Ignorance and poverty, and the lack of material means generally, prevent people from exercising their rights and from taking advantage of [opportunities]. But rather than counting these and similar obstacles as restricting a person's liberty, we count them as affecting the worth of liberty, that is, the usefulness to persons of their liberties. ~ John Rawls
As it is an election year amidst the Great Recession, talk of the American plutocracy is very much in vogue. But to label the situation as unique belies centuries of history. A politico-economic class structure has long been an operative distorting force in American government; and long has the value of civic expression and democratic agency for the many been seen as dwarfed by the clout and privilege of a wealthy few.
Every American has the right to speak out, to express views, and to serve as an advocate for all manner of issues and prospective leaders. But having rights doesn't necessarily mean they're valuable, or even useful at all. At times, many ordinary Americans feel as though they're just shooting blanks -- electorally speaking of course -- and with each new doubter in the process a vicious cycle ensues; the discouraged classes grow more cynical and abandon the civic process altogether, while select special interests exploit and occupy the space left behind. Campaign finance can be dry stuff, but it is ignored at one's peril, as it is the current election funding regime -- and the perverse incentives it fosters -- that undergirds much of the integrity of our entire political structure and the policies it propounds.
American democracy is in an era defined by political and economic strife, where the calls for reform are desperate and often shrill. This is of little surprise. The flaws in the system are obvious when one looks to the lukewarm reforms over the past year in health care and financial regulation, and the altogether abandoned cap and trade effort -- all of which began with lofty promises, but ultimately pleased few when codified. It is a heady experience to think what would have come to pass had reforms already been in place two years ago to dilute the codependency between lawmakers and their benefactors. Millions of individual small donors helped usher Barack Obama into the White House. What if the same could be said for the 535 esteemed members of the United States Congress?
Of course, when the many are drowned out by a plutocratic few, the answer has always been to simply pile on more regulations, only to watch the courts inexorably shoot each down. Opponents of big government stand the line against opponents of big business, with each side exchanging the same stalemated arguments of corruption in government on the one hand and free speech on the other.
The 2008 Obama campaign made unprecedented gains in activating small donor participation through new media techniques that circumvented traditional barriers. But Organizing for America remains an exception, rather than the rule. While a full third of Obama's general election contributions came from donors who gave $200 or less, for John McCain and Hillary Clinton it was but a fifth. And in 2004, for George W. Bush and John Kerry, it was only a fourth and a fifth, respectively. In the meantime, 2009 saw over 13,000 registered lobbyists swarming the nation's Capitol with a record overall expenditure of $3.5 billion.
That same rate is on track to be repeated this year, with overall lobbying expenditures as of July 26 totaling $1.78 billion. In particular, lobbying expenditures by the health and financial industries have skyrocketed. Their tactics are well known. The IMF's Marcos Chamon and Stockholm University's Ethan Kaplan describe in their "Iceberg Theory of Campaign Contributions" how the bulk of special interest influence comes from undisclosed threats (made far more credible by the Citizens United ruling), rather than disclosed largess. We'll give a thousand bucks to your reelection campaign, but if we're not pleased with your vote, we'll give your challenger ten times that when reelection time rolls around.
Elections are expensive, and they aren't getting any cheaper. The average cost of winning a U.S. House seat tripled between 1986 and 2008, from $359,577 to $1,362,239, respectively. And in the Senate it jumped almost 50 percent between 1986 and 2006, from $6,025,962 to $9,435,839, respectively (with a slight dip back down in 2008 to $7,500,052). At the time of this writing, the total cost of the 2010 campaign season is already placed at just under $3 billion. In 2008, which included a historic presidential campaign, it capped out around $5.28 billion total.
But more important than the sheer numbers -- which are unprecedented in scale in American history -- is from whence the money hails. For all House candidates between 2007 and 2008, political action committees (PACs) and the wealthiest individual donors contributed, on average, about 70 percent of each campaign's total intake. And for all Congressional candidates between 2003 and 2006, individual small donors giving $200 or less amounted to an average of only 13 percent.
With such little monetary input from average lower- and middle-class Americans, it is little wonder that Congress consistently passes such ham-handed regulations and munificent subsidies for special interest industries. Harvard University's Lawrence Lessig has cataloged clear-cut examples in issue areas ranging from intellectual property law to nutrition to climate change where extant public policy runs counter to both scientific consensus and public opinion alike. There are laws and standards on the books that literally just do not make sense without a butcher's thumb on the scale. Consider a classic case: the American sugar industry. According to Chamon and Kaplan, "the [U.S.] sugar program led to a net gain of over one billion dollars to the sugar industry in 1998. However, the sugar industry's total campaign contributions in that election cycle were a mere $2.8 million, less than 0.3% of that net gain." The actual benefit of the subsidizing the largest American sugar producers remains unknown, but all those small farmers who have been effectively crowded out of the market presumably have a long list of grievances.
