Category: The state of our democracy

IDEOLOGY, OBSTRUCTIONISM, AND MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK

ABSTRACT: Democrats believe in making government work. Republicans, at least many current ones, don’t exhibit a commitment to making government work. They block legislation and an unprecedented number and breadth of Presidential appointments, including judges and cabinet secretaries.

Rigid ideology and extreme partisanship are drivers of the gridlock: many Republicans seem willing to use any means available to block Obama’s initiatives, anything that would appear to be a success for him, and his administration’s efforts to govern effectively. Senate Republicans filibuster, while Republicans in the House have developed a strategy of policy hostage taking. While there are isolated examples of Democrats using some of the Republicans’ tactics, the current obstructionism by Republicans is unprecedented in both its breadth and its frequency.

Some of the Republicans, particularly those that identify with the Tea Party, are doing everything they can to sabotage government and keep it from operating effectively. Then when it falls short, they shout “See, we told you government can’t do anything right!”

Examples of Republicans impeding the functioning of Congress include: 1) in the budget process, they refused to appoint members for the conference committee that resolves differences between the House and Senate bills; 2) filibustered legislation to reduce gun violence; 3) blocked the ratification of an international treaty despite widespread, bipartisan support; and 4) blocked progress by filibustering or threatening to filibuster over 400 times since 2006.

The public’s well-being and future generations are hurt when our legislative branch doesn’t function.

FULL POST: Democrats’ ideology is that government has an important and positive role to play in our society. Republicans’ ideology is that a minimal government role is best and that government is more often a negative than a positive factor. But it goes a step further. Democrats believe in making government work, in doing the best that can be done to foster a civil and just society, despite limitations and challenges. They believe in implementing existing laws and making existing agencies work to fulfill their missions. Republicans, at least many current ones, don’t exhibit a commitment to making government work. As a consequence, they block legislation, including essential legislation, even when there is a majority in favor of it, through tactics such as filibustering in the Senate (see posts of 6/15/12 and 6/10/12) or refusing to move legislation forward in the House. [1] Senate Republicans have also used the filibuster to block an unprecedented number and breadth of Presidential appointments, including judges, cabinet secretaries, and other positions in government agencies. (See 5/20/12 post.)

In addition to rigid ideology, extreme partisanship is also a driver of the gridlock: many Republicans are of the mindset that if President Obama is for something, they will be against it – even in cases where they had previously supported the position or issue. And they seem willing to use any means available to block Obama’s initiatives, anything that would appear to be a success for him, and his administration’s efforts to govern effectively. While the Senate Republicans filibuster, Republicans in the House, led by Eric Cantor (VA), Paul Ryan (WI), and Kevin McCarthy (CA), have developed a strategy of policy hostage taking. Their most notable effort was their refusal to raise the US government’s debt ceiling, which was needed to fund the activities previously approved by Congress and the president under the country’s budget. They took hostage the full faith and credit of the US Government to pay its debts. As Thomas Mann said, “It’s hard to imagine a more destructive action.” [2] In the House, the extreme partisanship of the Republican majority means that the Democratic minority is all but ignored. [3]

While there are isolated examples of Democrats using some of these tactics, the current obstructionism by Republicans is unprecedented in both its breadth and its frequency.

Some of the Republicans, particularly those that identify with the Tea Party, do not feel a responsibility to abide by the historical rules of operation or to work to promote the successful functioning of government. A recent survey documented that Tea Party activists do not want their elected representative to compromise and are happy to have them prevent government from functioning. [4] Furthermore, some of these activists and elected officials promote their ideology by doing everything they can to sabotage government and keep it from operating effectively. Then when it falls short, they shout “See, we told you government can’t do anything right!” [5]

Examples of Republicans impeding the functioning of Congress include the following:

This spring, both houses of Congress passed budget bills. The process calls for a conference committee of both chambers to be appointed to reconcile differences between the two bills. However, the House Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, chair of the Budget Committee, refused to appoint members for the conference committee – an unprecedented act of obstructionism. After a month of negotiations, Democrats gave up on the effort to form a conference committee, so the government continues to run without a normal budget in place. [6]

Senate Republicans have filibustered * legislation to reduce gun violence by expanding background checks for gun purchases. (See 4/20/13 and 5/9/13 posts.) Senate Republicans also blocked the ratification of an international treaty on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, despite widespread, bipartisan support, ratification by 126 other countries, and the fact that it was modeled on the American with Disabilities Act. (See post of 12/8/12.)

Senate Republicans have blocked progress by filibustering or threatening to filibuster over 400 times since they lost the majority in 2006; that’s over once a week on average. As two, bi-partisan political scientist have written, Senate Republicans are using the filibuster “to delay and obstruct quietly on nearly all matters, including routine and widely supported ones.” They have filibustered judges, top administration officials, and a wide range of legislation. [7]

The US has serious problems, short and long-term, including unemployment, stagnant wages, and global competition, that need to be addressed through legislation. The public’s well-being and future generations are hurt when our legislative branch doesn’t function because Republicans are committed to a rigid ideology, refuse to compromise, and believe that scoring political points is more important than solving problems. [8]

My next post will review the impacts of Republican obstructionism on the judicial and executive branches of government.

[1]       Starr, P., May / June 2013, “Bad faith and budget politics,” The American Prospect

[2]       Ornstein, N., & Mann, T., 4/26/13, “Why Congress is failing us,” on Bill Moyers’ public TV show, available at BillMoyers.com

[3]       Arenberg, R.A., 6/13/12, “An effective Senate needs filibusters,” The Boston Globe

[4]       Rapoport, A., May / June 2013, “Ted [Cruz] talk,” The American Prospect

[5]       Editorial, 5/24/13, “Scandal, Sequestered,” Ringside Seat, The American Prospect

[6]       Bouie, J., & Caldwell, P., May / June 2013, “Patty Murray in 19 takes,” The American Prospect

*       A filibuster occurs when one or more Senators refuse to end debate on a piece of legislation or other matter. It requires a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes to close off debate (cloture) and allow a vote on the bill or other matter.

[7]       Mann, T.E., and Ornstein, N.J., 4/27/12, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem,” The Washington Post. Adapted from their book “It’s even worse than it looks: How the American Constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism.”

[8]       Ornstein, N., & Mann, T., 4/26/13, see above

GOVERNMENT AUSTERITY DEBUNKED

ABSTRACT: The argument for government austerity was largely built on two economic theories, both of which have been debunked recently by academia and reality. First was the theory that if government debt exceeded 90% of economic activity, then economic growth would be sharply lower. The second was that cutting spending in a depressed economy would create jobs.

 

The study the first was based on was dramatically discredited when an error was discovered in the Excel spreadsheet used to calculate its findings. Furthermore, the link highlighted between government debt and slow economic growth does not indicate that government debt causes slow growth; it could just as likely be the reverse.

The second theory was based on another academic study that was refuted by a 2010 study by the International Monetary Fund, which used better data. And finally, real life experiences in the US and Europe have not borne out what the austerity advocates predicted or promised.

Despite this debunking of the rationales for austerity, there hasn’t been any change in policies or political rhetoric in the US. The US austerity movement appears to be driven by small government ideologues who are using the economic crisis as an opportunity to push for cuts in social programs they’ve always opposed. There also appears to be an issue of class hiding behind austerity advocacy. While the years since the Great Depression and of austerity policies in Washington have been hard on the middle and lower classes, for the well off they’ve been pretty good. So, perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that the wealthy and political elites keep pushing austerity policies despite the lack of support from theory or reality.

FULL POST: The argument for government austerity – reducing the deficit by cutting spending and perhaps raising taxes – was largely built on two economic theories, both of which have been debunked recently by academia and reality. First was the theory that if government debt exceeded 90% of economic activity (measured by gross domestic product [GDP]), then economic growth would be sharply lower. The second was that cutting spending in a depressed economy would create jobs.

The first, on the danger of government debt, was based on a 2010 study by two Harvard economists, Reinhart and Rogoff, “Growth in a Time of Debt.” Despite significant controversy about it, its finding of a tipping point for reduced economic growth when government debt hit 90% of GDP was presented as fact by politicians and media arguing for the need for austerity. [1]

This study was dramatically discredited when an error was discovered by Thomas Herndon, a Ph.D. student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in the Excel spreadsheet Reinhart and Rogoff used to calculate their findings. An error in one of their formulas had excluded data from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, all of which had experienced strong economic growth in periods of high government debt. [2] (Reinhart and Rogoff have acknowledged the error.) This explained why other researchers, using similar data, hadn’t been able to replicate their findings. As Reinhart and Rogoff’s work was scrutinized, it was also criticized for omitting data and using questionable statistical procedures.

