Disaster in Massachusetts and a Supreme Court Decision that Disgraces Democracy

Two pieces of calamitous news in two days. Both pretty much impossible to swallow, but both realities moving forward.

The Massachusetts Senate Election

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters elected the little-known Scott Brown to assume the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy spent decades fighting tooth and nail for health care reform, and now reform is severely threatened by Brown's impending inauguration. He has already vowed to obstruct the Democrats from passing a bill (nothing new for a Republican), and now Democrats are starting to back off any ambition they once had for making the bill strong and thorough. Massachusetts voters, who had been enamored of Ted Kennedy for decades, voted to betray his dying wish. I am not saying that the successor to his seat should have espoused his every view; I am saying that whatever values Ted Kennedy held that Massachusetts citizens ostensibly held in such high esteem for so long, they instantaneously turned their backs on.

There are innumerable factors that likely lifted Brown to victory, most of which have been discussed at length. Coakley ran an awful campaign. Voters were still disillusioned by the nation's employment and housing crises. The election was taken for granted by Democrats for too long. But whatever the reason for the shocking defeat, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate, opening the possibility of interminable filibusters and continued obstruction until November, when Republicans will point out to Americans that Democrats have accomplished next to nothing, despite holding the Presidency and both Houses of Congress by sizable majorities.

The House climate bill can be completely scrapped. (Why do we even have a House, by the way? Sure, they're much more representative of our country than the Senate, but who needs representatives, when they don't seem to have a say in anything?) The relatively progressive House health care bill will likely give way entirely to the Senate health care bill so that at least something is passed (if there's no health care bill passed at all this year, Democrats can probably say goodbye to legislative chamber majorities come November). Who knows if there will be a jobs bill (even though that's what people are most concerned about right now). Financial regulations will pass, but likely in a weak bill that will maintain much of the status quo for the very sharks who helped push the world economy into a deep recession.

What exactly were Massachusetts voters voting for, then? Were they trying to send a message that they're mad? Because like it or not, Scott Brown will not get back at Wall Street. Scott Brown will not help create short-term jobs (his solution is to cut taxes). And by the way, when you're out of a job, Scott Brown certainly won't help you get health insurance. Oh, unless you're from Massachusetts, where progressive Democrats already passed legislation to ensure that for you. Ted Kennedy's dream, and life's work, which was so close to fruition, has been betrayed by his own loving constituents, solely because of his death. The irony is excruciating.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision

In other horrible elections news, today the Supreme Court ruled that the government can't ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. I've talked at length about this issue before. While I have problems with the inherent idea of democracy (see: Massachusetts voters voting against their own interests and the interests of their country), I still acknowledge that it is the only form of government that reflects the ideals of human freedom, justice, and equality. It has its flaws, of course, and must be periodically improved so that these core tenets are not betrayed. Today, they were betrayed.

The four conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court and one alleged (but woefully misguided) moderate have further opened the election process to unprecedented levels of cash injections from big businesses, arguing that they are defending the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Let me first say that money is not speech, and conflating those two concepts is nefariously deceptive. But we have to remember here that the Constitution has been bent, twisted, and adulterated incessantly over the past 200+ years, to behoove whomever was "interpreting" its words. In this case, conservative judges who maintain Republican allegiances and were all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled against a bipartisan law that was designed to make elections fair and unbiased, untainted by the influx of money from self-interested groups corporations.

What is democracy now? Does the prefix demo- not mean "people"? What the majority of the Court failed to acknowledge was the underlying foundation of our democratic republic: the right of the people to choose their leaders, and the right for any person to have a chance to become one of those leaders, assuming they can compel the electorate to afford them enough votes. Now corporations will hold undue influence in all federal elections, the wealthiest of them having the biggest say in which politicians will be elected (think: Walmarts who exploit employees, Exxon Mobils and Southern Companies who unabashedly contribute to climate change, Pfizers and Aetnas who exploit the sick for massive profits, and Citigroups who get away with inciting economic turmoil and run away with unfathomable bonuses).

Whatever politicians who are still around that you thought were truly serving the interests of their constituents--that average "Joe the Plummer" that Republicans just love evoking--will soon be a vestige of a previous era of American politics. Don't get me wrong: Democrats are often just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to being beholden to special interests. And elected progressive Democrats who want to reform our election system to make it fair and democratic will soon be few and far between. Unbridled capitalism has commandeered our democracy. Our election system, the basis of American idealism, is truly tarnished in an irrevocable way (unless today's atrocious ruling is one day revoked).

