PROGRESSIVE SUCCESSES IN THE 2014 ELECTION

ABSTRACT: Perhaps surprisingly, in the context of Republican and conservative candidates’ victories in the 2014 election, many ballot initiatives that were decidedly liberal or progressive passed. Democrats running clearly progressive campaigns for the US Senate won in 3 states. The Republican victories in many very close races were made possible by very low voter turnout. Only 35% of those registered to vote and 25% of those eligible to vote actually voted.

Voters in four Republican states – Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska and South Dakota – raised the minimum wage despite concerted and well-funded opposition. In Richmond, California, progressives defeated mayoral and city council candidates heavily funded by Chevron, the nation’s third largest corporation. In Arkansas, despite a sweep by Republican candidates, a ballot initiative passed that reformed campaign finance and ethics laws. In Tallahassee, Florida, voters also approved reforms in campaign finance and ethics laws. In dozens of communities in four states (Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio), voters overwhelmingly favored ballot measures supporting a federal constitutional amendment that would state that corporations do not have the same rights as human persons and that money is not equivalent to speech and therefore can be regulate in election campaigns.

This all makes it clear that Republican candidates’ election victories do not reflect public opinion on many important policy issues. Rather, they were the result of a failure of many Democrats to campaign on popular progressive policies. Furthermore, the election outcomes reflect Republicans’ successes in changing the rules of our elections to suppress voter turnout and allow the spending of huge sums by wealthy corporations and individuals.

FULL POST: Perhaps surprisingly, in the context of Republican and conservative candidates’ victories in the 2014 election, many ballot initiatives that were decidedly liberal or progressive passed – sometimes even in the same jurisdictions that were electing conservatives. Furthermore, Democrats running for the US Senate who ran some of the most clearly progressive campaigns won: Senator Jeff Merkley (Democrat of Oregon), Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), and incoming Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

The Republican victories in many very close races were made possible by very low voter turnout – the lowest since 1942 – which favors Republicans and conservatives. Only 35% of those registered to vote and 25% of those eligible to vote actually voted. In the Congressional elections, Republicans won 52% of the vote, which represents only 17% of those registered to vote and 13% of those eligible to vote. [1] Hardly a mandate by normal standards. The Republican’s large majority in the US House is largely due to extreme gerrymandering of House districts.

Despite the context, every major progressive or Democratic ballot initiative won, even in Republican states. Every minimum wage increase won and every personhood amendment failed (CO & ND). (These are amendments to state Constitutions that confer personhood and all its rights on embryos at fertilization.) [2] Across the nation, voters also passed measures against fracking, for paid sick leave, for criminal justice sentencing reform, and for gun purchase background checks. [3]

Voters in four Republican states – Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska and South Dakota – raised the minimum wage against the concerted and well-funded opposition of national and local big business groups. This will raise the pay levels for over 1.7 million workers. Alaska and South Dakota linked the minimum wage to inflation, so it will increase automatically in the future. San Francisco and Oakland voters also overwhelmingly increased the minimum wage in those cities. Illinois voters strongly supported a non-binding referendum to raise the minimum wage.

In Richmond, California, progressives defeated mayoral and city council candidates funded by Chevron, the nation’s third largest corporation. Chevron, which owns a huge refinery in the city, poured at least $3 million into the local elections in this working class city of 105,000 people (about $150 for each likely voter). It sought to oust a progressive local government that was requiring it to clean up its pollution, pay more taxes into city coffers, and be a more responsible and accountable corporate citizen. Wall St. corporations also participated in the attempt to throw out the progressives because the city government, faced with a decade of predatory lending and an epidemic of foreclosures and “underwater” mortgages, demanded that Wall Street banks help troubled homeowners save their homes. In the election, community groups, labor unions, the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), and others mobilized a grassroots campaign to re-elect a progressive city government. [4]

A California ballot initiative reformed sentencing laws and one in Washington State expanded criminal background checks for gun purchases. In Arizona, voters defeated a right wing attempt to undermine public employee pensions. In Denton, Texas, the heart of oil and gas country, voters banned fracking, the controversial drilling method for extracting gas from rock formations.

In Arkansas, despite a sweep by Republican candidates, a ballot initiative passed that reformed campaign finance and ethics laws. It bans direct corporate and union campaign contributions to candidates, forbids lawmakers from accepting gifts of any kind from lobbyists, and increases the amount of time departing lawmakers must wait before lobbying from one to two years.