Furthermore, the link they highlighted between government debt and slow economic growth does not indicate that government debt causes slow growth; it could just as likely be the reverse, that slow growth leads to higher government debt. Indeed, the latter is clearly what happened in Japan in the early 1990s when government debt grew after the economy collapsed. [3]

The second theory, that cutting spending in a depressed economy would create jobs, was based on another academic study. It was refuted by a 2010 study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which used better data. The IMF study found that austerity reduced job growth instead of accelerating it as the original study and austerity promoters claimed. [4]

Finally, real life experiences in the US and Europe have not borne out what the austerity advocates predicted or promised. In the US, government debt and a bit of stimulus did not produce high interest rates and a shrinking economy. Most recently, the austerity measures adopted in March – namely the sequester’s budget cuts – are clearly causing jobs to be cut, with no signs of resultant job creation. Meanwhile, most of Europe is in recession despite consistent application of the austerity medicine for the last four years.

Despite this debunking of the rationales for austerity, there hasn’t been any change in policies or political rhetoric in the US, and little in Europe. This suggests that the austerity movement is not based on research and reality, but on ideology.

The US austerity movement appears to be driven by small government ideologues, given that the push for budget cuts continues unabated. These ideologues are using the economic crisis as an opportunity to push for cuts in social programs they’ve always opposed. They’ve seized on the austerity theories from academia as justification for their actions, and aren’t letting go of them even when they have been soundly discredited. [5]

There also appears to be an issue of class hiding behind austerity advocacy. The wealthy in the US regard the deficit as the most important problem we face and favor solving it by cutting spending on health care and Social Security. The middle and lower classes, although they see the deficit as a problem, view unemployment as a more important problem and want to see spending on health care and Social Security increase. [6] Given the political power of the wealthy elites, it’s not surprising to see policy bending to their preferences. While the years since the Great Depression and of austerity policies in Washington have been hard on the middle and lower classes (high unemployment, incomes that aren’t keeping up with inflation, home values that haven’t recovered to 2008 levels), for the well off they’ve been pretty good (incomes growing faster than inflation, corporate profits and stock prices surging). So, perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that the wealthy and political elites keep pushing austerity policies despite the lack of support from theory or reality.

 

[1]       Krugman, P., 4/18/13, “The Excel depression,” The New York Times

[2]       Roose, K., 4/18/13, “Meet the 28-year-old grad student who just shook the global austerity movement,” Daily Intelligencer

[3]       Krugman, P., 4/18/12, see above

[4]       Krugman, P., 5/3/13, “Playing whack-a-mole with expansionary austerity,” The New York Times

[5]       Editorial, 5/5/13, “Blame ideologues, not economists for failed ‘austerity’ policies,” The Boston Globe

[6]       Krugman, P., 4/15/13, “The 1 percent’s solution,” The New York Times

REDUCING INTEREST ON STUDENT LOANS

ABSTRACT: The interest rate on new federal student loans is scheduled to increase from 3.4% to 6.8% in July. Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA) has introduced legislation to give students the same interest rate that the big bank corporations get when they borrow from the Federal Reserve: 0.75%. Warren’s bill highlights the enormous advantages and preferences the federal government gives to large corporations and the contrast with what the government does (or doesn’t do) for students, their families, and 99% of taxpayers in general.

 Student debt exceeds $1 trillion and is a substantial drag on the economy. Some financial experts have warned that the student debt problem has parallels to the housing mortgage loan crisis.

You can become a citizen co-sponsor of Warren’s Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act at http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/studentloans?source=20130516em.

FULL POST: The interest rate on new federal student loans is scheduled to increase from 3.4% to 6.8% in July. Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA) has introduced legislation to give students the same interest rate that the big bank corporations get when they borrow from the Federal Reserve: 0.75%.

Senator Warren’s bill in the Senate (her first) and Representative Tierney’s companion bill in the House would have the Federal Reserve make funds available to the Department of Education for student loans at this low rate for one year, to give Congress time to find a long-term solution to the student debt problem. As she writes, “If the government can float huge sums of money to large financial institutions at low interest rates to grow the economy, surely it can float the money necessary to fund our students, keep us competitive, and grow our middle class.” [1]

In addition to providing some relief to students, Warren’s bill highlights the enormous advantages and preferences the federal government gives to large corporations, in this case the large banks (who crashed our economy). It starkly draws a contrast with what the government does (or doesn’t do) for students, their families, and 99% of taxpayers in general, including homeowners who got little help while the large financial corporations involved with the housing collapse got bailed out.

At a time when the federal government can borrow money at 0.25% for 2 years, under 1% for 5 years, at 2% for 10 years, and roughly 3% for 30 years, [2] it hardly seems fair to be charging students even 3.4%, let alone 6.8%.

Student debt exceeds $1 trillion, which is more than all credit card debt. It is a substantial drag on the economy. (See post of 6/6/12 for more detail.) It depresses spending by students and their families. Because consumer spending is roughly two-thirds of our economic activity, depressed consumer spending slows our economic recovery. And if the default rate on student loans grows, which seems likely given that many students are having a very hard time finding jobs, let alone ones with good pay, the impact on our economy, government, and financial institutions could be significant. That’s why some financial experts have warned that the student debt problem has parallels to the housing mortgage loan crisis. [3]

You can become a citizen co-sponsor of Warren’s Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act at http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/studentloans?source=20130516em.

[1]       Warren, E., 5/16/13, “If it’s good enough for the banks, it’s good enough for students,” Elizabeth Warren for Senate Newsletter

[2]       Bloomberg, 5/17/13, “United States Government Bonds, US Treasury yields,” retrieved from the Internet at http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/

[3]       Zumbrun, J., & Torres, C., 5/7/13, “Bankers warn Fed of farm, student loan bubbles echoing subprime,” Bloomberg

MOVING FORWARD ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE

ABSTRACT: A serious effort for campaign finance reform is moving forward in New York State. The citizen / public campaign financing system that is in place in New York City is a great model for the state’s efforts and others.

We need campaign finance reform because, for example, in the 2012 federal election campaigns over $7 billion was spent with the bulk of the money coming from wealthy individuals and corporations. One third of the roughly $1 billion spent by groups other than the candidates’ campaigns themselves was secret funds anonymously funneled through front groups created to launder the money and hide its source. The voices of average citizens – the 99% of us – are drowned out in the campaigns and in policy making by the megaphones and mega-dollars of the wealthy. Money in campaigns does matter. In 2012, more than 80 percent of US House candidates and two-thirds of Senate candidates who outspent their general election opponents won. As Justice Brandeis stated, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

New York City has a system of citizen funding for campaigns for city offices. It provides matching public funds that give candidates the opportunity to run for public office without dependence on large contributions from wealthy donors. Participants in these city races are getting the majority of their funding from a broad spectrum of small contributors, while candidates for the state legislature from the same area, without the citizen funding system, get the majority of their funding from large contributors.

At least 10 states and 7 cities have citizen / public campaign financing for at least some elections. You can find information on campaign financing and whether there is a reform effort in your state at the Public Campaign website (http://www.publicampaign.org/).

Citizen / public campaign financing is an essential step in making our elected officials accountable and responsive to the 99% of us, as opposed to wealthy campaign contributors.

FULL POST: A serious effort for campaign finance reform is moving forward in New York State. The citizen / public campaign financing system that is in place in New York City is a great model for the state’s efforts and others. [1]

We need campaign finance reform because, for example, in the 2012 federal election campaigns over $7 billion was spent. We have the best democracy money can buy and the bulk of the money came from wealthy individuals and corporations. Of course this means it isn’t a democracy at all, for the golden rule of US politics is that he who provides the gold, rules.

Each of the presidential candidates raised and spent over $1 billion. President Obama broke all records by attending a fundraiser on average every two and a half days throughout the long campaign. Is this really how we want our President – and our other elected officials – spending their time? The 435 races for the House of Representatives cost over $1 billion, or an average of $2.3 million per seat. The races for the 33 Senate seats up for election cost over $700 million, or an average of $21 million each.

One third of the roughly $1 billion spent by groups other than the candidates’ campaigns themselves was secret funds anonymously funneled through front groups created to launder the money and hide its source. For the Super Political Action Committees (PACs), which could raise and spend unlimited sums because of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the top 32 donors gave an average of $10 million each and just 159 people donated 60% of their funds.