It's been a really bad week for America.

Images: Scott Brown (New York Times), spineless Democrats (photobucket.com), Supreme Court Justices (Zimbio.com), Guy with sign (scu.edu)

Dear Congress, Climate Regulations Hurt Minorities. Love, "NAACP."

Only days after I wrote about the power of special interest lobbies in Congress versus the power of the American people as a whole, an interesting story broke. According to the Times:

A grass-roots lobbying firm has acknowledged forging letters opposed to the climate bill that were sent to a Virginia lawmaker. The office of Representative Tom Perriello discovered that a half-dozen letters it received had nearly identical language signed by a made-up person at Creciendo Juntos, a Latino group, and five fake members of the Albemarle-Charlottesville branch of the N.A.A.C.P.

So here we have the powerful, corporation-financed professional lobbyists—who already have a great deal of clout among Congress members and often win victories for companies whose actions are harmful to the public good—posing as members of nonprofit organizations that seek to give a voice to historically voiceless or powerless communities, in order to block legislation that would disadvantage their clients.

The bill claimed that the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) would be deleterious to low-income families (the opposite is in fact true, according to the Congressional Budget Office). And here's the best part:

The lobbying firm, Bonner & Associates, apologized to the groups and attributed the faked letters to a temporary employee who, it says, has been fired.

Well, problem solved, then, Bonner & Associates. Glad that meddlesome rabble-rouser is out of there! Shame they weren't able to catch him before the bill went to a vote.

How often does this happen when the perpetrators aren't caught? And how often do forged letters like these end up influencing Congressional votes? ACES only narrowly passed the House, and more moderate Congress members could have easily been swayed by a completely fabricated plea allegedly coming from important advocacy groups.

Even with a political system that is already tainted by unethical injections of money, greed, and power, those with the advantage still don't play fair. How can the public be served when the public seems to be neglected or undermined at every turn?

The Problems with Democracy II

In my last post I focused on the problems with American democracy from the constituency angle, namely the long-term-vision shortcomings of the American voter and how the inherent necessity of representatives to represent these voters often precludes sound, sustainable public policy. But there’s another, arguably more important, facet of the problematic tendencies of our democracy. And that, ironically, is that the American voter doesn’t have enough say in the process. At least, relative to the sway that well-financed organizations and companies can hold.

It seems that politicians are much more interested in the concerns of special interest groups than with those of their own constituents. Why is it that the largest corporations and trade associations in this country have so much power over the way Congress votes? I completely appreciate that these companies are, in many ways, vital to the American economy. They provide large shares of our GDP and employ many of our citizens. But the Constitution—for good reason—charges elected representatives to represent the people, not the private sector. Often, the interests of profit-maximizing corporations directly oppose the public interest. But the voice of the public interest pales in comparison to those of special interests, or at least it falls upon all-too-deaf ears.

Ordinary Americans don’t have the time or resources to be able to share their concerns with their elected officials the way paid professionals do. And when there’s a sizable number of largely poor people who aren’t having basic needs met (e.g. health care), you can bet they won’t be paying a lobbyist to show up in the halls of Congress and ask for a public option in health care reform. In too many cases, people whose needs are not being met are forced to rely on nonprofit organizations that are funded by wealthy idealists, and the genuine morality and conscience of politicians (for those select few who still retain these rare attributes).

But that’s really not good enough. Corporations should have a voice in Congress, but only to the extent that their dealings help the national economy and help keep people working. Unfortunately, much more powerful factors are also at work that shouldn’t be. The whole concept of campaign contributions has completely reshaped our democracy. There have been many laws put forth, and several passed, by those "moral" politicians mentioned above, which seek to reform campaign financing, but they are few and far between, and do not address the some of most pressing of the problems.

Why is the corn industry so heavily subsidized when those subsidies serve to hurt small farms, impoverish farmers in other countries, and make our food substantially less healthful? Why is the health insurance industry making such huge profits while dozens of millions of people are without health insurance? Why are utilities still permitted to build coal power plants, pollute our atmosphere, and heat our planet?

