VOTING MATTERS

ABSTRACT: Election Day is just over a week away. Although it’s easy to look at the dysfunction in Washington and the huge amounts of money being spent on campaigns and feel that voting and participating in the election doesn’t matter, that would be wrong. There will be lots of close elections this year all across the country – both for elected officials and for citizen’s initiatives that will be on the ballot. There are vested interests, usually corporations and wealthy individuals, and in many cases the Republicans have been their allies, who are trying to keep or discourage people from voting. Therefore, it is important to get out and vote, and to encourage others to do so, to send a message that these efforts to suppress voting, which are blatantly anti-democratic, won’t work.

There are many good candidates and important citizens’ initiatives on the ballot that deserve and need our votes. Even if there aren’t candidates or ballot questions that are important to vote for in your district, you can make phone calls to encourage people to vote (in your district or others) and you can donate money to out-of-your-district candidates that share your views or to organizations that support your views. If you want to support progressive candidates, an easy way to do so is through the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) at http://boldprogressives.org/. Move On.org is another, similar organization that you can support through donations, signing their petitions on a range of issues, or supporting out-of-your-district candidates through them: http://front.moveon.org/.

This is going to be a close election at the local level and nationally. The implications for our democracy are extremely significant. We need to send a message to our politicians that we, the voters, are the voice of democracy and that we want government that works. They need to know that we want them to represent our interests, not those of large corporations and the very wealthy.

FULL POST: Election Day is just over a week away. Although it’s easy to look at the dysfunction in Washington and the huge amounts of money being spent on campaigns and feel that voting and participating in the election doesn’t matter, that would be wrong.

There will be lots of close elections this year all across the country – both for elected officials and for citizen’s initiatives that will be on the ballot – where a few voters will make all the difference. The results in these races will matter. Moreover, there are vested interests, usually corporations and wealthy individuals, and in many cases the Republicans have been their allies, who are trying to keep or discourage people from voting. They do so because they know that their supporters will vote and the lower they can keep the voter turnout, the more likely they are to win.

They work to keep voting down in two main ways. First, they enact laws and voting procedures that make it harder to vote. These voting barriers primarily affect low income and minority voters. They also disproportionately affect seniors and women. These groups are more likely to vote for progressive politicians and policies, as well as for Democrats. Therefore, these wealthy and corporate interests want to reduce voting by people in these groups. [1] [2] [3]

Second, the wealthy and corporate interests engage in massive funding of negative campaign ads. These discourage voters and make them cynical. They also introduce doubts into voters’ minds about good candidates. The huge number of these negative ads and their repetition drowns out other information and shifts voters’ perceptions even when the message presented is distorted or false. This applies to ballot questions as well as candidates.

Therefore, it is important to get out and vote, and to encourage others to do so, simply to send a message that these efforts to suppress voting, which are blatantly anti-democratic, won’t work. The higher the voter turnout, the closer we are to having the true democracy that is America’s ideal.

There are many good candidates on the ballot that deserve and need our votes. In some cases, it may not be an ideal candidate, but there often are significant differences between the candidates, nonetheless. There also are important citizens’ initiatives or questions on the ballot that will make important policy changes. [4]

Even if there aren’t candidates or ballot questions that are important to vote for in your district, there are two things you can do to help candidates in other districts, if you are so motivated. You can make phone calls to encourage people to vote (i.e., get out the vote or GOTV calls) in your district or others. These are very important because without a Presidential election on the ballot turnout tends to be low, and, as I mentioned above, there are active efforts to keep and discourage people from voting. Therefore, encouragement to get out and vote can make a difference.

The other thing you can do is donate money to out-of-your-district candidates that share your views or to organizations that support your views. Any amount helps. If many people give just $5.00, it can add up to a significant amount.

If you want to support progressive candidates – what some people are referring to as the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party – an easy way to do so is through the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) at http://boldprogressives.org/. Key issues for PCCC are taking back our democracy from wealthy individuals and corporations, expanding Social Security, fixing Wall St., and addressing the burden of student loan debt. If you click on the collage of four faces at the top of their web page, you will get a list of candidates they support. You can easily decide which ones you’d like to support and how much to contribute (as little as $3). If you click on the Call Out The Vote box right next to the faces, you’ll be given information on how you can make GOTV calls.