The great bulk of the $7 billion spent on the federal races in 2012 came in large amounts from wealthy individuals and corporations. The voices of average citizens – the 99% of us – are drowned out in the campaigns and in policy making by the megaphones and mega-dollars of the wealthy.

So there is no question that we need comprehensive campaign finance reform if we want government of, by, and for the people. As Justice Brandeis stated, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

New York City has a system of citizen funding for campaigns for city offices. It provides matching public funds that give candidates the opportunity to run for public office without dependence on large contributions from wealthy donors. Someone running for citywide office or for city council who wants to participate in the voluntary citizen financing system has to raise a qualifying amount in small contributions. A mayoral candidate has to raise $250,000 from at least 1,000 city residents. A City Council candidate has to raise $5,000 in small donations from at least 75 in-district residents.

Once a candidate has achieved the qualifying threshold, any contribution up to $175 is matched six to one by public funds. So a $25 contribution is worth $175, a $100 contribution is worth $700, and a $175 contribution is worth $1,225. Only contributions by residents of the City or district are matched, and any amount over $175 is not matched. In addition to the qualifying thresholds and matching funds, there are per election spending limits ($161,000 for City Council and a little over $6 million for Mayor) and disclosure requirements. [2]

Participants in these city races are getting the majority of their funding from a broad spectrum of small contributors, while candidates for the state legislature from the same area, without the citizen funding system, get the majority of their funding from large contributors. This citizen funding allows candidates to focus their attention on ordinary citizens, not those with deep pockets, and still raise an amount of money that’s sufficient to run a credible, competitive campaign. And it engages citizens, because somebody who contributes $10 to a campaign, is more likely to volunteer, is more likely to show up and vote, and is more likely to follow and engage with what happens in government after the campaign than someone who doesn’t contribute – because they don’t believe their small contribution matters.

This blunts the influence of the big money in multiple ways. Beyond the base amount needed to run a credible campaign, additional money has a diminishing marginal return (to use a term from economics). In other words, after a point, additional campaign spending just doesn’t have that much impact. That’s one of the reasons all the Super PAC money wasn’t as effective as many thought it would be in the 2012 elections – people just got tired of hearing the same message over and over.

But money does matter. In 2012, more than 80 percent of House candidates and two-thirds of Senate candidates who outspent their general election opponents won. And although money doesn’t often literally buy elected officials’ votes, it does corrupt some of them and it certainly gets their ears and may well get them to lean toward the interests of their contributors.

At least 10 states and 7 cities have citizen / public campaign financing for at least some elections. A serious effort to implement broad citizen / public financing of elections is underway in New York for state elections. You can find information on campaign financing and whether there is a reform effort in your state at the Public Campaign website (http://www.publicampaign.org/).

Citizen / public campaign financing is an essential step in making our elected officials accountable and responsive to the 99% of us, as opposed to wealthy campaign contributors. It was important before the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited spending by wealthy interests, and it’s even more important now.

[1]       The majority of the content for this blog post is a summary of Bill Moyers’ show of 2/15/13, “The fight to keep democracy alive.” You can watch it at http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-the-fight-to-keep-democracy-alive/. A podcast is also available. As I probably don’t need to tell you, Bill’s shows are fantastic and I urge you to watch or listen to them regularly if possible, or whenever you can find the time.

[2]       Migally, A., & Liss, S., 2010, “Small donor matching funds: The NYC election experience,” Brennan Center for Justice, http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/public-financing

IRRATIONAL EXTREMISM BLOCKS PROGRESS

ABSTRACT: The irrational extremism associated with the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has just blocked progress for disabled people around the world by defeating ratification of a treaty. Radical Republicans used scare tactics and lies to defeat it. They ignored the support of 61 Senators including John McCain, of former President G. W. Bush, of every veterans group in America, and of former Senator Dole, who came to the Senate chamber to support the treaty in a wheelchair as an 89 year old, disabled veteran, and former Republican Presidential nominee. They ignored the fact that it would improve opportunities for 4.5 million children worldwide who don’t attend school because they are blind.

This is an example of how a small number of extremists in Congress is blocking progress for millions of people in the U.S. – and around the world.

FULL POST: The irrational extremism associated with the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has just blocked progress for disabled people around the world by defeating ratification of a treaty. The treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is:

  • Based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passed 22 years ago.
  • Supported by 61 Senators including John McCain as well as former President G. W. Bush and former Senator Bob Dole.
  • Ratified by 126 other countries.

Despite 61 votesin favor of ratification, radical Republicans used scare tactics and lies to defeat it. (Treaty ratification requires a 2/3s majority or 66 votes.) [1]

Because it is based on the ADA, the U.S. is already basically in compliance. But because it conflicts with Tea Party ideology that views cooperation with the United Nations and other countries as surrendering U.S. sovereignty, arguments were fabricated to defeat it. Tea Party types argued that it would threaten parents and home schooling because it says that disabled children have a right to education, and that it would promote abortion because it says that disabled people have a right to health care including reproductive health. They argued both that the treaty was toothless in forcing other countries to provide access for disabled persons and that it would tie the hands of the U.S. and force unwanted changes here despite the fact that the ADA is already in place. [2]

They ignored the support of every veterans group in America, who viewed it as supporting disabled veterans, and of former Senator Dole, who came to the Senate chamber to support the treaty in a wheelchair as an 89 year old, disabled veteran, and former Republican Presidential nominee. Among other potential treaty benefits, they ignored the fact that it would improve opportunities for 4.5 million children worldwide who don’t attend school because they are blind.

This is an example of how a small number of extremists in Congress is blocking progress for millions of people in the U.S. – and around the world.

[1]       Calvan, B.C., 12/5/12, “Treaty for disabled rights falls short in Senate,” The Boston Globe

[2]       Boston Globe Editorial, 12/6/12, “Tea Party scare tactics doom disabled treaty in the Senate,” The Boston Globe

CAMPAIGN SPENDING: THE FUTURE

ABSTRACT: The huge sums of money in our political system are corrupting it, in subtle and not so subtle ways, and are undermining the promise of democracy of, by, and for the people. We the people need to work to blunt the impact and eventually stop the flow of these huge amounts of money. Steps that could and should be taken include: 1) Legislation at the federal and state levels should be enacted promptly that requires disclosure on a timely basis of all political spending and the sources of the funds; 2) Lobbyists’ contributions to candidates must be severely restricted and perhaps prohibited; 3) Tougher rules and enforcement are needed of the ban on coordination between Super PACs or other groups and candidates’ campaigns; and 4) Ultimately, a Constitutional Amendment is needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

 I urge you to communicate to your elected representatives at the federal and state levels your concern about the corrupting influence of huge amounts of money in our political system. Ask them what remedies they support and encourage them to support the steps listed above.

FULL POST: The huge sums of money in our political system are corrupting it, in subtle and not so subtle ways, and are undermining the promise of democracy of, by, and for the people. Despite the fact that all the outside money and all the advertising it bought were less effective in the 2012 election than was anticipated and than was hoped for by those paying for it, the big spenders learned some valuable lessons. They won’t give up on their efforts to influence and control government and its policy making. They will find more effective ways to use their money and will have substantial impacts in the future. [1] Therefore, we the people need to work to blunt the impact and eventually stop the flow of these huge amounts of money.

First, some of the lessons the big spenders learned:

  • Advertising, and particularly negative advertising, has diminishing returns as the amount of it and repetition of it increases.
  • Grassroots efforts to identify and turn out supporters can have a big impact.
  • Grassroots, person-to-person communications can be more effective than advertising.
  • Untested candidates or ones with extreme positions are more likely to lose.
  • Money can have a bigger impact in less visible, lower cost races.

The less visible, lower cost races include primary, US House of Representatives, and state office races (as opposed to the final Presidential election and final US Senate races). In the Republican Presidential primary, the big money from Super PACs clearly had an effect. Money from the Super PAC supporting Romney deluged state primary elections with negative advertising against whichever competitor was threatening Romney at that point. This clearly allowed Romney to win state primaries he wouldn’t have won otherwise. Huge Super PAC expenditures by extremely rich individuals single-handedly kept Gingrich and Santorum in the primary race longer than they would have been otherwise. [2]

In lower cost races, a given amount of money (e.g., $100,000) is more significant, may overwhelm other campaign spending, and can have a disproportionate impact, especially if spent late in the election period and as a surprise. State office races such as those for Governor, state legislative seats, and elected judges can be dramatically affected by relatively small amounts of money. State ballot initiatives can also be significantly altered by relatively small sums of money.