Money from organizations and corporations given to political campaigns needs to be dramatically curbed if we want any hope of giving the people a true voice in this country. And in the meantime, let's see to it that there's a great deal more transparency with regard to special interest group visits to Congressional offices, and other aspects of the political process infiltrated by special interests. The political process should have absolutely nothing to do with money. It should be reserved for those who, rich or poor, feel a genuine desire to serve their country. And that means enacting laws that benefit the citizens of this country, not the wealthiest and loudest interest groups.

Images: health care rally (Nashville scene blog), special interests (LiveTheSolution.com), money barrow (NorCal blogs)

Something Is Rotten in the State of Illinois

Today, Democratic Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested by the FBI on corruption charges. The Bureau had been bugging his phones for weeks, listening in on conversations that revealed, among other illegal conspiracies, his plans to try to “sell” Obama’s Senate seat. “If I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself,” he was recorded saying. The practice of having the governor select a candidate to fill a Senate vacancy, which many states subscribe to, is inherently a sketchy one. I can understand the desire to circumvent a costly campaign and election whenever a Senator leaves office, and in most cases, a special election is held during the next Senate election cycle, regardless of how long the Senator had served, à la Joe Biden’s seat.

Indeed, Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware went through the same sorts of deliberations, and David Paterson of New York is in the process of choosing Hillary Clinton’s replacement—both are choices that have political implications and can be met with a great deal of opportunistic strategy. But Blagojevich’s arrest raises far more meaningful questions than those about Senatorial politics. The 74-page criminal complaint against the Governor describes a slew of crimes he committed. Here are some highlights:

• Trading government jobs and contracts for contributions to his campaign fund. For example, he allegedly said he would hold up $8 million in financing to the Children’s Memorial Hospital unless he got a $50,000 contribution from its chief executive officer.
• Negotiating with the Tribune Company, which owns both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Cubs, to fire one of the governor’s critics on the Tribune’s editorial board in exchange for state financing of the sale of Wrigley Field
• Envisioning ways to take advantage to the greatest extent possible of the open Senate seat, including:
• Convincing Obama to ask Warren Buffet to give $10-$15 million to a foundation that Blagojevich would later head
• Appointing himself, in order to avoid impeachment, facilitate his wife’s career as a lobbyist, pave the way for a 2016 run for the presidency, and/or increase his speech fees once he retires from politics.

Blagojevich already had the lowest approval ratings of any governor in the country due to previous charges of corruption. Illinois, and Chicago in particular, is a notoriously corrupt state. But it is exactly this type of appalling situation that should force legislators to sit down and write more stringent ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Our country’s politicians are, with few exceptions, immersed in special interests. Lobbyists with money have exponentially more political influence than ordinary citizens without money, and campaign contributors, especially in Blagojevich’s case, have exceptional influence as well (or at least those who want any influence must become campaign contributors).

Congress is obviously reticent to enact sweeping ethics bills, because, well, they’d essentially be restricting their own behavior. Campaign finance laws are especially weak, thanks in part to recent Supreme Court decisions that have ruled against stricter regulations under the guise of “First Amendment protection.” While I was disappointed to see Obama renege on his vow to accept public financing, it was clearly the right decision for his campaign to make, as there were few obstacles precluding McCain’s campaign from effectively using the much less restricted donations piling into the Republican National Committee's chest.

Barack Obama spent a lot of time on the campaign trail talking about lobbying and campaign finance reform, especially in the primaries (which, in my opinion, was part of both his and John Edwards’s appeal). And perhaps with the current economic crisis, such issues will be pushed to the backburner, as they are not entirely urgent. But Rod Blagojevich’s arrest should be a reminder to the country that we need to be addressing ethics in politics much more forcefully. A large part of the reason we’re so far behind on healthcare, climate change, energy independence, and now most evidently banking and financial regulation, is the potency of lobbyists over the hopes and needs of the true constituents in a democracy—the people. Only when a poor, ailing woman with no health insurance has as strong a voice in government as a bigwig insurance agency lobbyist can we truly say we are a democracy.

There is so much cynicism toward politics in our country, and with good reason. From Ted Stevens to William Jefferson to Rod Blagojevich, there seems to be little reason to trust those who are supposed to be working on our behalf. That all needs to change. And hopefully the one who’s been promising that change for two years will be able to deliver. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Photos: Rod Blagojevich (Washington Blade), Capitol for sale (CleanUpWashington.org), Obama and Clinton during a primary debate (Newsday.com), Change we can believe in (Flickr.com)