Friday, July 23, 2004
Democracy, Brought to You by Cox Communications
The problems of money influencing the American political system run far deeper than the stereotypical image of some fatcat robber baron stuffing money into a politician's pocket in return for political favors. In fact, reform movements often get sidetracked trying to prevent this kind of quid pro quo corruption, and miss the larger picture of wealthy interests buying the way into office for candidates who already agree with their agenda.
But, every now and then, some rich son-of-a-gun comes along who forgets that Americans - even politicians - don't like it when people try to buy our votes, and makes a money-for-vote offer too blatant to let pass without comment.
As Chip Scutari and Robbie Sherwood report in The Arizona Republic, Cox Communications is the latest in this long line. In a recent letter to Arizona legislators, the Cox Communication political Action Committee pushes legislators to sign a "tax-equity" pledge, whereby legislators would agree to tax the satellite t.v. industry - Cox's competition. The Cox PAC will base its decision on whether to give any funds to a candidate "largely on your response".
In other words: don't tax our competitors and receive nothing, or tax our competitors and . . . .?
Kinda makes you wonder what they're saying to your representative in Congress. Kinda makes you wonder what your "representative" is saying back.
The problems of money influencing the American political system run far deeper than the stereotypical image of some fatcat robber baron stuffing money into a politician's pocket in return for political favors. In fact, reform movements often get sidetracked trying to prevent this kind of quid pro quo corruption, and miss the larger picture of wealthy interests buying the way into office for candidates who already agree with their agenda.
But, every now and then, some rich son-of-a-gun comes along who forgets that Americans - even politicians - don't like it when people try to buy our votes, and makes a money-for-vote offer too blatant to let pass without comment.
As Chip Scutari and Robbie Sherwood report in The Arizona Republic, Cox Communications is the latest in this long line. In a recent letter to Arizona legislators, the Cox Communication political Action Committee pushes legislators to sign a "tax-equity" pledge, whereby legislators would agree to tax the satellite t.v. industry - Cox's competition. The Cox PAC will base its decision on whether to give any funds to a candidate "largely on your response".
In other words: don't tax our competitors and receive nothing, or tax our competitors and . . . .?
Kinda makes you wonder what they're saying to your representative in Congress. Kinda makes you wonder what your "representative" is saying back.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Not Such a Bad Idea
A businessman in Arizona has had it with out-of-state interests influencing elections. So, he's suing Senator John McCain and other politicians for accepting money from outside their state or district.
Allowing people of one state to influence the elections of another doesn't seem to square very well with the U.S. Constitution. Each of us gets one vote, dependent on where we live -- one person, one vote. I don't know too many people this side of the divine right of kings who would disagree with that.
But when a person in Virginia can give money to a candidate in Texas, especially if it's the $4,000 that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act allows ($2,000 for the primary, $2,000 for the general election), that money distorts the Texas elections. Let's say a Virginian healthcare company wants more congressmen who will vote on a certain insurance bill in Congress. A mere 100 Virginians could give $400,000 to a Texan candidate who agrees with their position, allowing that candidate to purchase more tv ads or send out more direct mailings. If those ads influence voters, through simply increasing the candidate's recognition or by granting the candidate legitimacy by their appearance in mainstream media channels, the money of 100 Virginians may end up being worth more in the Texan elections than the votes of 1,000 Texans.
As Americans work towards making our country all that it might be, occasionally the interests of one state are going to conflict with the interests of another. That's one of the main reasons why we elect representatives as we do. When contributions pour into an election from out of state, it means that the people of that state are getting less than their Constitutional say in who represents them.
Senator McCain is not the only person serving in Congress to take out of state contributions. Far from it. McCain has been one of the few members of Congress to take on the powers that be in talking about the need for campaign finance and governmental reform.
Suing Senator McCain may not be the best solution, nor might completely prohibiting out-of-state contributions, but it sure makes sense to require candidates to raise a huge percentage of their money from the people who will be voting for them.
A businessman in Arizona has had it with out-of-state interests influencing elections. So, he's suing Senator John McCain and other politicians for accepting money from outside their state or district.
Allowing people of one state to influence the elections of another doesn't seem to square very well with the U.S. Constitution. Each of us gets one vote, dependent on where we live -- one person, one vote. I don't know too many people this side of the divine right of kings who would disagree with that.
But when a person in Virginia can give money to a candidate in Texas, especially if it's the $4,000 that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act allows ($2,000 for the primary, $2,000 for the general election), that money distorts the Texas elections. Let's say a Virginian healthcare company wants more congressmen who will vote on a certain insurance bill in Congress. A mere 100 Virginians could give $400,000 to a Texan candidate who agrees with their position, allowing that candidate to purchase more tv ads or send out more direct mailings. If those ads influence voters, through simply increasing the candidate's recognition or by granting the candidate legitimacy by their appearance in mainstream media channels, the money of 100 Virginians may end up being worth more in the Texan elections than the votes of 1,000 Texans.
