Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWith the nation's first billion dollar presidential campaign, pay-to-play scandals occurring at breakneck speed (think Jack Abramoff and Norman Hsu), results in elections that are flawed by suppressed votes and machine error (and a War that Stays the Course despite the millions who went to the polls in November 2006 with a demand to end it), the public has had it with politicians who don't listen to them, care about them, or respond to their concerns. This climate of discontent has led to a rethinking among champions of public financing and clean elections about how to channel their efforts into a larger, more holistic pro-democracy movement. The key question for these reformers is this: how do we fashion a movement that taps into voters' frustrations and captures the imagination for a cleaner, more democratic way?
Certainly there is good momentum in this direction. In Congress - where, for example, the entire Alaskan delegation is either under indictment or soon will be and the pressure for constant fundraising is unsustainable - there is a convergence of democratic values and ideals and more pragmatic considerations wrought by fundraising fatigue. ("The result of this nonsense is that almost one-third of a senator's time is spent fundraising," former Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings wrote in a Washington Post op-ed lat year.) There are two excellent bills with impressive co-sponsorship, the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act (S 1285) and in the House, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 2007 (HR 1614). Both bills would allow candidates who show a qualifying level of support and opt-out of further private contributions to receive public funding. According to Senator Durbin, "Support is increasing for the idea of public financing in fair elections: seventy-four percent of all voters support public financing... 80 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of Independents."
There are also important state battles being waged and won in this arena. The Congressional legislation was modeled on successful public financing systems in Maine, Arizona and North Carolina. Connecticut has a new Clean Elections program and this week a Republican became the first candidate in the state to qualify for public financing in an upcoming special election. Maryland recently passed a public funding bill through its House of Delegates and fell just one vote short in the Senate. In all, seven states and two municipalities currently have publicly financed elections in which large private contributions are replaced by public grants and small donations.
"The environment for public financing is strong," says Nick Nyhart, President and CEO of Public Campaign, "due to both the continuing political scandals and the steady, inexorable rise in the cost of campaigns. There are new state victories ahead and the federal work is moving forward, though we are really only at the beginning of the Congressional fight.... It really seems to me that the key thinking needs to move from policy to strategy and organizing."
Which is why Nyhart and many of his colleagues are working to knit these democracy issues into a larger whole. Nyhart says that focus groups reveal that Americans of diverse economic, racial, and geographic backgrounds share a common, core complaint about politics today: that their representatives don't listen to them and aren't accountable to them. Pro-democracy proponents are finding new ways to frame issues - ranging from the racket of protecting incumbents through gerrymandered redistricting, to unreliable and easily hacked voting machines, to getting people to the polls with Election Day registration rather than suppressing votes through bogus allegations of voter fraud - in a manner that makes those standing in the way of reform pay a political price.
Nyhart likes to draw an analogy with the environmental movement. "In 1964, saying 'I'm an environmentalist' had no meaning," he says. "Ten years later saying that made a candidate more electable. Right now, saying 'I'm a pro-democracy' candidate' doesn't mean much. There is no set of issues for the public to relate that statement to. And you can't establish it with a single issue. So organizations are working to find a politically salient group of issues to achieve that kind of impact."
Returning to the example of the environmental movement, one modest proposal is to take a page from the League of Environmental Voters' invention of the "Dirty Dozen." This was an extremely powerful and effective way to identify politicians who stood in the way of bipartisan environmental progress. Many of them were defeated in their re-election bids in the 70's. So how about an Anti-Democracy Eight? Or a Democracy Day á la Earth Day devoted to maximizing voter turnout, making campaigns affordable for ordinary citizens, and producing reliable election results?
