Friday, November 21, 2003
Think You've Got the Right to Vote for President? Guess Again.
I'm speaking at a the Democracy USA conference this weekend and have learned an astonishing fact from some fellow speakers. None of us technically have the right to vote for president.
We're all familiar with the electoral college and know that it technically elects the president, rather than the voters directly. When we vote on election day, we're technically voting for members of the electoral college who will then cast votes for our favored candidate for president. But, it turns out that our votes for the electoral college are only advisory. The legislature could disregard them and appoint whoever they wanted to the electoral college.
This all came to light during a little noticed aspect of the Bush v Gore ruling that came out of the Florida election fiasco of 2000. While the rest of the country was focused on hanging chads, election law experts noted that the Supreme Court had in fact ruled that "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint electors." Worse yet, the legislature can take back the power at any time. In fact, in 2000, the Florida legislature was threatening to do just that if the courts didn't come to some conclusion by December 12.
Nearly everyone has an opinion about what happened in Florida. But regardless of how you feel about that, we should all be able to agree that the people's vote for president ought to be binding. We should amend our constitution to insure that this will always be the case in the future.
I'm speaking at a the Democracy USA conference this weekend and have learned an astonishing fact from some fellow speakers. None of us technically have the right to vote for president.
We're all familiar with the electoral college and know that it technically elects the president, rather than the voters directly. When we vote on election day, we're technically voting for members of the electoral college who will then cast votes for our favored candidate for president. But, it turns out that our votes for the electoral college are only advisory. The legislature could disregard them and appoint whoever they wanted to the electoral college.
This all came to light during a little noticed aspect of the Bush v Gore ruling that came out of the Florida election fiasco of 2000. While the rest of the country was focused on hanging chads, election law experts noted that the Supreme Court had in fact ruled that "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint electors." Worse yet, the legislature can take back the power at any time. In fact, in 2000, the Florida legislature was threatening to do just that if the courts didn't come to some conclusion by December 12.
Nearly everyone has an opinion about what happened in Florida. But regardless of how you feel about that, we should all be able to agree that the people's vote for president ought to be binding. We should amend our constitution to insure that this will always be the case in the future.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Senators McCain and Feingold vow to fix presidential campaigns
The same group of politicians that brought us the McCain-Feingold bill to partially ban soft money while doubling hard money limits are now aiming to repair the federal system of voluntary spending limits. Citizens should be skeptical of any reform proposed by people who are directly impacted by it (McCain ran for president, Feingold has said he might some day.) This skepticism is especially warranted given that the increases in contribution limits contained in the last McCain-Feingold bill are one of the main reasons that the presidential system of voluntary spending limits is in trouble.
But, so far this seems like a reasonable approach. Some details can be found here in this Boston Globe story. While the best approach would be to set mandatory spending limits, this reform proposal makes it more likely that candidates would opt into voluntary limits by making it easier for candidates to accept these limits to compete with candidates who don't. In the last presidential cycle, Steve Forbes opted out of the system, forcing George W Bush to opt out as well to compete. In this cycle, President Bush was the first to opt out, causing Democrats Howard Dean and John Kerry to follow suit.
Citizens who care about reforming our presidential campaign finance system should follow this proposal closely. As we've seen in the past, proposals that pass Congress sometimes look a lot different than the ones the public is told about as they are introduced. But, with the current system in shambles, something clearly needs to be done and these legislators should be commended for getting the ball rolling.
The same group of politicians that brought us the McCain-Feingold bill to partially ban soft money while doubling hard money limits are now aiming to repair the federal system of voluntary spending limits. Citizens should be skeptical of any reform proposed by people who are directly impacted by it (McCain ran for president, Feingold has said he might some day.) This skepticism is especially warranted given that the increases in contribution limits contained in the last McCain-Feingold bill are one of the main reasons that the presidential system of voluntary spending limits is in trouble.
But, so far this seems like a reasonable approach. Some details can be found here in this Boston Globe story. While the best approach would be to set mandatory spending limits, this reform proposal makes it more likely that candidates would opt into voluntary limits by making it easier for candidates to accept these limits to compete with candidates who don't. In the last presidential cycle, Steve Forbes opted out of the system, forcing George W Bush to opt out as well to compete. In this cycle, President Bush was the first to opt out, causing Democrats Howard Dean and John Kerry to follow suit.
Citizens who care about reforming our presidential campaign finance system should follow this proposal closely. As we've seen in the past, proposals that pass Congress sometimes look a lot different than the ones the public is told about as they are introduced. But, with the current system in shambles, something clearly needs to be done and these legislators should be commended for getting the ball rolling.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Weak Cops on the Beat
The FEC is considering watering down the rules that deal with federal officeholders establishing more than one fundraising committee, according to this report in The Hill. They want to let politicians have one committee for their own re-election, and one that they can use to raise funds to give to other politicians. They call this second type a leadership PAC, since most politicians seem to confuse giving out money with leadership. This raises two interesting points. First, how can citizens trust the FEC when they are going out of their way to accommodate the interests of the politicians, rather than strictly upholding our existing campaign finance laws? Second, and perhaps more profoundly, what business does one member of congress have raising money for other politicians? They can't vote for other politicians, since they don't live in their districts. If a donor really wants to give money to candidate Jones, why not give it directly to candidate Jones, rather than giving it to candidate Smith's leadership committee so that Smith can then give it to Jones? One reason might be that a donor can only give $2000 to Jones directly, but could then give another $5000 to Smith's leadership committee which can then be passed on to Jones. This loophole allows the donor to funnel $7000 into the Jones race, in effect bypassing the contribution limit.