Given the corrosive effects of huge amounts of money in our political system, a New York Times Editorial stated, “A backlash against the damaging power of big money cannot come too soon.” [3] Steps that could and should be taken include:

  • Legislation at the federal and state levels should be enacted promptly that requires disclosure on a timely basis of all political spending and the sources of the funds. The DISCLOSE Act that has been introduced in Congress is one example. (It was filibustered by Senate Republicans multiple times.) Disclosure must cover all entities engaged in political spending, including non-profit, “social welfare” groups, known as 501(c)(4)s to the IRS.
  • Lobbyists’ contributions to candidates must be severely restricted and perhaps prohibited, especially for an elected official sitting on the legislative committee that oversees the special interest the lobbyist represents. The definition of a lobbyist must be expanded to cover all individuals and entities that work to influence government policies, rules, and regulations. The ability of lobbyists and others to deliver aggregated contributions from multiple individuals or groups, often referred to as “bundling,” and which can occur through fundraising events organized by a lobbyist, should be banned or at least fully disclosed.
  • Tougher rules and enforcement are needed of the ban on coordination between Super PACs or other groups and candidates’ campaigns. The overlap and connections between candidates’ current and former campaign staff and the staff of the supposedly independent groups, and the use of the same consultants, provide clear evidence that these groups are not, in fact, independent. [4]
  • Ultimately, a Constitutional Amendment is needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, to make it clear that corporations are not persons with Constitutional rights, that money is not the same as speech, and that corporations and political spending can be regulated.

 I urge you to communicate to your elected representatives at the federal and state levels your concern about the corrupting influence of huge amounts of money in our political system. Ask them what remedies they support and encourage them to support the steps listed above.

[1]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[2]       Boston Globe Editorial, 11/8/12, “Billionaires: Now, mind your own business(es),” The Boston Globe

[3]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[4]       Boston Globe Editorial, 9/29/12, “As super PACs link arms, mega-donors’ clout increases,” The Boston Globe

WHY LIMITED SUCCESS FOR CAMPAIGN SPENDING

ABSTRACT: So why were all the outside money and all the advertising it bought less effective than was anticipated in the recent election? First, the great bulk of the outside money was spent on advertising, largely negative advertising. Voters were overwhelmed and simply tuned them out. The advertising lost effectiveness and experienced diminishing returns. Second, the huge amounts of money and advertising drew lots of attention. So fact checkers were very active and the mainstream media became active in covering the money, the advertising, and the fact checking. This gave voters information that may have led them to question or resist the messages of the ads.

Third, the big money and advertising appears to have been less effective than good old fashioned grassroots organizing. Finally, Democratic candidates and messages appear to have resonated better with voters than Republican candidates and messages. Despite the outside money’s lack of success in electing desired candidates, I doubt that it will go away. My next post will examine likely future effects and what can be done to better monitor and control potential negative impacts.

 FULL POST: So why were all the outside money and all the advertising it bought less effective than was anticipated – and than hoped for by those paying for it – in electing specific candidates in the recent election? I think there are four major reasons.

First, the great bulk of the outside money was spent on advertising, largely negative advertising. And it bought lots of ads. But voters know that ads are marketing and hype, and that their goal is often to deceive and obfuscate (especially negative ads) rather than to inform. [1] Also, voters were overwhelmed by the din and repetition of all the ads and simply tuned them out. [2] Advertising markets where the Presidential race or other races were competitive were literally saturated; all the available air time was purchased for political ads. In short, because there was so much advertising, it lost its effectiveness and experienced diminishing returns. [3]

Second, the huge amounts of money and advertising drew lots of attention. So fact checkers were very active in analyzing the accuracy of the ads. And the mainstream media became active in covering the money, the advertising, and the fact checking. This included reporting on who had funded the ads or that the actual funders were veiled in secrecy. This coverage of the ads, their accuracy and their funding, gave voters information that may have led them to question or resist the messages of the ads. Although negative advertising has historically depressed voter turnout, that did not happen in this election. Perhaps there was an actual voter backlash against the negative advertising.

Third, the big money and advertising appears to have been less effective than good old fashioned grassroots organizing – voter outreach, identification, and get out the vote efforts. The ground game appears to have been more effective at producing votes than the airwaves. [4] In addition, efforts to make it harder to vote or to suppress voting appear to have generated a backlash in some places that resulted in high voter turnout that blunted the impact of negative advertising.

Finally, Democratic candidates and messages appear to have resonated better with voters than Republican candidates and messages. The extreme positions and statements of some Republicans, particularly Tea Party types, generally did not sit well with voters, both within their states or districts and beyond. And the advertising blitz could not overcome these differences between the parties.

Despite the outside money’s lack of success in electing desired candidates, it did have significant impacts. (See 11/14/12 post.) I doubt that it will go away, and there are good reasons to be concerned about big money in political campaigns. My next post will examine likely future effects and what can be done to better monitor and control potential negative impacts.

[1]       Carroll, J., 10/29/12, “America’s kidnapped politics,” The Boston Globe

[2]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[3]       New York Times Editorial, 10/7/12, “The cacophony of money,” The New York Times

[4]      New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, see above

THE IMPACT OF ALL THE CAMPAIGN SPENDING

ABSTRACT: Roughly $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections for federal offices. Although complete data isn’t yet available, an unprecedented $1.3 billion plus of this amount was “outside” money. Roughly a quarter of this outside money was “dark” money – money where the actual source of the money cannot be identified. About 80% of the outside money was spent opposing a candidate, typically through negative advertising. And over 70% of the outside money was spent trying to elect Republicans. The big outside money donors are large corporations and very wealthy individuals who have very specific, special interests in government actions that provide them substantial benefits.

Although the deluge of outside money achieved only limited election results, it had other significant, if somewhat more subtle, impacts. First, the great majority of the outside spending was on negative advertising, which changed the tone of the campaigns and demeaned the whole electoral process – candidates, voting, and the role of government. Second, the unlimited contribution amounts increase the influence these contributors have with elected officials; it creates a sense of obligation. Third, candidates had to spend even more of their time than before raising money. Finally, certain issues were not even discussed during the campaign for fear of alienating large donors.

FULL POST: Roughly $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections for federal offices according to the best estimates; a truly staggering sum. Although complete data isn’t yet available, an unprecedented $1.3 billion plus of this amount was “outside” money, namely spending by entities other than the candidates’ campaigns themselves. And roughly a quarter of this outside money was “dark” money – money where the actual source of the money cannot be identified. [1]

About 80% of the outside money was spent opposing a candidate, typically through negative advertising. And over 70% of the outside money was spent trying to elect Republicans. This Republican advantage in outside money was offset in part by Obama’s and other Democratic candidates’ ability to out raise Republicans in direct contributions to their campaigns (i.e., in “inside” money). [2]

Beyond the general concern about the influence of large amounts of campaign money on candidates and elected officials, these unprecedented levels of outside money raise particular concerns. The outside money comes almost exclusively from large donors (i.e., $100,000, $1,000,000, and multi-million dollar contributions). The outside money donors are large corporations and very wealthy individuals who have very specific, special interests in government actions that provide them substantial benefits.

The good news is that all this outside money didn’t buy successful election results to the extent I and many others thought it would. Clearly, outside money significantly affected the Republican Presidential primary.[3] It also had a notable impact on some Congressional primary races. And presumably the large sums that flowed into competitive Congressional races, particularly in the last few days before the election, did affect the outcome of some of those races. [4] [5]

Although the deluge of outside money achieved only limited election results, it had other significant, if somewhat more subtle, impacts.

First, the great majority of the outside spending was on negative advertising, which changed the tone of the campaigns, particularly in competitive races. This negativity demeaned the whole electoral process – the candidates, voting, and the role of government. The ads were often misleading and sometimes clearly false. This occurred because candidates cannot be held accountable for the ads, given that the outside money is independent and outside of the candidates’ control (at least in theory). [6] The negative advertising forces candidates to spend time and money defending themselves rather than discussing issues. Note that in the Massachusetts Senate race there was very little of the negative advertising that was common elsewhere because the candidates had an enforceable agreement to ban outside spending on advertising.

