Resolution Concerning Corporate “Personhood”

February 16th, 2012

A Draft 

Whereas the United States of America ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of its Constitution guaranteeing every person life, liberty and property; due process of law; and the equal protection of the laws;

Whereas it was clearly the intent of the Congress and Legislatures of the several states to protect actual persons rather than legal fictions;

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United State has misrepresented this amendment in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), by holding that the legal fiction of corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment;

Whereas corporations are legal fictions created by law and granted privileges and immunities not available to citizens and persons in the United States;

Whereas a long line of Supreme Court rulings for over a century have been based upon this misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

Whereas in the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010) decision, the Court granted to corporations unprecedented First Amendment rights;

Whereas the consequence of Citizens United as resulted in hundreds of millions of corporate dollars into the political process, greatly impairing the voice of citizens and persons in the political process; and

Whereas Citizens United has denied citizens and persons the equal protection of the laws;

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party adopt a platform that includes a call for an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America defining “person” as an actual, individual, living human being;

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party urge the National Democratic Party to adopt an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America defining “person” as an actual, individual, living human being;

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party urge all candidates for the United States Congress and the Texas Legislature to support and to work actively for such an Amendment; and

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party campaign and actively work to outlaw corporate funding of election campaigns and to enact legislation ending the existence of so-called “Super PACs.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Election Reform, Politics, Texas Politics, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Thoughts on the decline and fall of the Roman Republic

February 9th, 2012

I think the decline of the Roman Republic began in the 3rd century B.C. as the city extended its sphere of control beyond the Italian peninsula and particularly with the Punic Wars. In the Italian peninsula these trends devastated the plebeian farmers who had made up the citizen legions of earlier wars, many of whom were forced of their small farms into the city of Rome. That amounted to a huge transfer of wealth from plebeians to the patricians who operated huge latifundiae using slave labor. The displaced plebs in the cities were politically destabilizing in a system designed to favor the patricians. The republic faced problems with populist leaders such as Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, his younger brother Gaius, and Gaius Marius.

The extension of wars beyond the Italian peninsula also resulted in the transformation of the citizen legions into professional legions that were dependent on and loyal to their wealthy generals. This resulted in the domination of the Roman government by wealthy military men such as Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gaius Julius Caesar. That ended up with a Civil War between Pompey and Caesar, only to be followed by the “second” Triumvirate of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Marcus Antonius, and Gaius Octavius Thurinus and yet another Civil War that was the final nail in the coffin of the Senatus Populusque Romanus and the Roman Republic.

Also, it should be noted that the limited scope of republican government during this period was simply too small to govern the growing empire of the Republic; it was mostly drawn from the 300 members of the Roman Senate. The lands controlled by the Senate were simply too complex for such a small administration. One of the features of the transformation of Roman government by Caesar Augustus was a vastly increased Roman bureaucracy.

In the earliest days of the Roman Republic, wars were fought in Italy. There was also a “war season”–in the summer. The Roman legions were comprised of male citizens of suitable age divided up according to their financial ability to provide suitable arms and armor. (An elite class that could afford a horse was “equestrian” (sometimes called “knights” in modern histories) that made up cavalry; the equestrian class existed long after they had anything to do with cavalry, which in Imperial Rome was generally non-Roman auxiliaries). Citizen farmers operating small family farms made up the bulk of the legionary light infantry. This worked reasonably well because they could work their farms in planting season, go off to war in the war season leaving the farm to the care of children too young and elders too old for military duty and women. Then they could return after the war season in the fall for the heavy work of harvesting.

But when wars spread far afield from Italy, and particularly with the prolonged warfare of the Punic Wars, this system broke down in two ways. First, it meant that the family farmer/citizen legionary was away from the farm for extended periods–even years at a time. As a result the farm became less productive and the farmer and his family fell in to serious debt. And eventually the farm would be abandoned or seized by creditors. These farms then became latifundiae of wealthy absentee landowners in Rome operated by slaves. We have records of instances of this very early in the republican period, but it became a major problem in the third century B.C. and after.

Second, the early republican army was largely financed directly by those citizen soldiers, be they light infantry, heavy cavalry, senatorial commanders, or consular generals. The wars weren’t financed by “the government.” The “pay” that the Roman army received was any booty they could get if victorious–and that was distributed pretty much by rank by the generals. But the Punic Wars required full time soldiers whose substances and arms were provided by the legion–i.e., the general. That came partly from the general’s wealth but mostly from the spoils of war. But the point was that it came from men like Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, the great hero of the last of the Punic Wars, not from the Senatus Populusque Romanus. So the loyalty of the legion was to the general not to the Roman Republic. And that meant that the likes of Gaius Marius, his nephew Gaius Julius Caesar, and his grandnephew Gaius Octavius Thurinus (aka Gaius Julius Ceasar Octavianus and to history as Augustus Caesar) could use the legions they commanded against the Senatus Populusque Romanus. And while Marius and Caesar both commanded legions under authority from the Roman Senate, both Marcus Licinius Crassus and the young Octavianus commanded legions bought and paid for entirely from their own fortunes without any authority from the Roman Senate. (Tthe young Caesar before he held any magistracy, raised a navy to capture the pirates who had captured him and an army to put down a provincial revolt–again out of his own fortune and some funds he borrowed, probably from Crassius).