The FEC is considering watering down the rules that deal with federal officeholders establishing more than one fundraising committee, according to this report in The Hill. They want to let politicians have one committee for their own re-election, and one that they can use to raise funds to give to other politicians. They call this second type a leadership PAC, since most politicians seem to confuse giving out money with leadership. This raises two interesting points. First, how can citizens trust the FEC when they are going out of their way to accommodate the interests of the politicians, rather than strictly upholding our existing campaign finance laws? Second, and perhaps more profoundly, what business does one member of congress have raising money for other politicians? They can't vote for other politicians, since they don't live in their districts. If a donor really wants to give money to candidate Jones, why not give it directly to candidate Jones, rather than giving it to candidate Smith's leadership committee so that Smith can then give it to Jones? One reason might be that a donor can only give $2000 to Jones directly, but could then give another $5000 to Smith's leadership committee which can then be passed on to Jones. This loophole allows the donor to funnel $7000 into the Jones race, in effect bypassing the contribution limit.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Bi-Partisan Shame, Universal Disgust
Sometimes things get bad enough to unite all of us from across the political spectrum. It looks like now may be one of those times in Pennsylvania. Politicians from both major parties have been bilking the taxpayers to line their own pockets and further their own political careers. One Democratic state senator has charged 2,317 meals to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania, while another spent some $6000 a month on chartered jets and personal chauffers. The Republican Majority Leader spent some $2.3 million of state money on election-time public service announcements that featured GOP legislators in closely contested elections. Details can be found here in the Philly Inquirer.
Fortunately, citizen groups from both the left and the right are decrying these practises. There is even a bill in the legislature that would bar political PSAs. If we're going to use public funds for political campaigns, we should do it through clean money systems such as those adopted in Maine and Arizona, not through legislators allocating state budget money for their own political advantage.
Sometimes things get bad enough to unite all of us from across the political spectrum. It looks like now may be one of those times in Pennsylvania. Politicians from both major parties have been bilking the taxpayers to line their own pockets and further their own political careers. One Democratic state senator has charged 2,317 meals to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania, while another spent some $6000 a month on chartered jets and personal chauffers. The Republican Majority Leader spent some $2.3 million of state money on election-time public service announcements that featured GOP legislators in closely contested elections. Details can be found here in the Philly Inquirer.
Fortunately, citizen groups from both the left and the right are decrying these practises. There is even a bill in the legislature that would bar political PSAs. If we're going to use public funds for political campaigns, we should do it through clean money systems such as those adopted in Maine and Arizona, not through legislators allocating state budget money for their own political advantage.
Monday, November 17, 2003
The Arnold Amendment
Arnold Swarzenegger officially took office today as California's governor. Although the state faces daunting obstacles, there is an air of optimism in Sacramento. Arnold won election with a plurality of 48% of the vote, but I think it is safe to say that a majority of Californians are glad to have him taking over the helm from the beleaguered Gray Davis.
Unfortunately, if the majority of Americans ever wanted Arnold to become president, we'd be unable to elect him. Even if he does a terrific job in California, the U.S. Constitution prevents U.S. citizens who were not born on our soil from becoming president. This may have once made sense when the country was first founded, but now that we are a mature democracy shouldn't voters be able to choose whoever they want? There may be foreign policy reasons why we wouldn't want to choose someone closely tied to another country to be our president, but what if voters weighed that concern and came to the conclusion that it best served our interests to elect someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger? There are other great Americans including the current Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granhold and former secretary of state Henry Kissenger who voters are also barred from choosing to lead us.
Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced a constitutional amendment that would give us the freedom to vote for anyone to be president so long as they have been a citizen for 20 or more years. The bill is known as Senate Joint Resolution 15, and you can follow its status here at the library of congress and read the text here.
Arnold Swarzenegger officially took office today as California's governor. Although the state faces daunting obstacles, there is an air of optimism in Sacramento. Arnold won election with a plurality of 48% of the vote, but I think it is safe to say that a majority of Californians are glad to have him taking over the helm from the beleaguered Gray Davis.
Unfortunately, if the majority of Americans ever wanted Arnold to become president, we'd be unable to elect him. Even if he does a terrific job in California, the U.S. Constitution prevents U.S. citizens who were not born on our soil from becoming president. This may have once made sense when the country was first founded, but now that we are a mature democracy shouldn't voters be able to choose whoever they want? There may be foreign policy reasons why we wouldn't want to choose someone closely tied to another country to be our president, but what if voters weighed that concern and came to the conclusion that it best served our interests to elect someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger? There are other great Americans including the current Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granhold and former secretary of state Henry Kissenger who voters are also barred from choosing to lead us.
Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced a constitutional amendment that would give us the freedom to vote for anyone to be president so long as they have been a citizen for 20 or more years. The bill is known as Senate Joint Resolution 15, and you can follow its status here at the library of congress and read the text here.