Second, the unlimited contribution amounts, newly unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, increase the influence these contributors have with elected officials when they are in office. The big contributions by large corporations (which have far deeper pockets than any of the other players) and very wealthy individuals, create a sense of obligation. [7] For example, Sheldon Adelson and his wife have given over $36 million to Super PACs and unknown tens of millions to non-profit groups that don’t have to report donors. He has a clear policy agenda and makes it known that he views giving to these groups, who then support specific candidates, the same as giving to the candidates directly. [8]

Third, candidates had to spend even more of their time than before raising money. This diverts their time and attention from interacting with voters and discussing issues. [9] The huge amounts of money in general, turn campaigns into an arms race. The unlimited outside spending exacerbates this, requiring candidates to build up huge war chests to be able to counter last minute outside expenditures. [10]

Finally, certain issues and issue options were not even discussed during the campaign for fear of alienating large donors. For example, the issues of global warming and meaningful regulation of the financial industry effectively disappeared from the presidential and many other campaigns. It’s hard to believe that the deep pockets and big campaign spending of companies and executives in the oil, gas, and coal corporations and of those from Wall Street didn’t contribute to the lack of discussion of these issues.

So why were all the spending and all the advertising less effective than was anticipated – and than hoped for by those paying for it – in electing specific candidates? That will be the topic of my next post.

[1]       Schere, M., Elliott, J., & Barker, K., 11/2/12, “Dark money rises,” ProPublica

[2]       Sunlight Foundation, retrieved 11/13/12, “Outside spenders’ return on investment,” http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/return_on_investment

[3]       Boston Globe Editorial, 11/8/12, “Billionaires: Now, mind your own business(es),” The Boston Globe

[4]       Calvan, B.C., 11/5/12, “Spending on congressional races soars,” The Boston Globe

[5]       McGinty, J.C., 10/29/12, “Donors make last-minute investments in House races,” The New York Times

[6]       Eggen, D., & Farnam, T.W., 11/8/12, “Spending by independent groups had little election impact, analysis finds,” The Washington Post

[7]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[8]       Boston Globe Editorial, 9/29/12, “As super PACs link arms, mega-donors’ clout increases,” The Boston Globe

[9]       Eggen, D., & Farnam, T.W., 11/8/12, “Independent groups’ big money had little impact on vote results,” The Boston Globe

[10]    Eggen, D., & Farnam, T.W., 11/8/12, “Spending by independent groups had little election impact, analysis finds,” The Washington Post

CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING: WHO RUNS FOR OFFICE

ABSTRACT: Because of the way we fund campaigns, we have two elections every cycle, the money election and the voting election. For Congressional races, fewer than 1 in 400 people contribute $200 or more to a campaign. This one-quarter of 1% of the population determines who will show up on the ballot for the voting election. Consequently, these campaign contributors, this 1 out of 400 people, have the power to block candidates from getting on the ballot and, therefore, the power to block – to veto – issues and policies from even getting on the agenda. There are many ways to change the funding of campaigns and broaden who can afford to run.

The current elections will have huge amounts of money spent on negative advertising. Voters will be turned off and disillusioned by the whole process and therefore will not bother to vote. We the voters must stay engaged and elect the best candidates we can find. And then we must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions after they are elected.

FULL POST: Because of the way we fund campaigns, we have two elections every cycle, the money election and the voting election. If you don’t win the first, or at least show that you’re competitive, you don’t even get to the second one. For Congressional races, fewer than 1 in 400 people contribute $200 or more to a campaign. This one-quarter of 1% of the population determines who will show up on the ballot for the voting election, the one everyone thinks is the real election. To succeed as a Congressional candidate, you must gain the support of these large contributors.

Consequently, these campaign contributors, this 1 out of 400 people, have the power to block candidates from getting on the ballot and, therefore, the power to block – to veto – issues and policies from even getting on the agenda. This tilts our democracy toward plutocracy, where the wealthy rule and the rest of us try to hold on for the ride. “[A] nation in which so few have the power to block change is not a nation that can thrive.” [1]

And the proof is in the pudding; it’s not what candidates say on the campaign trail, it’s what they do in office. There’s plenty of winking and nodding that goes on during the campaign, where the one quarter of 1% know that it’s just rhetoric and that they don’t have to worry that action will follow.

There are many ways to change the funding of campaigns and broaden who can afford to run. One that is in place in Arizona, Maine, and a few other places is to match small campaign contributions from individuals with public funds. Presidential elections used to have a mix of private and public funds until the public funding got overwhelmed by huge sums of private money. A newer idea is to give every taxpayer a voucher that can only be used to contribute to campaigns. Another approach would be to reduce the cost of campaigns and the importance of money by requiring broadcasters – who get to use the public airwaves – to provide free air time to candidates so they don’t have to spend small fortunes on advertising.

The current elections will have huge amounts of money spent by supposedly independent groups outside of the candidates’ own campaigns. The bulk of this money will be spent on negative advertising. The small number of wealthy individuals and corporations that are funding these outside groups hope, in part, that voters will be turned off and disillusioned by the whole process and therefore will not bother to vote.

We, the voters, cannot fall into this seductive trap of cynicism and apathy. We must stay engaged and active in the election, and elect the best candidates we can find, even though they are rarely if ever perfect. And then we must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions after they are elected.

[1]       Lessig, L., 7/13/12, “Big campaign spending: Government by the 1%,” The Atlantic

Hello world!

I’ve been very frustrated that important information and context for our national policy making and politics is not being provided by our mainstream media. Although the information is available, most people don’t have the time to do the searching to find it. Often it is buried in pieces that are too long and cumbersome for most people to wade through to find the kernels of important information.

Therefore, I started a policy and politics newsletter in Novemeber, and am now turning it into a blog. I write concise, focused pieces that you can read in a few minutes. Key points are bolded so you can skim the posts very quickly. I will provide links to sources and to more detail, so if there is a topic you are particularly interested in you can pursue it in more depth.

Each  issue of my newsletter has been migrated to this blog as a post.

Please sign up to “FOLLOW” my blog, which means you’ll get an email of each new post.

I encourage you to comment on the posts, current and past ones, thereby becoming a participant in the discussion of these issues.  I and other readers are interested in your reactions and thoughts.

If you would like to contact me personally, you can email me at john@lippittpolicyandpolitics.org.

FIXING THE FILIBUSTER

Here’s issue #36 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 6/15/12. The previous issue outlined the abuse of the filibuster [1] and its impact on the gridlock in Congress. This issue focuses on what can be done about it.

The requirement for 60 votes to end debate and stop a filibuster is part of the Senate’s rules of operation. This cloture rule, as it is called, was adopted in 1975, so it is not part of the Constitution or even a rule with great historical tradition. [2] It means that 41 Senators, who potentially represent less than 15% of the US population, can bring progress in the Senate to a halt.

The Founding Fathers and the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected requiring a super majority vote to pass legislation. They established the fundamental principle of our democracy of majority rule in a legislative body. [3] As a result, the Constitution specifically lists six instances when a super majority vote is required, such as impeachment, overriding a presidential veto, ratifying a treaty, and amending the Constitution. [4]

The current, unprecedented use of the filibuster is largely unreported by the media. They typically describe the need for 60 votes to proceed in the Senate as ordinary procedure and rarely differentiate a bill or other matter that had enough votes to pass (51 or more) but was filibustered (i.e., didn’t have the 60 votes needed to end debate) from one that didn’t have the 51 votes to pass. [5]

Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat from Iowa) has proposed that the first cloture vote to end debate require 60 votes, but that over a period of days or weeks the required vote fall to a simple majority of 51 Senators. This would allow ample time for debate and discussion, in the Senate and with the public, but would provide an incentive for compromise and an ability to stop obstruction. He originally introduced this proposal in 1995 when the Democrats were in the minority, so he is offering it as an institutional reform, not to gain a partisan advantage. [6] Other Senators have presented other proposals to change the Senate’s rules to weaken the power of the filibuster. However, it takes 67 votes to change a Senate rule in the middle of a two year Congressional session. A simple majority vote of 51 Senators can change the rules when they are adopted at the beginning of a session, which occurs after an election (e.g., in January 2013).

In May 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Senate claiming that the filibuster is unconstitutional. It was brought by four members of the US House of Representatives, three immigrant students (who would have been helped by the DREAM Act that was filibustered), and the nonpartisan, good government group Common Cause. [7] [8]

There is growing agreement that the filibuster is being seriously abused and significantly harming the ability of our federal government to govern effectively. Because of the partisan implications of filibuster reform, it is unclear whether this consensus or the current efforts to fix the filibuster will reduce its use.