In Tallahassee, Florida, voters overwhelmingly approved an anti-corruption initiative limiting campaign contributions, creating a $25 tax rebate for small contributions, and boosting ethics reforms by creating an ethics panel and a tough conflict-of-interest policy for city officials. In dozens of communities in four states (Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio), voters overwhelmingly favored ballot measures supporting a federal constitutional amendment overturning Supreme Court decisions including Citizens United and McCutcheon. The amendment would state that corporations do not have the same rights as human persons and that money is not equivalent to speech and therefore can be regulated in election campaigns. [5]

This all makes it clear that Republican candidates’ election victories do not reflect public opinion on many important policy issues. Rather, they were the result of a failure of many Democrats to campaign on popular progressive policies. Furthermore, the election outcomes reflect Republicans’ successes in changing the rules of our elections to favor big business and conservative interest groups by suppressing voter turnout and allowing the spending of huge sums by wealthy corporations and individuals. [6]

[1] Murphthesurf3, 11/20/14, “GOP columnist: The VERY bad news for the GOP in the GOP’s midterm victory,” The Daily Kos

[2] Ladd, C., 11/10/14, “The missing story of the 2014 election,” Houston Chronicle

[3] Dreier, P., 11/7/14, “Progressive Midterm Victories You Didn’t Hear About — And Some That Could Still Happen,” The American Prospect

[4] Dreier, P., 11/7/14, see above

[5] Blumenthal, P., 11/14/14, “Where campaign finance reformers actually won on election day,” The Huffington Post

[6] Dreier, P., 11/7/14, see above

2014 ELECTION RETROSPECTIVE PART 1: THE MONEY

ABSTRACT: In the 2014 election, the influx and impact of huge amounts of money was clearly evident and the growth of “dark money” – money where the actual contributor is unknown – was a very significant factor. This was the most expensive non-presidential election ever – estimated at $3.7 billion. Outside spending, that is money not spent by the candidates’ campaigns themselves but by supposedly independent groups and the political parties, was more than the spending by the candidates themselves for the first time. This means that accountability for much of what’s said during campaigns no longer rests with the candidates. One facet of this is that a predominant portion of the ads paid for by outside money are negative ads that attack a candidate. These campaign practices undermine both the functioning of and the faith in our democracy.

Roughly a billion dollars was spent on the 36 US Senate races alone – an average of about $30 million each. In the 11 most competitive races for the US Senate, $342 million of non-party outside money was spent with $203 million of this (59%) being “dark money” where the true donor is unknown. The typical contribution to the 5 largest non-party outside spending entities that disclose donors was over $100,000.

The real money story of this election was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors. By super-sizing contributions that benefit specific candidates, the likelihood of corruption escalates because elected officials are pressured to repay big donors after the election.

The results of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and other decisions couldn’t be clearer. Hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors are flooding our elections. Very wealthy donors are contributing millions of dollars. There is very strong evidence that this money is influencing who wins our elections, because the candidate supported by the most money usually wins. This was true for 94% of US House races and 82% of US Senate races in 2014.

There is also strong evidence that our Congress returns the favor by supporting the wealthy interests that funded their elections and put them in office – to the detriment of the middle and working classes. We need look no further than Wall St. to see the evidence: corporate profits, stock prices, CEO pay, and investors’ wealth have never been higher. Yet, the middle and working class still struggle to make ends meet.

This is not democracy. We need to reverse the Supreme Court’s decisions through a Constitutional Amendment. In the meantime we need much stronger disclosure laws for campaign spending so we know who is trying to influence our votes. More on this next time.

FULL POST: In the 2014 election, the influx and impact of huge amounts of money was clearly evident and the growth of “dark money” – money where the actual contributor is unknown – was a very significant factor.

In this post, I will review the role of money in the 2014 national election. In a subsequent post, I’ll identify ways we can address the corrupting and undemocratic flow of huge sums of money into our elections. Further analysis of the 2014 election in future posts will cover some state and local elections results, as well as the success of progressive candidates and ballot initiatives (despite the general, national success of “conservative” and Republican candidates).