Perhaps Democracy Enemy #1 would be Senator Mitch McConnell. (Please offer your nominees for the Anti-Democracy 8 below!) Recently, an ad by Public Campaign Action Fund highlighting Sen. McConnell's favors to political donors was pulled by Insight Communications, a cable system owner. NBC, CBS, ABC and two other cable systems ran the ad after thorough fact-checking. But Insight pulled it without explanation in the 11th hour. Turns out Insight Communications executives - including the corporation's CEO and chief lobbyist - are allies of McConnell. After receiving 6,000 petitions in one day questioning Insight's motivations and demanding the ad run, the company reversed its decision. In trying to squash free speech, Insight proved the very point the ad raised about the cozy relationship between McConnell and his donors. Adding to the irony is that the ad concerns an $8.3 million McConnell earmark to a firm with ties to the senator. The contract paid the firm to provide MP-3 players to tribesmen in Afghanistan that played - of all things - pre-recorded messages promoting democracy!
There are plenty of good activists and groups who have crafted a broad pro-democracy agenda in recent years. In March, the New Democracy Project, Demos, The Nation, and the Brennan Center for Justice released The Democracy Protection Act - 40 Ways Toward a More Perfect Union. The measures suggested in the report - building on the policies crafted by a score of good groups - challenged a system we described this way: "We have too much money and too few voters in our electoral process. Too much corruption. Too high barriers blocking access to civil justice. Too much contempt for the Rule of Law." We looked at things like national voting standards, paper trails, secure voting machines, Election Day registration, voter suppression and intimidation, lobbying laws, public campaign funding, and free air time for qualifying candidates.
But the challenge now - at this moment when democracy's image has been so tarnished by scandal, big bucks, and a shameful war falsely waged in its name - is to move beyond the policy suggestions to build something greater than the sum of its parts. Such a movement will go a long way toward retrieving democracy and restoring its promise.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2007 The Nation
19 Comments so far
Show AllThe time has come. You know it, I know, the world knows it. Civil war will happen here, The revolution will be in our lifetime. And who side will we choose?
These are the moments that our people will talk about in books after our bones have long been buried in the sands of time.
These will be the moments in which we set ourselves apart from the sheep, and we stand. We stand for what is rightfully ours.
The war has begun, the trumpets have been blown.
We are brothers and sisters!!
This is our fight. There is only, us and the enemey.
There is no black, white, red, or yellow.
There are only the freemen and freewomen.
And then there are the oppressors.
US and them. There lives and ours.
We are one unit, we are one people. Feed your brother and your brother will feed you.
Starve for your brother and he will do the same.
Give drink to your brother, and he will quench your thirst.
Fight not amongest ourselves, but let us unite in what will be the defining moments of our lives.
There is no rich or poor. Only us and them.
No strong men and weak men. Only us and them.
Turn the other cheek for your brother but not for the enemy.
Turn the other cheek for your sister but not for the enemy.
I ask you not, as a leader of men, but as a brother in arms, a brother in spirit, a brother in pain. A brother in sacrifice and a brother to those that wish to remain free.
I ask you in this time of our greatest need for cohesiveness and bonds built with one goal.
And that goal is maintaining freedom.
Providing Freedom for our brothers and sisters. Maintaining what was given to us by those that died.
And what is being taken away from us by those that kill.
We are blind, but only have to open our eyes to see what we have been missing.
We are deaf and mute, but only need to focus our minds to hear the call, and open our mouths to speak the words that will save us from our selves.
We are not going to take it any more.
Say it to yourself, when you lay your head on your pillow.
Say it to yourself when you wake.
Say it to those you love.
Say it to those you hate.
For it is only us and them.
Say that you will not let your brothers starve alone, say you will not let your brothers go with out drink alone.
We are one people, we are one movement.
We are the revolution.
~Future~
Conrad September 18th, 2007 3:09 pm
In other words, a successful taking control of all branches of the government is a prior condition to real electoral reform.
===============
Tell me how you "take control of all branches of government" with the current electoral laws, two-party duopoly, media propaganda,...
Follow the money!
http://www.opensecrets.org/
has information on lobbying and contributions by person, by special interest groups, and parties.
Unless we cut off this money, nothing will change.
CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS, not public financing of political campaigns.
Just limit campaign spending and campaign contributions, and then it won't be necessary to have the government in the business of giving campaigns funding and deciding which ones get it.
Sometimes when a design no longer does what the designers intended it to do, its better to junk it, and design something new that will function as it's designers indended.
It appears the evolved design of the American government has so many serious and fixed flaws that it can not be repaired or refined.
