Friday, February 06, 2004
Minnesotans May Win Right to Decide Things for Themselves
The House Government Operations committee in Minnesota approved a proposal that would allow Minnesotans to vote directly on public policy issues. Twenty four other states use the process, known as Initiative and Referendum, as do 80 local governments in Minnesota. Details can be found here in the Minnesota Star Tribune.
A predictable array of special interests, ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to labor unions, opposed the proposal. These interests evidently think they are better off schmoozing with legislators, who they help elect by virtue of campaign contributions, than taking their case directly to the people of Minnesota. They seem to think that the rest of us are too stupid to vote directly legislation, but somehow smart enough to vote for good representatives to act on our behalf.
I have no beef with representative democracy. It has served us well in America. But in cases where legislatures gridlock, or refuse to tackle issues where incumbents have an inherent conflict of interest (such as campaign finance reform), giving citizens the ability to take matters into their own hands is a healthy addition to representative government. Go for it Minnesota!
The House Government Operations committee in Minnesota approved a proposal that would allow Minnesotans to vote directly on public policy issues. Twenty four other states use the process, known as Initiative and Referendum, as do 80 local governments in Minnesota. Details can be found here in the Minnesota Star Tribune.
A predictable array of special interests, ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to labor unions, opposed the proposal. These interests evidently think they are better off schmoozing with legislators, who they help elect by virtue of campaign contributions, than taking their case directly to the people of Minnesota. They seem to think that the rest of us are too stupid to vote directly legislation, but somehow smart enough to vote for good representatives to act on our behalf.
I have no beef with representative democracy. It has served us well in America. But in cases where legislatures gridlock, or refuse to tackle issues where incumbents have an inherent conflict of interest (such as campaign finance reform), giving citizens the ability to take matters into their own hands is a healthy addition to representative government. Go for it Minnesota!
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Foreigners Raise Funds to Defeat President Bush
A German expatriate website reports here that German youth are raising funds intended to help defeat our president in the coming US elections. I don't know what German law allows these folks to do, but it would be blatantly illegal for them to spend this money in the US or for any US citizen to take it and spend it on their behalf.
It's just wrong for people who don't live in our country and can't vote for our president to spend money trying to influence our vote. The president represents Americans, not Germans.
Likewise, America should extend our laws to ban contributions to US Senators from people who live outside that Senators home state. Why should New York stock brokers have any influence over who the citizens of Oklahoma chose to represent them in the US Senate? If you can't vote for someone, you shouldn't be contributing to support or defeat them either.
A German expatriate website reports here that German youth are raising funds intended to help defeat our president in the coming US elections. I don't know what German law allows these folks to do, but it would be blatantly illegal for them to spend this money in the US or for any US citizen to take it and spend it on their behalf.
It's just wrong for people who don't live in our country and can't vote for our president to spend money trying to influence our vote. The president represents Americans, not Germans.
Likewise, America should extend our laws to ban contributions to US Senators from people who live outside that Senators home state. Why should New York stock brokers have any influence over who the citizens of Oklahoma chose to represent them in the US Senate? If you can't vote for someone, you shouldn't be contributing to support or defeat them either.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
When Politicians Break the Law, Who Should Pay for Their Lawyers?
The Associated Press reports that top Republican and Democratic politicians are using campaign contributions to pay lawyers to defend them from charges of using government employees to work on their campaigns, other abuses of their offices, and even tampering with evidence to cover it up.
When one of the rest of us breaks the law, we have to pay for our own lawyers. Why should politicians be any different? And, why would large donors want to pay for somebody else's legal defense? It must be a sign that they really would like to see that person found innocent so they can stay in office and continue benefiting the donor.
The Associated Press reports that top Republican and Democratic politicians are using campaign contributions to pay lawyers to defend them from charges of using government employees to work on their campaigns, other abuses of their offices, and even tampering with evidence to cover it up.
When one of the rest of us breaks the law, we have to pay for our own lawyers. Why should politicians be any different? And, why would large donors want to pay for somebody else's legal defense? It must be a sign that they really would like to see that person found innocent so they can stay in office and continue benefiting the donor.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Money Corrupts, Even with No Quid Pro Quo
Good government groups and judges usually talk about what they call "quid pro quo" corruption as the major problem with money in politics. It's a Latin phrase, meaning roughly "trading something for something." I guess it makes the do-gooders feel smart to use Latin phrases that the rest of us can't understand. Naive reformers seem to think that special interests just walk into a politician's office and say "I'll give you $1000 if you give me a special tax break, is it a deal?" Recently, we've heard cries about how trading "access" for contributions is the biggest threat to our democracy.
A story about even fairly low budget local elections from the Sacramento Bee explains why this quid pro quo concern is really pretty minor compared to what's really going on. In Roseville, California, the city council just voted to approve a massive sprawling new development. Roseville limits contributions to candidates to $500. Nobody seriously thinks you can buy a councilor's vote for $500, so the danger of outright quid pro quo corruption isn't that great. But, that doesn't really matter since most folks can't give $500 for a local election.
But, as one anti-sprawl activist explains in the article, "Campaigns are getting so expensive that candidates cannot get elected without developer money. I'm willing to believe that there's no quid pro quo. But the (candidates) had very pro-development views coming in and that's how they were able to attract developer money in the first place."