Move On.org is another organization that you can support through donations, signing their petitions on a range of issues, or supporting out-of-your-district candidates through them: http://front.moveon.org/. They support issues and candidates that are similar to those of PCCC.

This is going to be a close election at the local level and nationally. The implications for our democracy are extremely significant. We need to send a message to our politicians that we, the voters, are the voice of democracy and that we want government that works. They need to know that we want them to represent our interests, not those of large corporations and the very wealthy.

[1]       Moyers, B., 10/24/14, “The Fight — and the Right — to Vote,” Moyers & Company (http://billmoyers.com/episode/fight-right-vote/)

[2]       Boston Globe Editorial, 10/18/14, “Voter ID laws: Study proves the obvious,” The Boston Globe

[3]       Dubose, L., 9/1/14, “The party of Lincoln takes aim at Black voters,” The Washington Spectator

[4]       Hightower, J., Oct. 2014, “Election 2014: A politics that matters is bubbling up,” The Hightower Lowdown (http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/)

HOLDER’S FAILURE AT JUSTICE

ABSTRACT: As Attorney General Eric Holder leaves office, one of his legacies will be his Department of Justice’s (DOJ) treatment of the major banks and financial corporations. Of particular note is the failure to prosecute any of the senior officers at the banks and financial corporations that caused the 2008 financial collapse. Bill Black calls this “the greatest strategic failure in the history of the Department of Justice.” This lack of prosecution leaves the management in place at these huge corporations. When dishonest people and their illegal activity produce success, they and their organizations have a competitive advantage. As a result, their bad ethics drive good ethics out of the market place.

In the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, over 1,000 bankers were convicted of criminal activity, even though this crisis was less than one-tenth the size of the 2008 crisis. The civil fines and penalties that the financial corporations have paid for their fraudulent activities that caused the 2008 crash were not sufficiently large to put a real dent in their multi-billion dollar revenues and profitability. Furthermore, the costs of these fines and penalties were not borne by the senior executives, but by the shareholders and the taxpayers (given that they typically were deducted from revenue as a cost of doing business and therefore reduced profits and taxes on them). The executives got to keep all their compensation and bonuses, despite their being based on profits generated from illegal activity.

The lack of criminal prosecutions is even more astounding when one looks at the repeated engagement in illegal activity that was widespread among this handful of very large financial corporations and the collusion among them.

The relationship between Wall St. and our federal government, including regulators and legislators, is built on campaign contributions, lobbyists, and the revolving door. This cozy relationship serves Wall Street’s interests rather than the public interest and will be hard to break. Bill Black says to Bill Moyers, “there’s never going to be a decisive victory against power and money and finance. We have to fight. Every generation has to engage in this struggle.”

FULL POST: As Attorney General Eric Holder leaves office, one of his legacies will be his Department of Justice’s (DOJ) treatment of the major banks and financial corporations. Of particular note is the failure to prosecute any of the senior officers at the banks and financial corporations that caused the 2008 financial collapse. In addition, the fines and penalties paid by these huge corporations, although large in dollar amounts, were not large enough to have any meaningful effect.

Bill Black calls this “the greatest strategic failure in the history of the Department of Justice.” He should know. He is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and was a bank regulator intimately involved with the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. [1] He recently appeared on Bill Moyers’ TV show and this post summarizes their conversation. [2]

The lack of prosecution of the financial corporations’ senior officers leaves them in charge of these huge corporations. Furthermore, they now know that there are no bad consequences for them for massive fraud and repeated illegal behavior. When dishonest people and their illegal activity produce success, they and their organizations have a competitive advantage. As a result, their bad ethics drive good ethics out of the market place. Enforcement of the rule of law is essential to protecting not just consumers, but also to incentivizing honest and ethical people and behavior. Prosecuting the executives of banks and financial institutions that engaged in massive fraud and illegal activity would have important, positive effects on accountability and deterrence.