But one of the side effects of all of this is that the city of Rome came to be populated by large numbers of impoverished citizens who had been dispossessed of their farms and bankrupted by war, not only because of the system of manning the legions, but the depredations of the armies of Hannibal in Italy as well. These citizens could vote in the popular assembly for laws and magistrates–including the consuls. They could be swayed by appeals for reform and outright bribes. And, if necessary, they could be excited to become outright mobs–something done by both the populares and the optimates. The authors of the U.S. Constitution were quite aware of this and were concerned to avoid this because they had read their Roman history and were aware that it would lead to tyranny.

Students of history frequently seek cause and effect relationships in the past—as I have done here. The tendency is among those mentioned in David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, especially chapter VI, “Fallacies of Causation.” (See also, Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History by Carl R. Trueman.)

The temptation is to draw questionable parallels between history and current conditions in a predictive ways. An example of this is H. J. Haskell’s The New Deal in Old Rome: How Government in the Ancient World Tried to Deal with Modern Problems. A more recent example would be Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America by Cullen Murphy. I may look at this later. Murphy focuses on Imperial Rome in the second century A.D., but I think the decline and fall of the Roman Republic is perhaps more apt. I our Founding Fathers wished to emulate anything it was republican Rome, not imperial Rome.

Historical events are always unique and unrepeatable, whatever similarities exist between them. While there may be similarities between an event in the past and its presumed causes, there are always significant differences. Among those, it might be noted, is simply the later knowledge of the earlier events and the causal relationships assumed which can later the more modern event. We may, for example, note the extreme disparities of wealth and power in ancient Rome, 18th century France and 19th century Russia and perhaps rightly conclude that they contributed to the “decline and fall” of the respective regimes. We may further note similar disparities in the United States in the 21st century. Whether or not the modern disparity will lead to the ultimate decline and fall of the United States depends in part on how we apply our knowledge of the past to the issues of today.

 

Posted in Roman History, Roman Legions | No Comments »

Book Review: Tempest at Dawn: A Novel

February 5th, 2012

 Tempest at Dawn: A Novel by James D. Best. Wheatmark: Tuscon, Arizona. 2010.

For those who are interested in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 which drafted the Constitution of the United States of America, the primary historical sources may be a bit daunting. The best such source is clearly James Madison’s Notes of Debates: In The Federal Convention of 1787 That work is the most extensive record of the debates which occurred in  the Assembly Room of the Pennsylvania State House, known today as Independence Hall. The Congress of the Confederation had met there during much of the Revolutionary War; it was in this room that the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed. Madison’s notes run over six hundred pages in my edition and make for interesting, but sometimes difficult reading. Madison included some of the verbatim texts of speeches–his own and some given to him by his fellow delegates. Others are transcriptions he took down as they were delivered. He includes the texts of formal resolutions and records of votes. There are some curious lacunae, particularly regarding Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, which have employed historians for decades.

But he recorded only that which occurred in the Assembly Room–the “plenary” session of the Convention and the Committee of the Whole. We know that there were several committees, but we do not know what occurred in those meetings. All of these meetings were conducted in the strictest secrecy. It is remarkable that there were virtually no “leaks” of the proceedings. The newspapers did speculate (and sometimes report as fact) what was occurring in the Assembly Room and committee room, but they were mostly wrong. The official minutes of the proceedings are sketchy, and few of the delegates revealed much about the workings of the convention. Madison’s notes were not published until all the the participants had died.

It does seem unlikely that the 55 men suddenly appeared in the Assembly Room when the sessions began and just as suddenly vanished on adjournment. Certainly the members ate meals together in small groups, patronized Philadelphia taverns and even caucused. It is also unlikely that they only discussed the weather when outside the Assembly Room.

Tempest at Dawn is a novel. Fiction. Historical fiction. It does adhere closely to Madison’s notes when describing what occurred in the Assembly Room. But James Best uses the imagination of the novelist to construct what might have occurred in the taverns, salons, dining rooms and inns. He also draws on historical data to present us with the personalities of the major participants in the convention. The result is a readable, engaging story of the creation of our Constitution.
 Tempest at Dawn: A Novel by James D. Best. Wheatmark: Tuscon, Arizona. 2010.

Posted in Book Reviews, U. S. Constitution, U. S. History | No Comments »

I’ve got a new gravator…

February 4th, 2012

…whatever that is.