As Americans work towards making our country all that it might be, occasionally the interests of one state are going to conflict with the interests of another. That's one of the main reasons why we elect representatives as we do. When contributions pour into an election from out of state, it means that the people of that state are getting less than their Constitutional say in who represents them.
Senator McCain is not the only person serving in Congress to take out of state contributions. Far from it. McCain has been one of the few members of Congress to take on the powers that be in talking about the need for campaign finance and governmental reform.
Suing Senator McCain may not be the best solution, nor might completely prohibiting out-of-state contributions, but it sure makes sense to require candidates to raise a huge percentage of their money from the people who will be voting for them.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Lemon Laws for Elected Representatives
Georgia and North Carolina held primaries yesterday, including a Senate race in both states. In North Carolina, Richard Burr won over 80% of the vote in easily defeating his opponents. He will face Erskine Bowles, who was uncontested, in the general election this fall. In Georgia, Republican Johnny Isakson avoided a runoff by winning over 50% of the primary vote, while the Democrats still face a runoff between congresswoman Denise Majette and millionaire Cliff Oxford to determine who will stand in the general election.
Both Burr and Isakson raised over $5 million in dominating the primary enough to avoid a run-off, while Majette and Oxford raised less than half that much. Once again, money plays a huge role in deciding elections.
For the average voter, it was impossible to know exactly how much money these Senate candidates had raised and from whom, because Senate candidates are not required to file their campaign finance reports electronically.
This doesn't make sense.
Candidates for the U.S. House and the Presidency both file reports online, letting voters check out whether the candidates are getting their money from in state or out of state, in large chunks from wealthy interests or in small chunks from regular folks, or from special interests or a broad cross-section of voters, all within a day of the filing deadline. These can all be valuable pieces of information in deciding who to vote for.
And yet, the Senate files manually, requiring a transcribing period often stretching into weeks before the information is readily available to voters. In the case of the Georgia and North Carolina primaries, that meant voters went to the polls yesterday without all the information they might want.
We all want to kick the tires before we drive a car off the lot. Voting for our government is at least as important. The Senate should get with the times and let voters take a look at their finances before the election. Otherwise, voters in places like Georgia and North Carolina may be driving away from the polling booths with a lemon.
Georgia and North Carolina held primaries yesterday, including a Senate race in both states. In North Carolina, Richard Burr won over 80% of the vote in easily defeating his opponents. He will face Erskine Bowles, who was uncontested, in the general election this fall. In Georgia, Republican Johnny Isakson avoided a runoff by winning over 50% of the primary vote, while the Democrats still face a runoff between congresswoman Denise Majette and millionaire Cliff Oxford to determine who will stand in the general election.
Both Burr and Isakson raised over $5 million in dominating the primary enough to avoid a run-off, while Majette and Oxford raised less than half that much. Once again, money plays a huge role in deciding elections.
For the average voter, it was impossible to know exactly how much money these Senate candidates had raised and from whom, because Senate candidates are not required to file their campaign finance reports electronically.
This doesn't make sense.
Candidates for the U.S. House and the Presidency both file reports online, letting voters check out whether the candidates are getting their money from in state or out of state, in large chunks from wealthy interests or in small chunks from regular folks, or from special interests or a broad cross-section of voters, all within a day of the filing deadline. These can all be valuable pieces of information in deciding who to vote for.
And yet, the Senate files manually, requiring a transcribing period often stretching into weeks before the information is readily available to voters. In the case of the Georgia and North Carolina primaries, that meant voters went to the polls yesterday without all the information they might want.
We all want to kick the tires before we drive a car off the lot. Voting for our government is at least as important. The Senate should get with the times and let voters take a look at their finances before the election. Otherwise, voters in places like Georgia and North Carolina may be driving away from the polling booths with a lemon.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Law For Sale!
As Charles Beggs of KATU News reports, the initiative process in Oregon is being swamped with big money. One of the initiatives, to ban SAIF, the state-owned worker's compensation insurer, saw $1.6 million poured into the effort, almost all of it by guess who? - - SAIF's principal competitor, Liberty Northwest.
When set up correctly, the initiative process can afford citizens the greatest amount of liberty and responsibility for the laws under which they live. Neither elected representatives, nor special interests, nor lobbyists stand in the way of the public deciding the merits of a given law. This encourages people to learn more about the issues confronting their society and to engage in the process of finding the best solutions - a great thing for democracy.
Unfortunately, many states have an initiative process which allows the unlimited spending of money by supporters or opponents of a proposed law. This allows wealthy interests to dominate the discourse through large-scale ad and publicity campaigns. This distorts the process by which people receive information about an issue, and in doing so, diminishes the pro-democracy benefits that the initiative process can offer. Public financing of initiatives would go a great way towards restoring those benefits.