This was the most expensive non-presidential campaign ever – estimated at $3.7 billion. Outside spending, that is money not spent by the candidates’ campaigns themselves but by supposedly independent groups and the political parties, was more than the spending by the candidates themselves for the first time. This means that accountability for much of what’s said during campaigns no longer rests with the candidates. They can – and do – say that they have no control over the outside groups. With increasing amounts of outside spending, and especially the growth of spending by groups that do not have to disclose contributors, accountability for and constraints on what is said vanish. One facet of this is that a predominant portion of the ads paid for by outside money are negative ads that attack a candidate. This tends to discourage people from voting and lowers their opinions of our elected officials and government. These campaign practices undermine both the functioning of and the faith in our democracy.

Roughly a billion dollars was spent on the 36 US Senate races alone – an average of about $30 million each. North Carolina’s Senate race was the most expensive ever with $116 million spent, including $84 million of outside spending – which shattered the previous outside spending record of $52 million. Spending on the 10 most expensive US House races averaged over $16 million each. [1]

In the 11 most competitive races for the US Senate, [2] $342 million in non-party outside money was spent, plus $89 million from the political parties. The non-party, outside spending on just these 11 races is one-third more than the outside spending on all 33 Senate races in 2012. Of the $342 million of non-party outside money, $203 million (59%) was “dark money” where the true donor is unknown. And this “dark money” may have tipped these elections, as winners of these races received twice as much “dark money” as the losers. For the 8 Republican winners, an average of 78% of their non-party, outside money was “dark money.” [3]

Non-party outside spending is NOT funded by regular voters. The typical contribution to the 5 largest non-party outside spending entities that disclose donors was over $100,000. For sake of comparison, this is more than the average household income in the US, which is $73,000. Of the top 20 outside spending groups, which together spent over $300 million, 7 provide no disclosure of donors, 5 provide partial disclosure, and only 8 provide full disclosure (2 of which are the national parties). [4]

To get an idea of the huge amounts these large donors give:

The top 20 individual donors to outside groups gave an average of $8.4 million each, while
The top 20 organizations donating to outside groups gave an average of $5.8 million each.

All told, these two groups of 40 donors gave a combined $284.7 million, which far exceeds the projected spending of either of the national parties. [5]

This election documented again that money is a deciding factor. When “conservative” outside groups outspent “liberal” groups, the “conservative,” i.e., Republican, candidate won every time. [6] However, the real money story of this election was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors. [7]

A particular type of outside spending that is of special concern is candidate-specific super PACs. Big donors are using these groups to evade limits on contributions directly to candidates. By super-sizing contributions that benefit specific candidates, the likelihood of corruption escalates because elected officials are pressured to repay big outside donors after the election. [8]

As others have said, we have the best Congress money can buy. There is also strong evidence that our Congress returns the favor by supporting the wealthy interests that funded their elections and put them in office – to the detriment of the middle and working classes. We need look no further than Wall St. to see the evidence: corporate profits, stock prices, CEO pay, and investors’ wealth have never been higher. Yet, the middle and working class still struggle to make ends meet.

More on what’s being done to address these issues, and on what you can do, in an upcoming post.

[1] Waldman, P., 11/11/14, “This year’s biggest spenders,” The American Prospect

[2] Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

[3] Vandewalker, I., 11/10/14, “Outside spending and dark money in toss-up Senate races: Post-election update,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/outside-spending-and-dark-money-toss-senate-races-post-election-update)

[4] Vandewalker, I., 11/10/14, see above

[5] OpenSecrets.org, 10/29/14, “Overall Spending Inches Up in 2014: Megadonors Equip Outside Groups to Capture a Bigger Share of the Pie,” Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/10/overall-spending-inches-up-in-2014-megadonors-equip-outside-groups-to-capture-a-bigger-share-of-the-pie/)

[6] Miller, J., 11/5/14, “Top 5 Senate races where dark money and outside spending ran wild,” The American Prospect

[7] Choma, R., 11/5/14, “Money won on Tuesday, but rules of the game changed,” Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/money-won-on-tuesday-but-rules-of-the-game-changed/)

[8] Vandewalker, I., 10/21/14, “Election Spending 2014: 9 Toss-Up Senate Races,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-spending-2014-9-toss-senate-races)

AN ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC MODEL

ABSTRACT: Worker cooperatives, where a business is owned and run by its workers, are gaining attention as a way to provide jobs and better pay for low wage workers. New York City recently established a Worker Cooperative Business Development Initiative and provided $1.2 million in funding for it.