[1]       A filibuster occurs when one or more Senators refuse to end debate on a piece of legislation or other matter. It requires a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes to close off debate (cloture) and allow a vote on the bill or other matter.

[2]       Wikipedia, retrieved 6/8/12, “Filibuster in the United States Senate”

[3]       Harkin, T., 6/30/10, “Fixing the filibuster,” The Nation

[4]       Millhiser,I., 5/15/12, “Four members of Congress sue to declare the filibuster unconstitutional,” Think Progress

[5]       PR Newswire, 12/18/07, “Record breaking: Senate conservatives use filibuster for 62nd time in this session of Congress,” United Business Media

[6]       Harkin, T., 6/30/10, “Fixing the filibuster,” The Nation

[7]       Wong, S., 5/14/12, “Group sues Senate to scrap filibuster,” Politico

[8]       Millhiser,I., 5/15/12, “Four members of Congress sue to declare the filibuster unconstitutional,” Think Progress

THE FILIBUSTER: WEAPON OF OBSTRUCTION

Here’s issue #35 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 6/10/12. It focuses on the filibuster as an important problem contributing to the gridlock in Congress.

The use of the filibuster [1] – or the threat of a filibuster – by the minority party in the Senate to block action has become much more frequent in the last six years, accelerating a trend that goes back to the 1970s. “The filibuster … became a routine weapon of obstruction” according to Mann and Ornstein in their Washington Post article of April 27 [2] (see Newsletter issue #32). Traditionally, it was used to block legislation, such as civil rights laws. More recently, since 2005, a filibuster or the threat of one has been used to block presidential nominations of judges. [3] Most recently, it has been used to block presidential nominations for positions in the executive branch and to obstruct progress in general.

The official Senate statistics only track the formal motions to end a filibuster, not the threats to filibuster, so they understate the use and impact of the filibuster. In the last six years, since the Democrats gained control of the Senate, the occurrence of formal motions to end filibusters by the Republican minority has doubled (average per two year Congressional session of 138 vs. 65 in the previous four years when the Democrats were the minority). The pattern of the Republicans increasing the use of the filibuster also occurred in the 1987-94 (average of 58 vs. 38 in the previous six years with a Democratic minority) and in 1971-80 (average of 32 vs. 7 or fewer in all previous Congressional sessions). [4]

Presidents used to receive routine approval of personnel for high-ranking executive branch positions that require Senate approval because it was seen as the President’s right to build his own team. Recently, however, the Republicans have blocked some of President Obama’s executive branch appointments. Most notably, they threatened a filibuster to block his nomination of anyone to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This body was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in the wake of the 2008 collapse of the financial sector, to protect consumers from abuses particularly in mortgage lending, but also in credit card and banking practices. To prevent the CFPB from functioning effectively, the Senate Republicans threatened to filibuster the appointment the head of the CFPB, first Elizabeth Warren (so Obama never formally nominated her) and then Richard Cordray (former Ohio Attorney General). Obama eventually appointed Cordray without Senate approval when the Senate was in recess so the agency could function. [5]

On the judicial front, Republican filibusters and other delaying tactics have created a situation where nearly one in nine federal judgeships sits empty (80 positions in the District and Circuit Courts), and nearly half of those vacancies are in courts so overburdened that they have been deemed judicial emergencies. As-of March, there were 22 judicial nominees who had been approved by the Judiciary Committee and were waiting yes or no votes in the full Senate. Sixteen had strong bipartisan support in the Committee, having received unanimous support or one dissenting vote. The wait for full Senate votes on committee-approved nominees is averaging over 3 months. For comparison, under President George W. Bush the wait was less than one month. Of the 22 filibusters of district court nominees that have occurred in the last 60 years, 19 have been of Obama nominees.

On the legislative front, the filibuster threat has been used to block the legislation preventing a doubling of the interest on student loans, the Paycheck Fairness Act promoting gender equity in wages, attempts to extend unemployment benefits, the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, the DREAM Act providing a path to citizenship for immigrant children brought to the country when they were quite young, and the DISCLOSE Act that requires increased disclosure of political contributions. The last three of these had passed in the House of Representatives and would have passed in the Senate except for a filibuster. [6]

As Republicans filibuster or threaten to filibuster 70% of the major legislation in the Senate, not only is important legislation blocked, but laws that ultimately pass are watered down, often hopelessly convoluted, and sometimes include irrelevant or wasteful add-ons or earmarks as necessary to get the 60 vote super-majority needed to move to a vote. The filibuster incentivizes grandstanding and the power of small minorities (sometimes an individual Senator’s threat of a filibuster) rather than effective governance. [7]

The next issue of the newsletter will examine efforts to limit the impact of the filibuster.

[1]       A filibuster occurs when one or more Senators refuse to end debate on a piece of legislation or other matter. It requires a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes to close off debate (cloture) and allow a vote on the bill or other matter.

[2]       Mann, T.E., andOrnstein,N.J., 4/27/12, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem,” The Washington Post. Adapted from their book “It’s even worse than it looks: How the American Constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism.”

[3]       Wikipedia, retrieved 6/8/12, “Filibuster in the U.S. Senate”

[4]       U.S. Senate, retrieved 6/8/12, “Senate action on cloture motions,” http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

[5]       Editorial, 1/28/12, “Filibustering nominees must end,” The New York Times

[6]       Wong, S., 5/14/12, “Group sues Senate to scrap filibuster,” Politico

[7]       Guess, S., 1/21/10, “Filibusters are strangling the Senate,” The Guardian

WHY GRIDLOCK IN D.C.?

Here’s issue #31 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 5/20/12. Just about everyone is concerned about the political and policy gridlock in our federal government. This issue of the newsletter takes a look at why this is happening.

The Washington Post published an article on April 27 that is the best piece I’ve seen on why we are experiencing gridlock in Congress. It’s entitled, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.” [1] It is important to know that it is co-written by two scholars from two institutions that tend to have different, if not opposing, perspectives. Thomas E. Mann is at the Brookings Institution, which is often described as centrist or liberal leaning. (However, I don’t think it has ever been called progressive or aligned with Democrats.) Norman J. Ornstein is at the American Enterprise Institute, which is almost invariably described as conservative and is often seen as aligned with the Republican Party.

In the article, they state, “We have been studying politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.” They describe the Republican Party as “an insurgent outlier … ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

The authors note that both parties have moved away from the center, the Democrats in large part because of the loss of conservative, southern Democrats. They use a football metaphor, where the 50 yard line is the center, to describe the current situation: “While the Democrats may have moved from their 40 yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal posts.” (The goal line is the 0 yard line and the goal posts are actually 10 yards behind the goal line.)

They identify two individuals as key movers in the shift in the Republican Party: Newt Gingrich (Republican Representative from Georgia in Congress from 1979 to 1999) and Grover Norquist (president and founder in 1985 of Americans for Tax Reform). They state that “the forces Gingrich unleashed destroyed whatever comity existed across party lines, activated an extreme and virulent anti-Washington base … and helped drive moderate Republicans out of Congress.” Norquist created the Taxpayer Protection Pledge where signers pledge never to support a tax increase even to close a loophole. Currently, 238 of 242 Republicans in the House and 41 of 47 Republican Senators have signed the pledge. Mann and Ornstein note that this pledge, and others that it has led to, “make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible.”

They note that bipartisan groups “propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach,” and that “In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republic opposition … followed by efforts to delegitimize results and repeal the policies.” Republicans have voted against measures that they co-sponsored to deny President Obama anything that might look like progress.

Procedurally, particularly in the Senate, progress has ground to a near halt. “The filibuster [2] … became a routine weapon of obstruction.” The confirmation process for presidential nominees has also been “abused … to block any and every nominee,” including to “posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws … legitimately enacted from being implemented.”

Mann and Ornstein critique the media, noting that they understand journalism, “But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality.” They advise the press, among other things, to “stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating the 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senator’s abusive use of holds [on presidential nominations] and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster.”

In closing, they note that “If our democracy is to regain its health and vitality, the culture and ideological center of the Republican Party must change.”

[1]       Mann, T.E., andOrnstein,N.J., 4/27/12, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem,” The Washington Post. Adapted from their book “It’s even worse than it looks: How the American Constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism.”

