Democracy's Daily Posts from

Governor McGreevey: What's the Holdup?

In June, the New Jersey Legislature passed a series of campaign finance reforms, including a clean elections pilot program. Governor McGreevey signed the much-touted reform package into law in late June - all but the clean elections law, which the governor's office stated was so important as to deserve its own signing ceremony. Yet, five weeks and several campaign donor scandals later, the bill (A1/S1) still languishes on the Governor's desk.

What's the deal Gov.? Considering the shabby patchwork of other reforms inked into law by your pen, clean elections may be the best shot your state has at truly democratic elections.

If you think the Governor needs your help to pick up that pen and sign the Clean Elections Pilot Program into law, you can drop him a line here.

A Tragedy of Airers

Each of the major networks have decided that the major party political conventions merit but a scant three hours each out of their precious prime-time schedules.  This, in their view, apparently meets their statutory obligation to operate in the public interest in exchange for their free use of a limited public commodity - the airwaves. 

There is little disagreement that the political conventions have become well-scripted events.  The speeches, the message, the pageantry, the pomp, and the patriotism of the conventions are all so well honed as to appear a little slick to the average viewer.  The networks bemoan the facts that there is simply no news to come out of the conventions and that their convention ratings are below their normal primetime fare.  This supposedly justifies cutting back on convention coverage by 80% from 1992 coverage levels.

A few thoughts:

1) Even if the conventions have become slicker than they used to, and much of the nominating drama no longer exists, they still remain the most visible platform for which the parties to communicate their message to the American people. 

Once every four years, the two parties which account for around 99% of elected offices at the state and federal levels come together to discuss and present their stance on the issues of our time, and to nominate the person from their party best-suited to lead us as a nation.  So what if they present an over-produced show?  Americans can decide for themselves the level of sincerity and truthfulness behind the parties' presentations of themselves.  They don't need the networks to make that decision for them.

2) The networks are in part to blame for the slickification of our nation's politics. 

Aside from the fact that they tend to pursue and broadcast the most sensational of stories, the networks offer no free airtime for policy discussions or presentations.  As they live by the soundbyte, our nation's democracy dies by it.  We do not get candidates' or parties' full-fledged positions on how to ensure that all Americans have access to adequate healthcare, or how to ensure that all of America's children have access to a quality primary, secondary, or college education, or how we are going to protect our country's shores, or deal with the deficit, or tax policy, or jobs, or governmental waste. 

That the parties shape their message into twenty-second near-meaningless soundbytes to fit into the broadcasters' presentation of it is hardly surprising.  The broadcasters cannot fault the politicians for adhering to a system that the broadcasters themselves played a huge role in creating. 

3) The airwaves truly belong to the public.

- Even though the airwaves and digital spectrum seem intangible to all but physicists and telecoms, they are as much a public-owned space as the village common, public park, or city sidewalks and streets.  Imagine a concessions business trying to deny access to a stage in a local park for a debate between candidates for mayor because it thought the debate might hurt its hotdog sales.  The networks make billions of dollars off our public property, and they can't take thirty hours out of their schedule every four years to further the public discourse?

- The airwaves are also just as limited as the village common of yore in terms of space.  A major reason the Communications Act of 1934 (the act that requires the networks to operate in consideration of the public interest) was passed was because of the havoc wrought by so many players trying to dominate a limited spectrum.  Too many competing signals over the same frequencies made it hard for any to get through clearly.  (Imagine thirty bands trying to play at the same time in your local city park.)   So, only a limited number of companies received licenses to use the public's airwaves, creating a virtual monopoly over one of the most important channels of communication.  Although a few cable channels offer much more comprehensive convention coverage, not everyone can afford or has access to these channels.  The same holds true for the internet.  Only the networks can offer so many Americans an opportunity to see and hear the people who would be their leaders.

The networks received their free licenses to use America's public property based on the premise that they would do so in the public interest.  Their current practices of cutting convention coverage go directly against that agreement.  Offering more convention coverage would encourage the parties to address more squarely and completely the issues which face us today, and offer the American public a greater amount of information about the candidates and their positions with which to make their decisions come Election Day.

