bill immediately so that the upcoming 2010 midterm elections are not as vastly affected by the changes in FEC laws. "If we don't act quickly, this decision will have an immediate and devastating impact on the 2010 elections."

The bill aims to prevent foreign corporations from contributing to political campaigns, and ban companies who received bailout money from contributing unlimited funds until they have paid back their federal debts. Additionally, the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation would add transparency to the practice of corporate contributions. It would require corporate disclosure on donations, require that candidates be entitled to equal airtime to rebut corporate advertisements and lastly, and I believe most importantly, "implement stand-by-your-ad provisions on corporate-backed ads."

While I believe the Supreme Court ruling will prove disastrous to the American political system, my last hope lies in the fact that all publicly traded corporations, too, are comprised of individuals with a voice. If Congress passes legislation requiring CEOs of corporations to appear in advertisements and state that they approve the message, there are two potential outcomes that could deter corporations from flooding the market with their funds. First, CEOs and boards of directors would be reluctant to run ads in the first place because of their fear of appearing biased or partisan and losing either investments or business (or both). Secondly, if companies did indeed run ads and shareholders disagreed with their public message, they would sell their stock in that company.

While the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation provides a strong yet reasonable, first response, others are seeking a more aggressive strategy of reform.

Recently, the Fair Elections Now Act was introduced in the Senate by Arlen Specter (D - Pa.) and Dick Durbin (D - Ill.) and in the House by John Larson (D - Conn.) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R - N.C.). The legislation proposes reforms for the public financing of Congressional elections. In addition to a limited amount of federal election funds, candidates would receive four to one federal matching funds for any donation under $100, encouraging them to run grassroots campaigns and involve large amounts of donors in their community and districts. Additionally, Fair Elections would help to offset the cost of media by providing them with media vouchers and by giving participating candidates a discounted rate for broadcast rates.

As Agnes Gund, a philanthropist and noted political donor, acknowledged in a recent editorial for Politico.com, the Fair Elections Now Act targets the fundamental issues of campaign finance, while the Schumer-Van Hollen legislation is more of a temporary measure. "It’s a good start but does not address the root of the problem: the never-ending chase for campaign cash and the influence of special interests in our political process."

As I stated in my previous post, "it seems to me that the Public Financing system is the only way to maintain any semblance of fairness in our election system." While I support the measures outlined in the Schumer-Van Hollen bills, I believe the Fair Elections Now Act is an important step forward in the reform of campaign finance, which I believe is a necessity.

Come Together

There is no denying that today's political climate is one of the most fractured and partisan in American history. Perhaps not since the Civil War has the divide between two parties in American politics been so volatile and in such disagreement. Fueled by economic crisis, a controversial health care debate and a rebellious right wing movement, Washington partisanship seems irreparable.

However, in his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama voiced his intent to inspire bipartisan action. He called for "a bipartisan Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad." In his latest efforts of bipartisanship, the President has proposed a bipartisan summit on health care to hear the concerns of both sides. While conservative pundits have been quick to denounce the offer as a "trap," the effort by the President is a necessary and welcome step forward in a climate of political divide.

The use and the threat of use of the filibuster in the Senate has grown to uncontrollable levels. Originally instituted by accident when the Senate voted that they didn't need to vote to vote (think about it), the filibuster has become, in reality, a tyranny of the minority. Instead of a simple majority of 51, the Senate is restricted by the "magic number" of 60 seats to be filibuster-proof.

In addition to the constant threat of filibuster, the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement has jeopardized partisan politics by exacerbating the repercussions for voting outside of party lines. For instance, John McCain recently voted against a bill that he co-sponsored "that would have formed a task force on the deficit to try to force tough choices on Congress." Facing a challenge from a Tea-Party sponsored candidate in his upcoming Senate race, McCain was forced to vote against his own bill so as to not alienate potential voters.

With any hope, the upcoming health care summit will be able to reconcile both issues of the health care bill and broader issues of partisanship. As President Obama annunciated in his State of the Union, "We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Apparent Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Money

In his 2005 book, "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power," Joel Bakan writes, "Democracy requires, at a minimum, some measure of equality of opportunity to participate in the political process. Yet profound inequality is the result when corporations - huge concentrations of shareholder wealth - exercise the same rights as individuals in that process. Today, warns Robert Monks, we face a "situation of great precariousness"; we are "dangerously close to the co-optation of government by business." "Unless we are extremely attentive to the inclination of business to dominate government," he says, "it could well be that the institution [of government] will fade."

On January 20th, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision prohibiting limitation of corporate spending in political campaigns. It is likely that this ruling will fundamentally change the way that campaigns are run and will prove a serious detriment to the fairness of elections.