In the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, President George H.W. Bush and his administration were committed to cleaning up the mess they inherited. As a result, over 1,000 bankers were convicted of criminal activity, even though this crisis was less than one-tenth the size of the 2008 crisis. Among other things, this ensured that these individuals would never lead a financial institution again because of their criminal records.

President Obama and his administration focused instead on ensuring the stability of the huge financial corporations. They avoided prosecutions of individuals even though it is unlikely that such prosecutions would have had much impact on the corporations. Many members of the Obama administration, including Holder and Treasury Secretary Geithner, had come to the administration through the revolving door from the industry or roles where they had close relationships with the industry. In addition, President Obama received very large amounts in campaign contributions from Wall Street, with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon as a leading contributor and fundraiser. Many people believe that without this big money from Wall Street Obama would have lost the primary to Hillary Clinton or that he might have lost the final election to John McCain.

The civil fines and penalties that the financial corporations have paid for their fraudulent activities that caused the 2008 crash were not sufficiently large to put a real dent in their multi-billion dollar revenues and profitability. This is consistent with the Obama administration’s overall approach of putting the stability of these corporations first. Furthermore, the costs of these fines and penalties were not borne by the senior executives, but by the shareholders and the taxpayers (given that they typically were deducted from revenue as a cost of doing business and therefore reduced profits and taxes on them). The executives got to keep all their compensation and bonuses, despite their being based on profits generated from illegal activity. Moreover, the civil settlements did not prohibit these financial corporations from continuing to engage in the lines of business where they had engaged in fraudulent and illegal activity. The settlements either explicitly or implicitly granted all the senior executives immunity from prosecution, ensuring that lower level executives’ testimony against senior executives could not be leveraged through individual offers of immunity or leniency for cooperation with prosecutors (as was done in the Enron case, for example).

The lack of criminal prosecutions is even more astounding when one looks at the repeated engagement in illegal activity that was widespread among this handful of very large financial corporations, and the fact that the illegal activities often required collusion among them. Over the last 10 years, these illegal activities have included:

  • Encouraging home owners to take on fraudulently underwritten and financially unviable mortgages
  • Knowingly selling those toxic mortgages to investors (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) while fraudulently vouching for their quality
  • Fraudulently foreclosing on hundreds of thousands of home owners
  • Rigging the Libor interest rate that is used to price trillions of dollars of securities
  • Rigging bond prices and the underwriting of the issuing of bonds, and
  • Laundering money for viciously violent drug cartels, terrorist groups, and countries that had been officially banned from financial transactions as state sponsors of terrorism

The relationship between Wall St. and our federal government, including regulators and legislators, is built on campaign contributions, lobbyists, and the revolving door. This cozy relationship serves Wall Street’s interests rather than the public interest and will be hard to break, especially given the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and other decisions that allow huge amounts of money from corporations and their wealthy senior executives to flow into our political campaigns. Bill Black says to Bill Moyers, “there’s never going to be a decisive victory against power and money and finance. We have to fight. Every generation has to engage in this struggle.” The corporations live forever and their thirst for profits will never stop. Therefore, they will continually work to subvert our democracy and its laws to serve their interests unless we and our elected representatives are continually vigilant and fight back.

[1]       William K. Black was formerly the litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board from 1984 to 1986, deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) in 1987, senior vice president and general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco from 1987 to 1989, and senior deputy chief counsel of the Office of Thrift Supervision.

[2]       Moyers, B., with Black, W.K., 10/3/14, “Too Big to Jail?” Moyers and Company (http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-big-jail/)

WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS WE FACE

ABSTRACT: Our country has important problems that need to be addressed. Not only aren’t they being addressed, but serious proposals (let alone efforts) to address them are not even on the table for discussion. These problems include:

  • Stagnating wages and a stagnating economy;
  • Corporations doing very well but employees losing ground and unemployment stubbornly high;
  • Parents working but their families struggling to make ends meet; and
  • Public infrastructure crumbling and public education suffering cuts.

From 1900 through the 1970s, our national government responded to these kinds of problems and challenges with job and infrastructure programs, support for families and the unemployed, labor laws, corporate regulation, and investments in education. Grassroots movements improved opportunities and justice for minorities and women.