According to the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives (http://www.usworker.coop/), there are more than 300 co-ops in the US today. One of the largest is the 2,300 member Cooperative Home Care Associates in the Bronx. Internationally, perhaps the best known worker co-op is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain, which employs over 80,000 people in 289 companies, 110 of which are co-ops.

In New York City, in the aftermath of the 2008 Great Recession, the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies (FPWA), a 90-year old anti-poverty association of 200 religious groups and community organizations, sought new ways to address high unemployment and poverty. FPWA studied co-ops around the world and concluded that to get a strong co-op economy going a public investment was needed. It used its contacts, clout, and political savvy to lobby city government to provide seed money. When Bill de Blasio became Mayor in 2014, he proclaimed June 21 “New York Worker Cooperative Day.” On June 26, the City Council voted $1.2 million for the Worker Cooperative Business Development Initiative.

This seed funding is needed because worker co-ops are more difficult to start than regular businesses. However, once established, they tend to be very sustainable. New York City hopes worker co-ops will reduce unemployment, poverty, and inequality while promoting democracy in the workplace.

FULL POST: You don’t hear much about worker cooperatives as an alternative economic model in the US. However, these co-ops, where a business is owned and run by its workers, are gaining attention as a way for social service agencies and city governments to provide jobs and better pay for low wage workers.

New York City recently established a Worker Cooperative Business Development Initiative and provided $1.2 million in funding for it. It will establish 28 new worker cooperatives, create 234 jobs, and provide education, training, and support to 20 existing co-ops. [1] (See more information on this initiative below.)

The history of worker cooperatives in the US goes back to the Knights of Labor in the late 1800s. At that time, roughly 200 co-ops existed in industries from clothing mills to mines, and from foundries to manufacturing. By the turn of the century, they were crushed by big business’s drive to eliminate competition. The for-profit businesses accomplished this by refusing to ship the co-ops’ goods, sell them materials or machinery, or give them loans.

African Americans, particularly farmers, needing an alternative to the corporate economy that largely excluded them, had established well over 100 co-ops by early in the 20^th century. These co-ops faced numerous obstacles and opponents, however efforts in the Black community to support an alternative economy persisted throughout much of the 20^th century.

The federal government fostered co-ops as part of the New Deal after the Great Depression, but these faded away after World War II. Worker cooperatives enjoyed a resurgence in the rebellion against the establishment of the 1960s and 70s. Some of the co-ops founded then survive today.

According to the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives (http://www.usworker.coop/), there are more than 300 co-ops in the US today, ranging from taxi, engineering, architecture, and computer businesses to ones in cleaning and construction. They are spread across the country, with 56 in California, 40 in New York, and 35 in Massachusetts.

One of the largest worker co-ops is the 2,300 member Cooperative Home Care Associates in the Bronx. One of that received quite a bit of attention not too long ago is the Chicago-based New Era Windows Cooperative. It was formed after laid off workers occupied the factory that Republic Windows and Doors announced it was closing in 2008 when the company tried to move the factory’s work to a different company with a non-unionized workforce.

Internationally, perhaps the best known worker co-op is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain. Started in 1956, today it employs over 80,000 people in 289 companies, 110 of which are co-ops. During the Great Recession of 2008, it fared better than most companies and instead of laying off workers, it engaged in creative solutions and re-training to keep all its workers employed.

In New York City, in the aftermath of the 2008 Great Recession, the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies (FPWA), a 90-year old anti-poverty association of 200 religious groups and community organizations, sought new ways to address high unemployment and poverty. It contacted the Center for Family Life, which had incubated 4 successful worker cooperatives since 2006. One of those co-ops, Si Se Puede (Yes, we can), a home and office cleaning company with 64 member-owners, has tripled wages for its mostly female, minority members while growing to a $1 million a year business in 8 years.

FPWA studied co-ops around the world and concluded that to get a strong co-op economy going a public investment was needed. It used its contacts, clout, and political savvy to lobby city government to provide seed money. It formed the Coalition for Worker Cooperatives for New York City, produced a policy report “Worker Cooperatives for New York City: A Vision for Addressing Income Inequality,” and organized a conference targeting city officials. The Coalition worked to gain the support of city councilors and organized a Co-op Advocacy Day held on the steps of City Hall.

