Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has joined a small but important group of business leaders who believe it right to use their personal influence to make government work better. In a letter to colleagues and friends, Schultz pledged to end his contributions to political campaigns "until [politicians] strike a bipartisan, balanced long-term debt deal that addresses both entitlements and revenues." He also pledged on behalf of Starbucks to "hire and accelerate employment." Both pledges flow from an obviously deeply felt view that something profoundly wrong has happened to our government and nation. His efforts -- like the efforts of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- are not first steps in a political campaign. They are the actions of decent citizens trying to make a society better.
Schultz is right that something profoundly bad has happened to American politics. He is also right to tie that profound bad to the endless addiction that our elected officials have to campaign cash. We have entered a time when politicians like Republican Scott Brown are not even embarrassed to argue that while programs like Medicare and Social Security must be on the budget chopping block, subsidies to big oil (a contributor to Scott Brown) should not. Or when Democrat Xavier Becerra, appointed to the "super Congress" that will have extraordinary power to make spending and revenue budget decisions, doesn't think twice about cashing in on his newly-found power by touting it in a fundraising letter to DC lobbyists. (Update: Congressman Becarra writes that he "did not know, did not ask, would not ask and I will not ask any of my supporters to use my appointment to the select committee for purposes outside its principle focus." Bravo.) Or when Congress, in the middle of two wars, a recession, a jobs crisis, and an impending government shutdown, spends most of its attention on whether "swipe fees" for debit cards should be higher (banks win) or lower (retailers win). Why would it do that? Because of course, both sides in that fight are only too eager to shower the not-yet-wooed Members with endless campaign cash. In context after context, the priorities and sensibilities of this Congress are queered by its perpetual addiction to campaign funds. Nothing in Washington will change until we change this.
But however right his motivation, Schultz's pledge to withhold campaign dollars until Congress agrees on a budget won't fix this mess. No doubt, you can get an addict to clean up the garage by withholding his fix until he is done. But that won't help the addict end his addiction. The same with our cash-addicted-Congress: What reformers like Schultz need to do is to use their power to get Congress to end its addiction, by pushing for reforms that would make it possible for government to act sanely and independently of special interest funders.
That was the objective of Arnold Hiatt (former CEO of Stride Rite) and Alan Hassenfeld (former Chairman of Hasbro, Inc.) when they launched a similar campaign just last year, by writing (PDF) to the largest campaign funders, and asking them to withhold funds from any candidate who didn't pledge to support the Fair Elections Now Act -- a bill that would give candidates the chance to opt out of special interest funding, and into a voluntary system that would limit campaign contributions to $100, with each contribution matched 4 to 1 by the government. Their letter convinced scores of large funders -- including producer and director J.J. Abrams, Edgar Bronfman Jr., CEO of Warner Music, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, and Vin Ryan, Chairman of Schooner Capital -- to withhold campaign contributions from special interest candidates. It also inspired thousands of smaller contributors to make a similar pledge.
The Hiatt/Hassenfeld strategy uses the leverage of campaign contributions to change the system for funding campaigns. It doesn't withhold the fix. It ends the addiction. There are any number of important causes that powerful souls like Schultz could organize funder strikes around -- bank reform, health care reform, tax reform, global warming legislation -- for our current Congress can't address any of these issues sensibly because special interests always block change. But far better is a strategy to change the environment within which these special interests can always block change. That was Hiatt and Hassenfeld's objective -- an objective that Schultz's approach cannot achieve.
Schultz could fix this flaw by adding an escape clause to his current pledge. Let contributors promise not to give unless Congress strikes a deal or a candidate pledges to funding reform. Let this powerful movement produce something permanent, rather than a single victory in an endless tale of defeat.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil," wrote Thoreau in Walden, "to one striking at the root." We need souls like Schultz to be that one, striking at the root, if the efforts of the thousands are ever to have an effect.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
There should be no money in politics, especially on the campaign. Campaign advertising should be illegal. Only debates and speeches should be shown in public media, with all available information being completely dry and straightforward. Candidates' statements should be rigorously reviewed and held up to to the light of fact and research. This is about the only way I can imagine weeding out the people who desire power from the people who deserve power.