For many campaign finance reform activists, the prime (but so far unattainable) solution is to do away with electoral fundraising altogether, through a fully public funding regime at the federal level. With the burden of fund-raising gone, incumbents -- whose salary taxpayers pay anyway -- could spend their time actually governing and legislating for their constituents, rather than hosting $1,000 luncheons and groveling at the feet of the most pecunious lobbyist bundlers and donors. Campaigns would focus on actually speaking with voters about pertinent issues, rather than striking backroom deals.
Of course, this solution is easier said than done. Other than for the presidency, fully publicly funded elections have never enjoyed even remotely enough political support on the federal level. What incumbent senator or congressman would willingly break those lucrative ties he or she has forged over the years? Most measures that seek to control the flow of money into politics and elections are restrictive, and can easily be used to paint a politician as an enemy of business or free expression, rather than a battler of corruption. And why spoil that cushy job on Wall Street or K Street waiting for you after you leave public office?
Moreover, campaign finance regulations are not cut-and-dry protective measures that always benefit the little guy, such as consumer protection rules or FDA standards. They can often work against those they are meant to serve. The greater the complexity in campaign finance statutes, the harder it is for Average Joe to navigate the system. The unintended consequence is empowerment of the moneyed few that can still afford the overpriced beltway pettifogger who knows the ropes.
Follow Stuart Whatley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stuwhat84
United States Senate elections, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free ...
Election Projection: 2010 Elections - Polls, Projections, Results
RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls
The 2010 Election - U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives ...
Full 2010 Election Coverage and Political News - POLITICO.com
A Forecast of the 2010 House Election Outcome
CBS News Announces 2010 Campaign Team
Oklahoma primary election results 2010
Barbara Boxer's payback: Carly Fiorina (but not her hair) is "so yesterday ...
Mark Warner Surprises Organizing for America
Organizing for America Tries to Get the Vote Out for Kendrick Meek
I will say what nobody wants to say, but know where we are all going. The most important question we should be spending our time with is this:
How do you preserve individual freedoms and choice, and implement a pure communist system?
How long are the left and right going to go back and forth stacking weights on the balance before the balance itself cracks? This type of situation should make it apparent that the ends to capitalism are approaching. How can you justify a system as doable, where 5-25 percent of the workforce of a population does absolutely nothing? The rich class will not hire, either from new taxation laws implemented, or as punishment for electing Obama. Endless cause and effect. We have big government because of the ruling class!
As the working class rots away in the coming months after the unemployment extension runs out, your going to see and hear more and more about Marx and Rawls, whether you like it or not.
not every JACK ASS WHO THOUGHT HE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY that was niot the intentions of the freedom of speech and it even states where might immenant cause or danger where one would incite a riot or other civil dissturbances. We have let this misinterpretation got out of hand
Truly IMBUED
"it even states where might immenant cause or danger where one would incite a riot or other civil dissturbances. "
Can you send me your copy of the 1st? I can't seem to find that anywhere in the version I have.
Now you're catching on!
Current democratic candidates are rarely liberal or progressive when compared with past generations. The result is that they do not stand out because they have nothing to stand for except that they are a touch more moderate than the increasingly-loony far right. If we're not going to tax the super-rich, allow stem cell research, preserve social security, save the safety-net, or flat-out stop useless wars then we need new democrats with stronger spines.
What's missing from the debate is a liberal/progressive version of the Tea Party movement that can influence democratic party primaries and thus the entire party.
It's the fact that once in office they view themselves as en elected aristocracy, royalty in miniature. I work on K Street and the delusions of grandeur in even the former members of congress is earthshakingly apparent within a short time of meeting most of them.
"The average cost of winning a U.S. House seat tripled between 1986 and 2008, from $359,577 to $1,362,239, respectively. And in the Senate it jumped almost 50 percent between 1986 and 2006, from $6,025,962 to $9,435,839..."
Simple solution. ALL Campaign contributions to SPECIFIC candidates and/or organizations become illegal. Instead, each person in the US contributes 20.00 in tax money each year that goes into a general fund, divided equally between 636 elected officials in Washington. Lobbying becomes illegal, as well. People running would also NOT be allowed to use their own money to give them an unfair advantage. Once your allotted money runs out, you're done.
With 200 million taxpaying people in the US, that's 4 billion dollars to split. If the current season was 3.5 billion, then this gives them more to work with. 4 billion/636 = 6.3 million to spend per person. MORE than enough. Any residual money left over would be required to be given back, divided equally, and remitted back to taxpayers.