Until this point, corporations were limited in the amount of money that they donated to political campaigns or candidates, and when they were permitted to run TV ads. However, in the ruling, the majority opinion found that, "if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing any citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Essentially, the controversial ruling deems that corporations have the same rights under the Constitution as an individual citizen. This distinction is a difficult one to make when one considers the position of a corporation in the context of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is difficult to imagine applying the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, to anyone other than an individual. However, it has been established that corporations do have the capabilities to sue or be sued and are protected under the 14th Amendment of equal right to due process.

But the issue here is the disproportionate and disadvantageous position of the American individual. Can governmental elections truly be for the people and by the people if a corporation is able to throw millions of dollars behind a candidate of their choosing?

In the 2008 election, Barack Obama became the first candidate to opt out of Federal Public Financing, raising and spending records amounts of money. But with the recent ruling, it seems to me that the Public Financing system is the only way to maintain any semblance of fairness in our election system. I believe that money and corporations should not drive elections, candidates and ideals should.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Corporate Free Speech - Chris Dodd
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Eyes of the World

The idea of a “public intellectual” is open to wide interpretation. Generally considered the highest authority in their respective field, the public intellectual also faces the stigma of being regarded, often scornfully, as self-importantly elite. Throughout history, public intellectuals of sorts have existed and have often been criticized by society. In more tyrannical times, intellectuals such as Socrates or Galileo have been persecuted for their strong belief in their ideas. Today, public intellectuals have unprecedented access to means by which research and promote their ideas.

Yet the public intellectual walks a fine line between proliferating their discoveries and theories, and self-promotion. Additionally, many have addressed the issue of the “decline of the public intellectual” in recent times. In his essay entitled, “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectual?” Stephen Mack critiques self-proclaimed public intellectual Richard Posner’s article about the demise of the public intellectual. Mack uses Posner as a “quintessential example,” of a modern public intellectual, “hyperventilat[ing] about class purity, or the ‘appalling decline’ in quality of most other public intellectuals.”

I agree with Mack that the quality of the public intellectual is not in decline. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, there arises an array of issues that affect a greater number of people. In the past, public intellectuals were likely to analyze issues which affected only their local society or domain. Yet with the technological revolution that has occurred since the creation of the internet and the personal computer, diverse and complex issues that affect the global society have surfaced.

Issues such as climate change and nuclear proliferation have the potential to have devastating impacts on our entire planet and have paved the way for a new generation of public intellectuals to study their potential impacts and courses of action that the global community can take to avoid future calamities.

One such public intellectual is Graham Allison. A lifelong Harvard scholar, professor, and one-time dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Allison is one of the foremost scholars on the topic of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. In addition to his work at Harvard, Allison has also served on the Council of Foreign Relations and contributed to Foreign Affairs magazine.

But while Allison has published his fair share of work on the topics of foreign policy and nuclear proliferation, he has gone beyond the realm of academia and has served as an analyst for the United States government. Recognizing that the threat of nuclear proliferation to rogue states or terrorist organizations is one of the gravest dangers facing Americans and the global community, Allison has served as an adviser to the Pentagon since the 1960s. He has recently served on the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, and is the only person to ever have been twice awarded the Department of Defense's highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal.

In all of these ways, Allison is truly a public intellectual. It is difficult then, with such examples, to deny that the public intellectual community still very much exists.

I believe there is in no way a decline of the public intellectual, but a hyper-increase in information in the world. In my previous post, “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” I cited the issue of an information overload from the internet and social media as the damaging factor in the public’s interest in the political process. I would argue that the same problem exists with regard to the public intellectual.

The quality of the public intellectual has not decreased. What has declined is the public’s interest. In the same way that political apathy has grown, interest in academic matters, even ones that will eventually affect the entire world, is equally sluggish. While I agree with Mack on the fact that the public intellectual is not in decline, I would disagree with his quote, “The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.”

In his most recent Foreign Affairs article, Allison says that the odds of a successful nuclear or biological terrorist attack in the next five years are greater than ever. He goes on to describe how Pakistan likely poses the greatest danger in the proliferation of nuclear materials to terrorist groups. Yet the American public, a majority of which are most likely unable to find Pakistan on a map (even though we’re fighting a war next door), doesn’t seem to know and doesn’t seem to care.

But although the public intellectual may no longer be the public’s intellectual, individuals like Graham Allison are proof that such a profession still exists.

I Love College

In January of 2008, I stood in a packed high school gymnasium in Nashua, New Hampshire waiting to see presidential candidate Barack Obama speak following that state's Democratic presidential primary. As thousands of others and I waited for what would eventually become known as the "Yes We Can" speech, we anxiously watched the results come in on the large projection screen in the corner. As Hilary Clinton gathered momentum, the fleeting hope that remained was "they haven't called the college towns."

Attending college is a privilege. I consider myself lucky for the educational opportunities that I have been afforded and recognize the power of a college degree in today's society. I have also recognized the correlation between level of education and political preferences.