When Bill de Blasio became Mayor in 2014, he proclaimed June 21 “New York Worker Cooperative Day.” On that day, the first annual NYC worker co-op conference was held, titled “Economic democracy and economic justice: A tale of a new city.” On June 26, the City Council voted $1.2 million for the Worker Cooperative Business Development Initiative.

This seed funding is needed because worker co-ops are more difficult to start than regular businesses. Typically, their members have little business experience or training and tend to be low-income, immigrants and minorities, and often women. However, once established, they tend to be very sustainable. The workers tend to have lower turnover, be more productive, and report greater satisfaction with their jobs. In Canada, where there is a sizable cooperative business sector, worker co-ops have lifespans four times longer than conventional businesses.

New York City’s government has taken an innovative step to promote economic development targeting the people who need it the most. It hopes worker co-ops will reduce unemployment, poverty, and inequality while promoting democracy in the workplace. Hopefully, they’ll be successful and other cities and states in the US will follow suit in building worker cooperatives as an alternative economic model to corporate capitalism.

[1] Ifateyo, A.N., Sept. 2014, “A co-op state of mind,” In These Times (This post is largely a summary of this article.)

POLICY INNOVATION IN OUR CITIES

ABSTRACT: With our federal government gridlocked, many cities around the US are taking the lead in policy innovation. Progressive policies are bubbling up in cities from Seattle and Santa Fe to Cleveland. Minneapolis’s new mayor has championed infant health care, universal pre-kindergarten education, closing racial gaps, and new public transit lines to better connect minority communities to jobs. Pittsburgh’s new mayor is working to establish universal pre-kindergarten, affordable housing with a low carbon footprint, responsible banking, and local hiring and paying of prevailing wages on city-funded projects.

New York’s new mayor is working to institute universal pre-kindergarten, raise the minimum wage, expand paid sick days and affordable housing, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and end the “stop and frisk” tactic of the police, which many view as harassment of minorities. New York City has an innovative campaign finance system and an active, progressive, Working Families Party.

In these and other cities, interesting, innovative, and significant progressive policies are being promoted and enacted.

FULL POST: With our federal government gridlocked, many cities around the US are taking the lead in policy innovation. Progressive policies on everything from campaign financing to early education to housing and banking are bubbling up in cities from Seattle and Santa Fe to Cleveland and Minneapolis to Pittsburgh and New York. [1]

Minneapolis’s new mayor, Betsy Hodges, has championed infant health care and universal pre-kindergarten education. She identified closing the large racial gaps among Minneapolis’s growingly diverse population as a moral and economic imperative. Among other initiatives, she is pushing to route new public transit lines to better connect minority communities to places with jobs.

Pittsburgh’s new mayor, Bill Peduto, is also working to establish universal pre-kindergarten. He is building affordable housing with a low carbon footprint. He worked as a City Council member (before becoming mayor) to require local hiring and paying of prevailing wages on city-funded projects. He authored the city’s responsible-banking law, which directs the city’s funds to banks that have loaned money in poor city neighborhoods.

New York’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, is working to institute universal pre-kindergarten too. He proposed funding it through an income tax surtax on the city’s wealthiest residents. This was blocked by the state but the pre-K program is moving ahead with other funding sources. His effort to raise the minimum wage was also blocked by the state, but he has expanded paid sick days. He is also working to expand affordable housing and to end the “stop and frisk” tactic of the police, which many view as harassment of minorities. He has committed the city to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. [2]

New York City has an innovative campaign finance system where small contributions are matched with $6 of public money for every $1 contributed. This amplifies the voice of small donors, encourages voters to make small contributions, and, ultimately, to vote, while blunting the influence of large donors. Many analysts believe that de Blasio would not have been elected without this campaign financing system that enables grassroots candidates to run competitive campaigns. New York’s Working Families Party was also key to de Blasio’s election. It has framed election issues and mobilized voters to help elect de Blasio and a near majority of progressive candidates to the city council.

These are examples of efforts to enact progressive policies that are occurring in many cities, including Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Boston. Despite gridlock at the federal level, interesting, innovative, and significant policies are being promoted and enacted in cities around the US.

[1] Meyerson, H., May/June 2014, “The revolt of the cities,” The American Prospect

[2] Eskow, R., 10/3/14, “Progressive champion Bill de Blasio models populist change,” Campaign for America’s Future (http://ourfuture.org/20141003/progressive-champion-bill-de-blasio-models-populist-change)