Big money spends money to make money. Liberty Mutual did not spend over a million dollars because they think abolishing their competition would be in the best interests of Oregonians -- they think it would be in their own interest.
Some think-tank eggheads may try to sell you on the idea that unlimited spending is a question of freedom. Well, there are a few other freedoms at play they don't like to talk about -- the freedom to decide the laws that govern us, the freedom to be heard in the halls of government, the freedom to have equal voice in the public discourse. Free speech means free speech for everybody, not just for those that can afford it. To allow the rich and powerful to dominate any political discussion is to harm that freedom. We, as Americans, should not let that happen.
As Charles Beggs of KATU News reports, the initiative process in Oregon is being swamped with big money. One of the initiatives, to ban SAIF, the state-owned worker's compensation insurer, saw $1.6 million poured into the effort, almost all of it by guess who? - - SAIF's principal competitor, Liberty Northwest.
When set up correctly, the initiative process can afford citizens the greatest amount of liberty and responsibility for the laws under which they live. Neither elected representatives, nor special interests, nor lobbyists stand in the way of the public deciding the merits of a given law. This encourages people to learn more about the issues confronting their society and to engage in the process of finding the best solutions - a great thing for democracy.
Unfortunately, many states have an initiative process which allows the unlimited spending of money by supporters or opponents of a proposed law. This allows wealthy interests to dominate the discourse through large-scale ad and publicity campaigns. This distorts the process by which people receive information about an issue, and in doing so, diminishes the pro-democracy benefits that the initiative process can offer. Public financing of initiatives would go a great way towards restoring those benefits.
Big money spends money to make money. Liberty Mutual did not spend over a million dollars because they think abolishing their competition would be in the best interests of Oregonians -- they think it would be in their own interest.
Some think-tank eggheads may try to sell you on the idea that unlimited spending is a question of freedom. Well, there are a few other freedoms at play they don't like to talk about -- the freedom to decide the laws that govern us, the freedom to be heard in the halls of government, the freedom to have equal voice in the public discourse. Free speech means free speech for everybody, not just for those that can afford it. To allow the rich and powerful to dominate any political discussion is to harm that freedom. We, as Americans, should not let that happen.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Summer Lovin' (or: My Congressperson went to the National Convention and All I Got was a Little Less Say in Running my Country)
Well, the main political parties are all set to have themselves a blast at their conventions this summer. The tab? A whopping $170 million.
Don't you go worryin' about those poor politicians finding a way to pay for their extravagance, though. As Mike Madden reports in USA Today, some of your friendly neighborhood corporations are stepping up to the plate to exercise their civic duty. Millions of corporate dollars are flowing unchecked into the host committees in Boston and New York in their efforts to throw the biggest baddest Americanest party EVER!
Each party's ticket has already been decided. In the months running up to the election, perhaps the public interest would be better reflected in a series of substantive debates between the contenders for the highest office in the land. $170 million bucks could go a long way towards airing a few more debates, issuing voter guides, or ensuring that America's vote is accurately recorded. Makes you kinda wonder why the corporations don't choose to exercise their civic duty that way.
Celebrating our democracy is great, but throwing an $80 million dollar party for a tiny fraction of the people the parties are vying to represent seems to be a celebration of the exact opposite. The powerful, the wealthy, and the insiders attend parties and ball games and rub elbows over lobster-tails and champagne, and no doubt rejoice in the good fortune which placed them there, all the while the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder what the hell happened to our democracy.
Well, the main political parties are all set to have themselves a blast at their conventions this summer. The tab? A whopping $170 million.
Don't you go worryin' about those poor politicians finding a way to pay for their extravagance, though. As Mike Madden reports in USA Today, some of your friendly neighborhood corporations are stepping up to the plate to exercise their civic duty. Millions of corporate dollars are flowing unchecked into the host committees in Boston and New York in their efforts to throw the biggest baddest Americanest party EVER!
Each party's ticket has already been decided. In the months running up to the election, perhaps the public interest would be better reflected in a series of substantive debates between the contenders for the highest office in the land. $170 million bucks could go a long way towards airing a few more debates, issuing voter guides, or ensuring that America's vote is accurately recorded. Makes you kinda wonder why the corporations don't choose to exercise their civic duty that way.
Celebrating our democracy is great, but throwing an $80 million dollar party for a tiny fraction of the people the parties are vying to represent seems to be a celebration of the exact opposite. The powerful, the wealthy, and the insiders attend parties and ball games and rub elbows over lobster-tails and champagne, and no doubt rejoice in the good fortune which placed them there, all the while the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder what the hell happened to our democracy.