When the Congress is forced to spend a third of it's time attempting to seduce and suckle the Johns and Janes of "K" street, it maybe too late for a motion to reassert it's moral authority.
Alternatives exist in abundance, some of which allow the people to rule, by electing representatives, and where corporate funding of elections is not considered 'free speech', and the people finance the elections through taxes collected by the state, with just enough campaigning allowed to make sure the electors are properly informed on the issues.
Real, substansive change to the Constitution which allows the majority, (instead of the military-industrial-corporate complex,) to rule, appears to be the only remedy left, short of a violent revolution.
IMHO, we are making this harder than it needs to be and putting up barriers before we even get started.
We need to settle on the top 5 to 10 specific things that make the vote of the people count, and that make our "representatives" be accountable to THE PEOPLE.
For me, that list must include:
1. Vote by mail in every state and every precinct in all elections like we have in Oregon. This encourages voter turnout in a big way. This could be coupled with same day registration so that NO ONE is disenfranchised that legally should be allowed to vote. (I think we passed that one in Oregon this last year too). I think that registration access could also be enhanced. Make voter registration available at the DMV, library, escrow office when someone buys a new home, car dealers, maybe even grocery stores.
2. Total public financing of ALL elections. This would mean more independent candidates. It would also help to stop the strangle hold of the DLC/RNC money machines to thwart good candidates. The money should not just come from individual tax payers. Corporations benefit the most from a stable democracy so should be taxed separately at a VERY LARGE flat amount. Based on Net Income? Gross WORLDWIDE revenues? This should be coupled with free and fair advertising in all media outlets that use the PUBLIC airwaves. That means free public debates that MUST be carried on ALL channels and outlets AT THE SAME TIME, like they do in France. By the way, the courts haven't knocked down the states laws that have public financing, so that is not an excuse to not get behid this.
3. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)or Proportional Voting or some other variant. The "spoiler" effect has to be eliminated. Many other countries have voting laws that are some type of "instant run" off come election time.
4. About the Electoral College - Its days are numbered. The "Compact for Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" eliminates the "winner take all" Electoral College and has been signed off on by 47 states. Legislation has already been passed in several states and been signed by their governors. Legislation is before all 47 states in their legislatures. The sooner this is passed by the states, the sooner the Electoral College will become a thing of the passed.
5 - 10: What do you suggest?
P.S. As mentioned in the artical, find out where your Congress Critters are on the two bills mentioned. Then call, write, or e-mail your Congressional representatives and get them to support/co-sponsor the U.S. House Bill 3099 "Clean Money, Clean Elections". In the Senate, get them to support/co-sponsor the Durbin/Spector bill "Fair Elections Now Act".
Thanks for all you do!
Why am I worried when the Democrats say to get the money you need a "qualifying level of support"? Given the history of the Democrats in writing (rigging) election rules, I'm guessing that they'll write this such that the only parties that get the money will be Democrats and Republicans.
When talking about elections, make sure you remember the vote-counting software as well as the voting machines. Everyone knows how to do a fair election. You need secret ballots so you can't be intimidated, and you need an open and transparent system of vote counting.
My precinct had some 400 votes cast in the 2004 election. That level of counting can be done fairly and openly in the precinct after the polls close. Basically have election workers and reps from the campaigns count the votes in a public setting where any citizen can come watch. Then results of that precinct and every other precinct are tallied together.
Until we give up the wholly undemocratic idea that somehow, corporations are persons, and thus are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as individuals, corporations are going to have more rights and freedoms than the people.
I agree that paper ballots are the only way to go. Even voting machines with a print out of each vote can be tampered with.
If we don't impeach Cheney and Bush after all the crimes they have committed, a precedent will be set. Any president or vice president could follow suit and nothing would happen to them either. How can we restore Democracy without dealing with their crimes and impeaching them?
I agree with Abby, we MUST go back to paper ballots. "Paper trails" are just fluff to make us feel we have something "like" democracy. After the polls are closed, the software gets tampered with and we come out with a completely different winner than we voted for! It WILL happen again in 2008 ... unless we go to paper ballots, you can count on it!