If the networks refuse to live up to their end of the bargain, it is up to the American people, through Congress or the FCC, to make sure that they do.

Money for Nothin' - Democracy Remains in Dire Straits in Oklahoma

The results are in from yesterday's Oklahoma primaries.  As expected, as is the case in more than 90% of recent US congressional races, the candidate who spent the most money won every single congressional race yesterday.

In brief: 

1st District:  A 10:1 lead in fundraising bought incumbent congressman John Sullivan a 3:1 victory over William Wortman in the Republican primary.  Sullivan will face Doug Dodd with only around $300,000 left from his nearly $700,000 total.  Dodd has around $23,000 on hand. 

2nd District: The two frontrunners in the Democratic primary, Kalyn Free and Dan Boren, managed to spend around $1.5 million between them, Boren using his $180,000 fundraising advantage to his advantage in winning 57% of the vote.  Boren now has some $250,000 with which to face Wayland Smalley, the only one of three Republicans to submit an FEC filing report (which showed only one donation).

3rd District: This one promised to be a nailbiter all along folks.  Five-term incumbent Frank Lucas spent $182,590 to win his party's nomination, despite not facing any competition in the primary.  The other major party offered no candidates in this race, meaning Congressman Lucas will be able to focus the $373,000 he has on hand on Independent candidate Greg Wilson, whose latest available report with the FEC showed just over $9,000 in contributions. 

The official $ to vote ratio (How much he spent divided by the number of votes he needed to win) for Congressman Lucas' huge primary win: $182,590/winning vote!!

Way to go Congressman Lucas!

4th District:  Incumbent Congressman Tom Cole spent $328,000 in soundly defeating absolutely no opponents -- he was uncontested.  Congressman Cole faces an uphill battle against his nonexistent opponent in the general election (he is uncontested again - not even one measly opponent), which no doubt makes him feel a lot better about having another $600,000 in the bank. 

The official $ to vote ratio for Congressman Cole's big victory yesterday : (drum roll . . . .)$328,000/winning vote!

With only one race to go, Congressman Cole has a healthy lead in the race to spend the most money per vote.  Are you nervous?  I know I sure am! 

5th District: Six-time incumbent Congressman Ernest Istook has raised more than $1.3 million for his campaign.  To win his uncontested primary, he spent (are you ready for this?) $544,000.   (Just to clarify, uncontested means he faced nobody.  No one.  Not a soul.)  Istook will now face Bert Smith, who defeated Harley Venters in their primary.

And now, what you've all been waiting for folks, those of you who aren't math majors at least, the big moment.  Will Ernest Istook overtake Tom Cole as the Oklahoma candidate to spend the most obscene amount of money on an uncontested political race?

Ernest Istook's $ to vote ratio for his convincing defeat of no rivals: $544,000/winning vote!!
Istook wins!  Istook wins!  Oklahoma's Fifth District is going crazy right now folks, cheering on the sheer greed of their money-hungry congressman, wondering why in Sam hell their elected representative needed so much money from rich folks ($463,000 who gave $1,000 or more) in order to win an uncontested election.  Oh there's bedlam!

--

Whew!  Sorry about that folks.  It just seems to me that those candidates who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary campaign contributions are doing their constituents a disservice.  Chances are these men have plenty of opportunities as Congressmen to speak to voters about the issues and to get out their message for what the best solutions are to the problems their constituents face.  These guys take in huge amounts of money, primarily from wealthy donors who can afford to give them more than $1,000, in order to dissuade any other candidates from running.  By doing this, candidates who might disagree with the political agenda of rich folks get locked out of the political system.  Candidates who might reflect a broader section of Oklahoman or American society are forced into quiet capitulation to the big money machine which drives American politics.  It ain't democracy, it ain't right.

If these Congressmen are serious about representing all their constituents, if they are serious about democracy, they will give back the hundreds of thousands of dollars they don't need.  And before the next elections, they will do everything they can to ensure that congressional candidates get free airtime with which to communicate their message to the people, and that big money does not buy the silence of the huge numbers of regular Americans who are currently frozen out of the political process.