[2]       A filibuster requires a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes to end debate and allow a vote on passage of a bill or other matter.

CORPORATE POWER (Part 3): LOBBYING AND THE REVOLVING DOOR

Here’s issue #23 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 3/15/12. This issue examines how corporations influence our government and its policies through lobbying and the “revolving door.”

Corporate influence on government actions and policies occur through campaign contributions (see Newsletters #13 – 17), lobbying, and the “revolving door” where personnel often cycle back and forth between working in government and working for a corporation for which they had an oversight responsibility in their government position.

Lobbying and the revolving door are two key pieces of the puzzle of how corporations have such strong influence. Corporate personnel and their lobbyists build strong personal relationships with Congress people, their staffs, and government agency personnel. Here are examples of how these relationships are built and operate:

  • Corporations, their executives, and their lobbyists:
    • Provide electoral support to Congress people through campaign contributions, solicitation of donors, political action committees (PACs), and Super PAC expenditures.
      • $3.4 billion in campaign contributions between 2007-2010 (see Newsletter #17)
      • $774 million in 2010 from 26,783 wealthy individuals (see Newsletter #14)
    • Provide information and persuasionto Congress people, their staffs, and government agencies, through lobbying, including expertise, position papers, and draft legislation.
      • $3.3 billion in total lobbying expenditures in 2011 with 12,633 registered lobbyists, over 23 lobbyists per member of Congress [1]
      • $476 million spent on lobbying by 30 large corporations between 2008 and 2010 [2]
    • Go to work for Congress or government agencieswhere they have power and influence, which may benefit, directly or indirectly, their previous employer.
      • Obama’s 3 chiefs of staff all previously worked in the financial sector: Jacob Lew at Citigroup, Bill Daley at JPMorgan Chase, and Rahm Emmanuel at Wasserstein Perella [3]
      • Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY. Hank Paulson, head of Goldman Sachs, was Treasury Secretary under Bush and Robert Rubin, co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, was Secretary under Clinton. Other Treasury Secretaries in these administrations were the CEO of CSX Corp. and the CEO of Alcoa. [4]

On the other side of the revolving door, people leave government positions and go to work for the corporations (or their lobbying firms) that they oversaw or regulated while in government. As a result of all these relationships and interconnections, corporations receive:

  • Friendly legislation from Congress such as laws governing corporate practices, regulation, taxes, competition, trade, etc.
  • Accommodating regulations and oversight from government agencies and even outright support at times, such as the recent bailout of financial firms.
  • Inside information. For example, multiple sources document multiple instances where Treasury Secretary Paulson shared inside government information with his former employer, Goldman Sachs. [5]

There are many, many examples of the results of corporate influence on government actions and policies; a few have been highlighted in previous newsletters:

  • Failure to regulate speculation in oil and gasoline markets (see Newsletter #22)
  • Lax regulation and oversight of the financial industry (see Newsletters #21 and #19)
  • Low effective tax rates for many corporations (see Newsletter #2) and low tax rates for high income individuals (see Newsletters #21, #8, and #7)
  • Failure to regulate health threats such as mercury emissions and the use of antibiotics to enhance growth of healthy farm animals (see Newsletter #20)
  • High levels of spending that benefit corporations such as military contractors and that seem impossible to cut (see Newsletter #5)

These are only highlights and examples of corporate influence; future newsletters will highlight others, but the full story takes books to tell and involves many corporations and industries. The outsized influence corporations wield in our democracy was of great concern and impact before the Citizens United decision, which now allows unlimited corporate spending in our election campaigns. With unlimited corporate campaign spending now unleashed, our democracy, and government of, by, and for the people, is truly at risk.

[1]       The Center for Responsive Politics, retrieved 3/7/12, “Lobbying database,” http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php

[2]       Public Campaign, Dec. 2011, “For hire: Lobbyists or the 99%? How corporations pay more for lobbyists than in taxes,” publicampaign.org/reports/forhire

[3]       Moyers, B., & Winship, M., 1/24/12, “The Washington – Wall Street revolving door just keeps spinning along,” http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/24-3

[4]       Wikipedia, retrieved 3/13/12, “US Secretary of the Treasury,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury

[5]       Moyers and Winship, see above

CRONY CAPITALISM AND WINNER TAKE ALL POLITICS

Here’s issue #21 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 2/29/12. This issue will begin to link the issues of corporate power, great inequality of income and wealth, and campaign finance. It is a bit long, as it is a summary of the first three shows of Bill Moyers’ return to public TV.

In case you haven’t heard, Bill Moyers is back on public television. (In theBostonarea, he’s on Sunday at 4:00 on channel 2. Or you can do what I do, download the podcasts from billmoyers.com or other sources.)

His first show back on (Jan. 13) was on Winner Take All Politics, the title of a recent book by Hacker and Pierson, whom Moyers interviews. The book and show document that the huge income disparity in the US (see issue #4 of my newsletter) is, in large part, the result of government policies over the last 30 years. Although globalization, technological change, and other changes in our economy have been factors, the real culprit is our public policies and how they have responded to these challenges. Other countries face these same challenges but have not experienced the dramatic increase in inequality that has occurred in theUS.

Over the last 30 years, the top income tax rate has been reduced from 70% to 35% (see issue #7 of my newsletter) with even lower rates for unearned (i.e., investment) income. As we’ve heard recently, multi-millionaires like Presidential candidate Romney are paying less than 15% of their income in taxes. If you were making around $20 million a year as he is, every one percentage point reduction in your tax rate puts $200,000 in your pocket. And with your tax rate cut in half, you are saving $3 million or more a year, or over $90 million over the last 30 years. Specifically, the Bush tax cuts of the early 2000s have given $50 to $100 million to each of the 400 richest Americans over the last 10 years.

This sets up a reinforcing cycle as some of these riches are funneled back into our political system through campaign contributions and Super PACs, further increasing the influence of the well-off and getting them favorable treatment. In addition, the lobbying capacity of the corporations and very rich has grown, while that of the middle class, particularly unions, has shrunk, further expanding the gap in political power and influence.

Hacker and Pierson note that politicians have learned that they can get re-elected despite ignoring or only giving symbolic support to the middle class, while moving the agenda of the corporations and very rich forward.

On Moyers’ second show (Jan. 20), David Stockman, President Reagan’s budget chief, was a guest. Stockman is writing a book entitled The Triumph of Crony Capitalism. He defines crony capitalism: using political power such as campaign contributions and lobbying to get returns that can’t be gotten in the market. He states that in theUS we do not have free market capitalism or democracy, but crony capitalism.

Stockman believes that we need to re-institute and strengthen the separation of the investment business and its risks from the banking system, as was in place prior to 1999 under a law called Glass-Steagall. Otherwise, he predicts that we will have recurring economic crashes. He says that financial institutions that are too big to fail are too big to exist and he advocates for banning corporate money from our political system and capping all campaign contributions at $100.

Moyers’ third show (Jan. 27) was with John Reed, who retired as CEO of Citigroup in 2000 after presiding over the merger of Citibank with Travelers Insurance. This merger led to and actually required the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law. The mantra at the time was that the new, enhanced financial system could handle the increased risk better than before and therefore repealing the separation of banking from the investment business wouldn’t be a problem. There was an extensive public relations and lobbying campaign to deliver this message, which ultimately skewed almost everyone’s thinking about this deregulation.

Reed, in retrospect, says that it’s amazing that everyone was so wrong and that the system as a whole went so far off the tracks that it caused the great recession we are now experiencing. He states that this was the result of crony capitalism between Wall Street executives andWashington politicians.

In other countries, including Canada, the crisis in the financial institutions wasn’t nearly as bad as here in the US. Our financial deregulation allowed financial institutions (including banks) to take great risks and to provide huge rewards to their people, an important part of our income and wealth inequality. And ultimately, these institutions and individuals did not bear the risk when things went wrong; the government and the public bailed them out.

Reed calls for re-regulation of the financial system, noting that regulations are need so that appropriate risks can be taken. He makes the analogy that cars have brakes (regulation) so that we can drive fast (take risks), but control our speed as needed. If cars did not have brakes, we’d all drive only very slowly. He is amazed that those lobbying against re-regulation and strengthening of oversight of financial institutions have any credibility given the crash they caused with deregulation. He notes that when corporations and the wealthy can buy the rules (or lack thereof), the situation is unstable.