Not everything was perfect and ultimate solutions were often not achieved, but real progress was made. The public had confidence that our country was on a path that would lead to better lives for the next generation.

Today, at a national level and in many states, our growing problems and the lack of serious discussion of solutions (let alone action) has left many of us skeptical about the future and cynical about government. To turn this around, we need strong, bold, and uncommon leaders, and an energized citizenry that is politically informed and engaged.

I encourage you to find a way to contribute to this effort. It will take small contributions from everyone and big contributions from some of us to get our country back on track.

FULL POST: Our country has important problems that need to be addressed. Not only aren’t they being addressed, but serious proposals (let alone efforts) to address them are not even on the table for discussion. [1]

Wages have been stagnant for the middle and working class for 30 years, yet even an increase in the minimum wage to reflect inflation is blocked in Congress. Corporations have record profits and stock prices, yet employees’ pay and benefits are falling. Corporations continue to move jobs overseas and hire increasing numbers of part-time employees or consultants to whom they give few benefits and no job security. Nonetheless, efforts to reign in corporations’ and executives’ power are rare. And strengthening workers’ and shareholders’ voices through unions and greater corporate democracy is barely mentioned.

Most parents, even those with young children, are in the workforce now; a dramatic change from the 1950s when most mothers stayed home with children. Yet our supports for working parent are limited and have not improved since 2000, despite declining economic security and stability for families.

Our public infrastructure – our roads, bridges, and public buildings including schools and courthouses – is crumbling but there’s no serious discussion, let alone effort, to address this problem. We face catastrophic effects from global climate change, from more severe storms and weather patterns to rising sea level, yet our only response is disaster relief.

Our public education system (including K-12, higher education, and early childhood education) is suffering from funding cuts. Tremendous inequities are present in educational opportunity and outcomes. Gaps based on race, ethnicity, and native language have shrunk a bit but remain wide; gaps based on class are growing. Students partaking of higher education are taking on unprecedented and crushing debt to do so. And afterward they face a job market with high unemployment and limited opportunities. Our efforts to reduce unemployment and provide assistance to those who are unemployed are inadequate and are major contributors to a stagnant economy.

In the period from 1900 through the 1970s, including the Great Depression, our national government responded to these kinds of problems and challenges. The New Deal, large-scale jobs programs, and the World War II mobilization provided jobs, supported families and the unemployed, and built infrastructure. Labor laws were passed that addressed pay, work hours, and safety issues and supported workers in organizing to balance employers’ power and obtain fair wages and working conditions. Corporations were regulated through anti-monopoly laws and safety regulations. In the 1930s and 1940s, new laws reformed the financial system and prevented another financial and economic crash until after their repeal in the 1980s and 1990s. In the 1960s, we engaged in a War on Poverty.

Investments in education from kindergarten through college produced a better educated and more productive workforce. Public higher education was practically free up until the 1980s. The civil rights movement and the women’s movement led to substantial national legislation and action that improved rights and opportunities for minorities and women.

Not everything was perfect and ultimate solutions were often not achieved, but real progress was made. The public had confidence that our country was on a path that would lead to better lives for the next generation.

Today, at a national level and in many states, our growing problems and the lack of serious discussion of solutions (let alone action) has left many of us skeptical about the future and cynical about government. To restore the optimism of the public, to realize the promise of democracy, and to address the problems we face, we will need two things: strong, bold, and uncommon leaders, and an energized citizenry that is politically informed and engaged. We see these key elements of change in the history of the labor movement, the Progressive Era, the civil rights movement, the War on Poverty, and the women’s movement. We need such activism and energy again today to get our great country back on track. I encourage you to find a way to contribute to this effort. It will take small contributions from everyone and big contributions from some of us to get our country back on track.

In my next post, I will share examples of leadership and citizen activism from the local level that are addressing important problems. Given the current level of dysfunction in the federal government, near-term efforts to tackle these issues will probably have to occur at the local and state levels.

[1]       Kuttner, R., 9/30/14, “In political system disconnected from society’s ills, remedies pushed to fringes of public debate,” The American Prospect (Much of this post is a summary of Kuttner’s article.)