Plutocracy

Oklahoma voters go to the polls today to vote in the primaries for state and national offices, including one U.S. Senate race and five U.S. House races.  At least, you'd think there were contested primaries for all five House seats if you looked at the money that's been raised. 

Despite the fact that four of the five 2004 Oklahoma Congressional races are either uncontested or will be blowouts, all five races raked in big bucks from big-time donors across the United States, pulling in over $5 million all told.  Of the $3,485,138 given to candidates by individual donors, the biggest individual donors - those who gave $1000 or more to a candidate - accounted for $2,067,484, according to our analysis of pre-primary FEC reports.

Check out the details at the above link for a detailed break down of $1,000 donors by zip code in the Oklahoma congressional races, as well as analysis of in-state/out-of-state contributions and big donor($200 or more)/smaller donor (less than $200) contributions by congressional race.

Tomorrow, check back to compare how much the candidates raised with how many votes they needed to win their primary.  My prediction: it won't be pretty.

The pols who rake in these boatloads of unneeded cash doubtless have a justification or two for pursuing it.  (Actually, it's probably their staffers who are left to spout the justifications while the pols work their 'victory' parties and shake the hands that feed them.)  Like so much in politics, these rationales are just so much hot air.

Plenty of ways exist for candidates to interact and communicate with voters that don't involve the huge sums of private money which currently distort our electoral process in favor of the rich.  Free airtime, public debates, voter guides, and publicly financed elections not only provide plenty of opportunities for a candidate to communicate their message, but also encourage candidates to actually discuss the issues and problems that we face as a state or country, rather than run campaigns like carnival hawkers or snake-oil peddlers.

Regular Americans deserve better government and better democracy than we're getting.  Unfortunately, the steps we must take to achieve these goals are not in the interest of the politicians, the political parties, or the people that prop them up financially.  WE must take these steps.  WE must band together to rid our elections of the corrupting influence of big money.  WE must raise our voice in opposition to the professional ruling class that wealthy interests would install above us.  And we should do so now, so that the next time elections roll around in Oklahoma, it is the interests of the many in Oklahoma that are served, not the few.

The $250,000 Gorilla

With the country's eyes on the Democratic Convention in Boston, where millions of corporate dollars being spent on parties for politicians, a story from Santa Rosa, CA serves as a nice reminder of how big money attempts to influence decisions at all levels of politics. 

In 2003, the citizens of Santa Rosa voted to ban fireworks in their city in response to a costly fire.  This past March, American Promotional Events (APE), a fireworks distributor, spent more than $250,000 in an effort to overturn the ban, helping to set a fundraising records for municipal elections in the county.  APE's contributions accounted for 90% of the money spent by opponents of the ban.  Despite this huge influx of corporate cash, voters upheld the ban by a 57 to 43 margin.

There's nothing wrong with citizens getting together to promote or oppose a policy or legislation, and spending some money in the process.   It is a problem though, when wealthy corporate interests can use their financial advantages to push an agenda that a citizen can't.  APE was able almost single-handedly to drive the issue back before the voters of Santa Rosa, whereas the average citizen or even twenty or a hundred average citizens could not have afforded to do so. 

Allowing corporations like APE to contribute unlimited sums in initiative campaigns creates a corporatocracy, not a democracy.  The obvious solution would be to institute contribution limits for initiatives and to disallow corporate contributions.  If the owners of a corporation want to give some money, they can do so to the same extent as the rest of us. 

Unfortunately, the rushed and ill-conceived reasoning of the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo continues to have far-reaching undemocratic effects.  Under its skewed logic, other courts have been unwilling to support efforts to regulate the huge amounts of money which so often flow into the initiative process.  Plenty of facts are in from states and localities all over the country to recognize that big money allows wealthy special interests to corrupt the otherwise democratic initiative process.  At the next opportunity, the Supreme Court should step up to the plate and right this wrong.