No undue influence since no one would know where the money came from. HEY! What a difference. Now IDEAS would be the important part instead of WHO gave money.
What irks me, then, is this: while it wasn't mentioned, I'm sure you meant that a Democrat and a Republican candidate, for each seat, gets the money. Are those the only ones eligible for funding? Or would you open up the field to Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, and so forth? Well then you're going to have to get more money or effectively criminalize parties other than those already ensconced in power. Must they get x% of the electorate to qualify? How will they ever do that when the Conscript Fathers choke out or absorb all competing ideas?
Yet I'll concede that idea. Have your Aristocracy if you will. You would compel, under the threat of force, each taxed American to fund candidates; and not only that, because one candidate is sure to lose, then in some districts a person is forced to fund the person they would otherwise not fund at all. In essence, you compel the person to fund candidates they don't want! Imagine having to foot the bill for John McCain when you want to support Obama! Is that Democracy?
Your idea reduces citizens to serfs, elevates politicians to Patriarchs, and violates the most basic tenets of natural rights and natural law.
Second point. If expressing your right to free speech is a function of how much money you have to give (your argument against "creating serfs), then it's not free speech at all.
Thirdly, I have a better idea. All campaign ads become free. Any candidate that passes the tests for becoming a candidate gets a certain number of hours on the air for nothing. No other airtime after that is allowed. That's the lion's share of the money anyway.
Politicians do not want to give up their position of power. To get elected or re-elected they need money, lots of it. Big corporations do not want to lose their influence and leverage over legislation and lawmakers. Since corporations are duty-bound by law to make a profit for their shareholders it is in their best interest to not only spend gobs of cash on wining and dining "friendly" politicians, but donate huge sums of money to get them elected or re-elected. Thus aided by the corporate-owned, profit-driven media along with the Roberts Court it is a win-win situation all around, with one exception: the Voice of the People.
Meanwhile as the argument republican vs democrat rages on America is fast turning into a corporatocracy.
So before democracy takes its last gasp of air and America is bought and sold like a commodity to the highest bidder let's have an honest debate.
Because what we should be fighting for is a contract between citizens not the powerful money-brokers and the weak.
I think we need to use the internet to try to create a better system of government that completely removes the politicians from the loop. I am absolutely serious. We have the internet. We could create an online system of government that is TOTALLY TRANSPARENT, down to the penny. Where *every law* is decided based on an open discussion that occurs online for the whole world to see, and is ultimately voted on by the people.
Of course, it would need to have it's own sort of first principles, like a constitution, to protect minority rights and prevent a tyranny of the majority.
I want the public to gather together and and at least discuss this *possibility* openly and publicly online at http://define.com, a non-profit website that has been set aside specifically for this purpose.
I know it's against the law to plot to overthrow the government, but we do have the right to free speech and it is within our rights to gather together, electronically, to discuss and design improvements to our democracy. As long as it's civilized, calm, non-violent, peaceful, voluntary, and doesn't grow so quickly as to cause a panic.
Beck's Restoring Honor Rally: Rate the Teabaggers! (PHOTOS)
I've lived in Argentina the last six years and here it is an obligation to vote. If you don't vote, you receive a fine. The last presidential election here pundits were bemoaning the fact that they only achieved 85% turnout. It was considered the lowest turnout in a generation.
What's more, voting day is a paid holiday, so no one has the excuse of having to work. A number of countries practice this method and it treats voting as a civic duty rather than a "right".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/26/kentucky-hate-crimes-gay_n_694717.html
I read that blog and then decided to search for the IKA and found what may have well been their organizing arm online, representing KY. even if they are in the column of "adult content", they can still be found by everyone, every age. So, here's the problem, there is no doubt that these groups should even be afforded the 1st amendment rights to free speech, but at the same time, when these violent acts are orchestrated from websites preaching the values of such attacks, I say NO MORE!! Would we allow a website whose origins were within our borders to be up for Al Qaeda? I don't think so.
It's time for congress to take action against these types of sites and to start regulating what is permissable online. Would I be willing to give up some of my own rights for the greater good? YES!
We're traveling into some dark terroritory here and I won't sit back idly and watch as our children are targeted by online predators, or hate groups. It's time to take a stand against online tyranny.
who would you put in charge of restricting what you can do online? i dont think there is anybody, public or private who i would trust to say what is permissible to do or say online. unless you want to live in iran or china they already practice what you preach. that is the downside to freedom. it lets the worst among us act with the same rights as the best of us. freedom is messy but well worth it.