One person who loudly warned of the dangers and, as Glass-Steagall was being repealed in 1999, predicted that in 10 years we would all come to realize that a big mistake was being made, was Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. He noted that the deregulation was designed by those with a self-interest and that the complex securities, i.e. “derivatives,” that have been created are casino gambling with trillions and trillions of dollars. He states that the Dodd-Frank re-regulation law, which is being heavily lobbied against by Wall Street, is too weak to prevent the next collapse.

Another Moyers guest was Gretchen Morgenson of The New York Times who has written a book entitled Reckless Endangerment. She noted that there have been no meaningful penalties for the individuals or institutions that caused the collapse of the financial system and no one has gone to jail. Furthermore, the same people who drove the ship into the iceberg are still in leadership roles on Wall Street and in the federal government.

Moyers closes by calling the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited spending by corporations in our political campaigns, “grotesque,” stating that it corrupts our political system and means that those with no (or little) money have no speech. He calls Winner Take All Politics immoral and notes that we have experienced a deep undermining our democratic institutions.

He cites a sign he saw at Occupy Wall Streetas telling it like it is: “The system isn’t broken, it’s fixed.”

I encourage you to listen to the podcasts of these three shows. They are 52 minutes each and will provide you the richness and depth that I can’t in this summary.

WHY THE RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING? (Part 2)

Here’s issue #12 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 12/18/11. This newsletter continues looking at the issue of voting, exploring who is affected by the changes in voting laws and why they are happening.

The new hurdles to voting and registering to vote that have recently been put in place in various states (see Newsletter #11) will have the greatest impact on the young and old (particularly those who don’t have a driver’s license), on minorities, and on low income individuals. For example, the requirement for a government-issued picture ID will have the greatest impact on the 10% of US citizens who lack such IDs, including, disproportionately, 25% of African-Americans, 18% of 18 – 24 year olds, and 15% of those with incomes under $35,000. Some states’ laws disqualify or make it difficult to use student IDs. Note that before 2006, no state required voters to show a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. In some states, one has to pay to get a government-issued voter ID or the documents required to qualify for one; this has the effect of instituting a backdoor poll tax. Some states’ laws requiring an ID were blocked by courts on the ground that they interfered with the right of eligible citizens to vote. [1]

So where is the thrust for these new, restrictive voting laws coming from? The charge is being led by conservative Republicans and an advocacy group they and corporations created and fund called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC was founded by arch conservative Paul Weyrich, who in 1980 stated, “I don’t want everybody to vote. … our leverage in elections … goes up as the voting populace goes down.” ALEC is funded in part by the billionaire Koch brothers, who bankrolled the Tea Party. It develops model legislation that it provides to state legislators. [2]  [3]

The 6 states that passed new voter ID laws this year have Republican Governors and Legislatures. In 5 of those states, the law was sponsored by a legislator who is a member of ALEC. The 5 Governors who vetoed voter ID laws were all Democrats.

In Maine, a new Tea Party Republican Governor and Republicans in the Legislature repealed the state’s 38 year old same day registration law. (It was reinstated by a referendum.) In Floridaand Iowa, new, conservative Republican Governors removed ex-felons’ right to vote, disenfranchising 100,000 voters in each state. And the pattern goes on. [4] 

In conclusion, these new barriers to voting are the result of a concerted effort to reduce voting among citizens who tend to be progressive or Democratic. Conservative Republicans are engaged in an unprecedented effort to reduce voting to gain partisan advantage. These are the first efforts to systematically diminish rather than expand voting and voting rights since the final days of southern resistance to black voting. These efforts represent an attack on the basic principle of democracy on which this country was founded.

[1]       Weiser, W., and Norden, L., 10/3/11, “Voting law changes in 2012,”BrennanCenter for Justice, New York University School of Law

[2]       Berman, Ari, 8/30/11, “The GOP war on voting,” Rolling Stone

[3]       Nichols, John, 12/9/11, “Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the savage assault on democracy,” The Nation

[4]       People for theAmerican Way, retrieved 10/29/11, “The right to vote under attack: The campaign to keep millions of Americans from the ballot box,” http://www.pfaw.org/print/16472

WHY THE RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING? (Part 1)

Here’s issue #11 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 12/16/11. This newsletter addresses the issue of voting – an issue that has been simmering in the background but is coming to the forefront.

The ability and right to vote is a foundational principle of our democracy. From the end of the Civil War, through the 19th Amendment in 1920 that gave women the right to vote, to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the US has worked to achieve this principle of government by, for, and of the people through universal voting. Until recently, efforts have been focused on making it easier to:

  • Register to vote (e.g., motor voter laws that allowed voting registration when getting a driver’s license and same day registration when voting) and
  • Cast a ballot (e.g., expanded early or absentee voting, on-line or mail voting, and voting on weekends).

Despite these efforts voting participation in the US is well below participation levels in other western democracies. [1]  Turnout in the last six Presidential elections averaged only 53% and only 37% in the last six Congressional elections. Turnout in recent national legislative elections was 93% inAustralia, 66% in theUnited Kingdom, and 61% inCanada.

Starting in the 1990s, a range of efforts with the stated goal of preventing voter fraud were initiated that are making it more difficult to register to vote and to vote. Despite assertions of voter fraud, every non-political investigation of the issue has failed to find any significant voter fraud. “A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter.” [2]  “In fact, Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud.” [3]  “There is no evidence – none – that fraud is a major problem in any state.” [4] 

Nonetheless, in 2011, state governments have enacted an unprecedented array of new laws to make it harder to register and to vote. These new laws are likely to make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to vote in 2012. [5]  The new restrictions on voting and registering include: [6] [7]

  • Requiring a government-issued picture ID to vote (in 14 states including Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin. Vetoed by Governors in 5 states. Proposed in 22 more states.)
  • Requiring proof of citizenship to register. (Kansas andAlabama)
  • Repealing same day voter registration. (Repealed inMaine after being in effect for 38 years without any problems but reinstated by voters in a statewide referendum.) In 2008, over 1 million voters registered on Election Day.
  • Reducing early voting (i.e., prior to Election Day). (Florida,Georgia,Ohio,Tennessee,West Virginia) In 2008, 40 million voters took advantage of early voting.
  • Prohibiting ex-criminals who have served their time from voting. (Florida,Iowa,Kentucky,Virginia)
  • Restricting voter registration drives. (Florida,Texas)

In the next issue, I’ll take a look at who is affected by these changes and why they are happening.

[1]       Caldwell, Patrick, Nov. 2011, “Who stole the election?” The American Prospect

[2]       Berman, Ari, 8/30/11, “The GOP war on voting,” Rolling Stone

[3]       Weiser, W., and Agraharkar, V., 10/22/10, “Ballot security and voter suppression: Information citizens should know,”BrennanCenter for Justice, New York University School of Law

[4]       Roberts, C., and Roberts, S., 10/25/11, “Voting barriers keep popping in 2012,” syndicated column in the Reading Daily Times Chronicle

[5]       Weiser, W., and Norden, L., 10/3/11, “Voting law changes in 2012,”BrennanCenter for Justice, New York University School of Law

[6]       Berman, Ari, 8/30/11, “The GOP war on voting,” Rolling Stone

[7]       Caldwell, Patrick, Nov. 2011, “Who stole the election?” The American Prospect

Bill Moyers and Winner take all politics

The first issue of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, back on 11/1/11, was an atypical item. It provided a link to a speech by Bill Moyers at an event honoring Ralph Nader and the 40th anniversary of his organization, Public Citizen. I did not send other videos, let alone anything this long – 20 minutes. But Bill Moyers and this speech are special. I imagine many of you feel the way I do about Bill Moyers: he is incredibly well informed, thoughtful, and articulate. His professionalism and integrity set a standard that all should aspire to. I hope you can find the time to listen to this.

Bill Moyers: Democracy in Shambles: “Money First, People Second… If At All”

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/10/31-1

In January, Bill Moyers came back on public television. You can also download the podcasts of the shows from billmoyers.com or other sources. His first show back (Jan. 13) was on Winner Take All Politics, the title of a recent book by Hacker and Pierson, whom Moyers interviews. The book and show document that the huge income disparity in the US (see issue #4 of my newsletter) is, in large part, the result of government policies over the last 30 years. Although globalization, technological change, and other changes in our economy have been factors, the real culprit is our public policies and how they have responded to these challenges. Other countries face these same challenges but have not experienced the dramatic increase in inequality that has occurred in theUS. A further summary of the show is in newsletter issue #21.

The website at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzew302m has all past issues of my newsletter.