One of the pro-development councilors spent more than $100,000 in 1998 to get elected. Two others spent about $60,000 recently. The anti-sprawl activist says "for a person to raise that much money without developer money would be very difficult." Of that, one raised $20,000 from developers. His opponent only raised $10,000 total.
The pro-development politicians defend themselves, saying their was no quid pro quo. "My vote is not for sale. I did nothing illegal. It's all reported." Maybe so, but do they honestly think they'd have been elected in the first place if they didn't agree with the pro-development positions of their donors? Do they think they'd get re-elected if they stood up to the special interests, or would the donors just fund some new lackey to defeat them in the next election?
The developers certainly think their money is well spent, even if they get no quid pro quo in return. One of them wrote a letter to other developers in the campaign saying "Funneling contributions is an unpleasant task, but one of the most important investments that you can make in our project."
Good government groups and judges usually talk about what they call "quid pro quo" corruption as the major problem with money in politics. It's a Latin phrase, meaning roughly "trading something for something." I guess it makes the do-gooders feel smart to use Latin phrases that the rest of us can't understand. Naive reformers seem to think that special interests just walk into a politician's office and say "I'll give you $1000 if you give me a special tax break, is it a deal?" Recently, we've heard cries about how trading "access" for contributions is the biggest threat to our democracy.
A story about even fairly low budget local elections from the Sacramento Bee explains why this quid pro quo concern is really pretty minor compared to what's really going on. In Roseville, California, the city council just voted to approve a massive sprawling new development. Roseville limits contributions to candidates to $500. Nobody seriously thinks you can buy a councilor's vote for $500, so the danger of outright quid pro quo corruption isn't that great. But, that doesn't really matter since most folks can't give $500 for a local election.
But, as one anti-sprawl activist explains in the article, "Campaigns are getting so expensive that candidates cannot get elected without developer money. I'm willing to believe that there's no quid pro quo. But the (candidates) had very pro-development views coming in and that's how they were able to attract developer money in the first place."
One of the pro-development councilors spent more than $100,000 in 1998 to get elected. Two others spent about $60,000 recently. The anti-sprawl activist says "for a person to raise that much money without developer money would be very difficult." Of that, one raised $20,000 from developers. His opponent only raised $10,000 total.
The pro-development politicians defend themselves, saying their was no quid pro quo. "My vote is not for sale. I did nothing illegal. It's all reported." Maybe so, but do they honestly think they'd have been elected in the first place if they didn't agree with the pro-development positions of their donors? Do they think they'd get re-elected if they stood up to the special interests, or would the donors just fund some new lackey to defeat them in the next election?
The developers certainly think their money is well spent, even if they get no quid pro quo in return. One of them wrote a letter to other developers in the campaign saying "Funneling contributions is an unpleasant task, but one of the most important investments that you can make in our project."
Monday, February 02, 2004
Ethicist Says Its OK for Donors to Lie and Engage in Trickery
Randy Cohen, the ethics columnist for the New York Times, says here that it is ethically ok for a Republican donor to give money to a Democratic candidate who he does not support, with the hopes that this candidate will win the Democratic primary and then be a lousy opponent to President Bush. The reason its OK, says Randy, is that the Democrat would be willing to go along with it.
Seems to me that this reveals the farce behind most campaign contributions -- that they are primarily a way for a person to voice their support for a candidate. Nonsense. They are a way to try to influence the outcome of an election through a means other than voting -- which is what is supposed to determine elections. Everyone has one vote, but some people can make more contributions than others, and so they do. If all they wanted to do was voice their support, they could wear a button or slap a bumper sticker on their car. By making contributions, especially large ones that are out of the reach of most people, they are trying to game the results of the election. Its currently legal, and you can't blame one person for doing it when many others are as well, but that doesn't make it ethical.
California Governor Gray Davis did something similar by spending millions of dollars to influence the outcome of the Republican primary. In doing so, Davis caused the most viable Republican candidate to lose, and allowed his own victory in the general election. That too was legal, but the voters of California didn't necessarily think he'd truly won his re-election, as evidenced by his recall less than a year later.
Randy Cohen, the ethics columnist for the New York Times, says here that it is ethically ok for a Republican donor to give money to a Democratic candidate who he does not support, with the hopes that this candidate will win the Democratic primary and then be a lousy opponent to President Bush. The reason its OK, says Randy, is that the Democrat would be willing to go along with it.
Seems to me that this reveals the farce behind most campaign contributions -- that they are primarily a way for a person to voice their support for a candidate. Nonsense. They are a way to try to influence the outcome of an election through a means other than voting -- which is what is supposed to determine elections. Everyone has one vote, but some people can make more contributions than others, and so they do. If all they wanted to do was voice their support, they could wear a button or slap a bumper sticker on their car. By making contributions, especially large ones that are out of the reach of most people, they are trying to game the results of the election. Its currently legal, and you can't blame one person for doing it when many others are as well, but that doesn't make it ethical.
California Governor Gray Davis did something similar by spending millions of dollars to influence the outcome of the Republican primary. In doing so, Davis caused the most viable Republican candidate to lose, and allowed his own victory in the general election. That too was legal, but the voters of California didn't necessarily think he'd truly won his re-election, as evidenced by his recall less than a year later.