One good way to take a step toward real democracy again is to IMPEACH (hellow!) Bush and Cheney, who have both committed war crimes, crimes against the Constitution, crimes against humanity ...
IMPEACH NOW!!!!! It is our DUTY to impeach them.
I guess I should add that campaigns for electoral reform can be good tactically, mostly as propaganda (in the good sense). They shouldn't be expected to succeed (the Court will see them as illegal to the extent that they do succeed) but they can be used to discredit the the Supreme Court and electoral system. So they should not be crafted to comply the the ever shifting Supreme Court goalposts of "corporate free speech" but should be as logical and to the point as possible. Then, ruling them unconsititutional will have a more damaging effect to the Court.
Leaving aside the issue of whether rule changes will cause real policitcal changes, any kind of election financing laws that make any kind of difference will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Trying to craft laws that comply with the Court's concerns about "free speech" will be futile since the Court's majority has shown that it's main concern is preventing democracy.
In other words, a successful taking control of all branches of the government is a prior condition to real electoral reform. Those who think they can use electoral reform to take such control are dreaming.
The powerful have always held more clout than the ordinary in any democracy.
Let us not kid ourselves about that.
The reason that people become leaders is that they have shown leadership. In most cases, it also means that they amassed wealth. It is rare that someone just comes out of the blue and snares an election.
When the people in power start to play favorites to their kind, that is when movements must arises, and give back to the people their say.
Part of "The Democracy Protection Act" states:
"Make Electronic Voting Secure - Use electronic voting machines with paper trails (as ATMs do) to deter or detect fraud."
I don't care how many paper trails they make. The guts of the computer's software can still be hacked skewing the results even though the person's "receipt" is correct.
We MUST go to all paper and ink ballots that can be hand counted or we have no true democracy. Unless we have free and fair elections that are completely transparent there is no way any voter should feel his/her vote counted.
And unless the people in each precinct are included in the hand counting with video cameras watching the proceedings, I for one will always doubt the results. Stalin was right when he said, "It' s not important who votes. It's who COUNTS the votes."
Just a brief response to "citizen1's #2 - Whereas I understand the argument in favor of term limits, I believe they bring disastrous results. I cite California, for example. With all the faults of the California legislative system, adding term limits to the mix made it far worse. It now means that by the time a new legislator gets up to speed and gains just a little footing, the rug is pulled out from under them. Now, the only "experience" in Sacramento comes from the very lobbyists the "citizen" refers to. The second most influential group is the staffers, many of whom continue with the newly elected member. To put term limits into the mix in D.C. would make the system much more difficult to accomplish anything on behalf of the People, give inordinate power to lobbyists and assure that our government is totally run by amateurs. Besides, we already have "term limits", it is called "the ballot box" and it comes around every 2, 4 or 6 years. We still have the possibility to "throw the bums out"! We could also fight for proportional representation rather than "winner take all"! Also, how about getting $$$$$ out of politics?
Vote Green!
US is not a democratic country - get over it....
The Democrats are not going to give us democracy either (by the way they do not qualify to be called the "opposition party". That's my response to every fund raiser letter I receive from them).
We have a two party duopoly, both sustained by the same cesspool of big money, military industrial complex and Israeli interest groups. Where there is a veneer of democracy, there is no real competition of ideas, no real alternatives an no free and fair election.
What we need first are:
1) publicly finance elections (today it is not 1 person = 1 vote, rather is is $100,000 = 1 vote). It does not matter who you elect, he/she is not representing you but the above list of constituents (big money, military industrial complex, Israeli lobby, etc.)
2) term limit (to reduce undue influence of lobbyists)
3) Independent election commissions (to prevent Florida and Ohio)
4) Some kind of instant run-off voting
By the way, not only do we not have no democracy, we also do not have any free media (by law yes, but practically, and by the law of money, no)
Good luck
We are one people, and we need to have world government to prevent the damn mess we're in. Capitalism is the real problem with our political and economic system, and it hasn't ever been a democracy, as democracy requires a classless and tolerant society which we have never been, but we're worse today, much worse.