Since America's Orwellian World refuses to inform the people about those RBBR'S it is time the blogging world got busy spreading the word.
Here is an accurate breakdown of the U.S. Congress:
1. One third of the U.S. Congress has honest, hardworking, outstanding public servants and they do not sell their votes because they really believe they should be representing the best interests of the American people.
2. One third of the U.S. Congress has always been in the pay of the Robber Barons and can be bought cheap.
3. The other third are no dummies and know the going RBBR's on any vital issue and of course if you are a congressional or senate chairperson or any run of the mill Senator your vote always brings in the big buckies!!! and of course the promise of millions in income working for these Robber Barons after they leave the U.S. Congress is one of the best vote getters of all!!!
The Robber Barons know exactly how many U.S. Senators to bribe to keep the public option out of those health care bills (swindle bills) and prevent anything else they don't like from passing. Sad isn't it!!! and anyone who says America is still a Republic is either a liar, a fool or totally deceived.
I have a better idea Mr Lessing. How about we all stop mindlessly voting for candidates with flashy, expensive, and intensely vulgar (re)electiÂon campaigns and start voting third party / independenÂt who spend far, far less money on their campaigns. At bottom of it isn't the pols who are addicted to campaign finance money, it's the electorate who are addicted to fancy, gee-whiz, who-can-spÂend-the-moÂst-money campaigns.
Vote third-partÂy or independenÂt. Vote LibertariaÂn.
Perhaps HuffPO will find some guts and provide reportage on how one party has hijacjked US political journalism such that all they ever have to do is reflexively say "both sides are bad" while ignoring the reality that in fact only one party in this era is obstructionist and intransigent pretty much always. I hate 5bucks anyway, and can take or leave Whole Foods. So now I will refrain from patronizing either. Claiming that both sides are at fault is a myth, based on a poor grasp of simple fact and chronology.
Holding back financial support from both sides is likely not to work as too many people like yourself are dead set on getting their side to win and will continue to reward bad behavior of both parties by giving them money.
Gather together a million like-minded souls and jam the halls of Congress permanently with people vowing to sit there until what was once quaintly called "bribery" is outlawed.
"Give a politician money, go to jail." That should be the goal.
I LOVE that he is withholding campaign contributions.
Seriously.
For all the complaining about not paying a cent more in taxes, instead, the money goes to humungus campaign contributions instead of our country.
I personally think all lobbying needs to stop. Our representatives don't even have time to read laws, and with so much POWER - like a teenager to a parent nagging for the car - these Lobbyists just drum their beat over and over and over until our representatives clearly lost touch with the rest of citizens who don't have a lobbyist.
I like the point the article makes about the pledge but sadly, these addicts may need instead some tough love until all lobbying is ended.
If Corporations are Citizens, let them write a letter to their representatives like everyone else.
-Public financing of all campaigns
-Shortening the election campaign cycle
-Banning of television campaign advertisements
-Banning of of electronic voting machines (paper ballots)
-Removal of rules/laws that cause voter disenfranchisement...
Schultz's whine does not get to the root of anything. And he appears serious. I think Schultz is a real plus in american business, but this ain't it. He's simply doing a soft shoe.
I suggest that we get rid of the demand side, or at least control it. What if Congress enacted election laws, at least at the Federal Level that restricted Campaign SPENDING, to say, five times the annual salary of the position being sought.
The relatively severe funding strictures would require the candidate to spend the majority of his or her funding on travel. Debates would become critically important, along with meeting constituents. Candidates would HAVE to accept any interview opportunities, from whatever media would talk with them. Negative campaigning would be far to expensive, and the PAC attack ads would become just background noise. I'd support a rally that encompasses left, right and center for this, and I believe it is one thing that all voters could support. National and State Parties could be the source for the funds, but the candidates would be limited, by law, to a rational expenditure.
We're chatting because Howard sells fine coffee rather than cheap shoes and toys. It's always about what sells. I agree with the professor.