In recent elections, the tendency of college-educated voters to cast more liberal ballots has been apparent. In the 2008 election, Gallup reported that those with a high-school education voted for McCain 53-47 while college educated voters preferred Obama 55-45 with a staggering 65-35 percent of voters who had completed post-graduate work voting in the same fashion. In last week's special election in Massachusetts, exit polls compiled by Hart Research indicated that Democrat Martha Coakley won the vote of college educated voters 50-46, while those without a college degree voted overwhelmingly for Republican Scott Brown, 57-37.

Dan Payne, the author of the Boston Globe piece highlighting these recent statistics, referred to this as a "working-class revolt."

"The most troubling message that Democrats should take from the data was this: 'The Massachusetts election signaled a working-class revolt, and reveals the danger to Democrats if workers’ economic concerns are not addressed.'"

While the use of the term ironically induces the ideas of a Marxist proletariat revolution (given that demographic's criticisms of the Obama government as Marxist or Socialist), the statistics remain confusing. Why would the working and middle class so strongly support the candidate of a party who has long aimed to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% and has been supported and influenced by Wall Street corporations?

Maybe that's why.

Brown's attempts to appeal to a populist base didn't stop there. The Boston Globe recently put together a photo report about Brown's "everyman's" barn jacket that he was seen wearing throughout the campaign. Although the coat reportedly goes for around $600, the public's perception of Brown as an everyday, working-man's candidate likely is what determined the election.

Populism has been the aim of the recent conservative movement. The aim of the Tea Party movement has been to capitalize on a base of "average Americans" who aim to take back the country for the people. The populist anger, which has been fueled by incendiary media, translated into a Brown victory in one of the nation's most liberal states.

The common denominator is level of education. The economic crisis has taken a toll on everyone. However, it is the working class, and generally those without college degrees, who are likely to be influenced the most by the conservative revolt against big government and regulations. Regardless of the Obama administration's goal of cutting taxes for 95% of middle and lower class families, plans to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and attempts to make health insurance more affordable for almost all Americans, the United States' less-educated working class has expressed its discontent.

As the conservative media hammers its anti-Obama sentiments home, the "working class revolt" continues. As the middle and lower classes continue to hear venomous attacks from the right, the more deeply entrenched their beliefs become, regardless of whether the controversial issues at hand will affect them or not.

Sadly, without voter education, the schism between the left and the right is likely to widen. Additionally, the right will continue to capitalize on the populist anger of the working class unless the left can determine a way to reach these voters and let them know contrary to what Fox News says, they are actually there to help.

The Times, They Are A-Changin'

Welcome to We The People... The United States of America was founded as a representative democracy on the basis of government for the people and by the people. As citizens of a democracy, we, the people of the United States, are able to vote on issues and elect the representatives that we wish to be our voice in the legislative and executive branches of our federal and local governments.

However, while a majority may rule in a democracy, a majority in our democracy don't care. There is a disturbing political apathy in our political system. A system which hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending in past and current conflicts. A system which millions around the world crave to be a part of. A system which has been the dominant factor in the formation of our foreign policy and the role that we have chosen to play in the international realm.

Yet many Americans could care less. In fact, lately it seems as though the most interest that the American people have in politics is which TV show the upcoming State of the Union address will conflict with ("American Idol" not "Lost," names which could both serve as ironic social commentaries depending on which side of the aisle you affiliate yourself with).

People have often called the last few decades the dawn of the "information age." But I wonder if there is too much information. Americans obsess over the day to day actions of Hollywood celebrities, reality TV shows, and viral YouTube videos. They immerse themselves in information overloads on Twitter and Facebook. And they neglect the important political decisions and events that directly and indirectly affect them.

Even those who wish to inform themselves about the happenings of Washington are bombarded by the cable news stations of MSNBC and Fox News which present such biased views that they border on propaganda. At the same time, the masses of Tea Partiers rally against President Obama, the federal government and reforms that will almost undoubtedly make most of their lives better.

Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that Americans of the past cared more than we do today. Perhaps it is the naiveté of a child of the information age or the cynicism of an American who believes that he cares more than most. However, the images in my head of families gathered around the radio to listen to Roosevelt's Fireside Chats, Bobby Kennedy being held around the waist in his car as thousands reached and grabbed in the attempt just to touch him, or millions of Americans lined along the train tracks to view the train carrying Lincoln's casket, lead me to believe that something has changed.

With this publication, I will explore the happenings of politics in the United States and the effects on this country, its people, and the rest of the world. I will attempt to reveal details of people and events which I think are important in today's political landscape. I will investigate what has caused the politically apathetic trend. I will try to determine what can be done using the products of the information age to reinvigorate a passionate (and educated) interest in politics to the American people.

There is a problem in the American political system today, and only We, The People, can fix it.