Thanks to a ranting friend.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

My American History Project

February 4th, 2012

I would like to “get inside” the minds of the “Founding Fathers” as they launched the constitutional form of government which has shaped American life for over 225 years. My interest was sparked by reading James Madison’s Notes of Debates: In The Federal Convention of 1787 which drafted the Constitution. Many things struck me as I read. Madison, for example, seems to have had a notion of pure representative democracy. He seems to have had an idea of a national government both expressive of and constrained by nothing other than the will of the people. He fought for a legislature that would be “dependent on the people alone.” (The Federalist Papers, “No. 52: The House of Representatives”, p. 323) I was also struck by the attitude of those at the Philadelphia Convention concerning states and state government. Perhaps that attracts my notice because of the ongoing debates about “State’s Rights.” To be sure, the views of the 55 men who participated in the convention ran a gambit from those favoring a confederation of sovereign states to Hamilton’s advocacy of reducing the states to departments of the national government. Frequently those men saw state governments as corrupt and too subject to populist demagogues. There was a serious discussion of a Congressional “negative” of state actions—all state legislation would have to be submitted to Congress and subject to its veto. The reason this idea was rejected seems not to be due to any attachment to state sovereignty. Indeed, many had a dim view of state sovereignty. But rather, the idea was rejected for three quite pragmatic reasons.

First, there was the relative isolation of states. This only partly had to do with the notion that a state government was more immediately aware of state needs than a national Congress. But there was a realization of the difficulty of communication and transportation. It could take over a week for information to flow from the states to a central government. They were aware, for example, that it had taken over a week from the scheduled start of the Philadelphia Convention for a quorum to arrive due to weather conditions making travel even more difficult that usual.

Second, they realized that the sheer volume of legislation coming from the states could overwhelm Congress and prevent Congress from dealing with pressing national business.

And third, they realized that the requirement of a congressional negative would make it more difficult to get the Constitution ratified.

This particular issue brings home the fact that the “world” in which our Founding Fathers lived was very different from the world today. Just with the matter of transportation we normally can travel anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, where they measured travel in days, weeks and even months. Communications have undergone an even more radical transformation—words, voices and images can be transmitted around the world at the speed of light.

This project focuses on the United States of America during the period from 1781 (the British surrender at Yorktown) through 1791 (the proposal by Congress of what would become the Bill of Rights). To try to see through the eyes of Americans in that decade geography, demographics, economics, culture, technology and politics are to be considered and contrasted with the United States at the beginning of the 21st century. For example, in 1890, the year of the first census, the United States consisted of 3,929,214 people, a land area of 864,746 square miles—a population density of 4.5 people per square mile. By 2000 the United States had a population of 281,421,906 and an area of 3,537,438 square miles—a population density of 79.6 people per square mile. (United States History, “U.S. Population, Land Area and Density, 1790-2000. 2 February, 2012) How did these data affect how Americans saw themselves in that formative period of our history?

Posted in Politics, U. S. Constitution, U. S. History, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Ruminations of a Septuagenarian: Prejudice

January 30th, 2012

My earliest memory is of the announcement of the attack on Pearl Harbor over the radio in our living room. And, not surprisingly, many of my early memories are connected in one way or another with World War II. I recall that my brother and I had a picture of the Japanese emperor in our basement. Treasonous? Hardly. It served as a dart board. Understandable, given the passions aroused by Pearl. I now reflect that it is interesting that it was a picture of a “Jap” and not of Hitler. My parents were Christians. But apparently they did not reprimand us for using a picture of a human being, for whom Christ died, as a target of our darts. But, as I say, it is interesting that the picture was of a man of a different race rather than a man of the same race. Maybe Pearl Harbor is the explanation of the difference. Maybe not. I do not know today. My parents were also Republicans. They did not care for FDR. But I suspect that had the picture been of FDR, they would have quickly intervened — Americans do not use pictures of Presidents for dart boards.

We lived in Geneva, Ohio, a town a few miles south of Lake Eire. I remember that in the summers we would rent a cottage on the lake for a few weeks. It was one of a couple of dozen in an encampment. To the west was another similar encampment that somehow or other I was informed was “Jewish.” Along with this came the idea that there was something or other not entirely respectable about that and that there was something or other very dark, mysterious and even dangerous about those cottages. Fortunately, there was a fence between their encampment and ours. But maybe that only underscored the message.

When I was ten we moved to San Angelo, Texas. Texas is, of course, one of the states of the Confederacy; and in the late 1940s and early 1950s the Civil War was still being fought. Never mind that back in the Civil War days, west Texas voted against secession. I was a damned Yankee.  It took a few years for me to lose some of my Midwestern ”accent” and for my peers to forget about my unsavory origins.

San Angelo in those days had separate neighborhoods for Blacks and Hispanics. I never went to school with a Black until graduate school. Remember that Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregated schools came down when I was a senior in high school. School attendance zones assured that no Hispanics were in my elementary or junior high schools. Looking at my high school annuals I see that there were a few Hispanics. The ones I remember were pretty much “Anglicized.” I suspect that most Hispanics had dropped out of school before the 10th grade when our high school began.

So the neighborhood in which I spent seven years was thoroughly white. But there were Disciples of Christ (us), Presbyterians (my two best friends across the ally from where we lived), Episcopalians (the rectory was across the street), Methodists (an 0ther one of our gang), Catholics, Jews and even Greek Orthodox. None of us kids thought a thing about it. Of course in school there were Baptists, Church of Christ, Assembly of God and God only knows what else.

Two of my money raising activities as a kid in San Angelo were selling magazine subscriptions and Christmas cards door to door in the neighborhood. I now realize that one of my clients, being Jewish, weren’t interested in Christmas cards. In my innocence I would call on them every fall selling Christmas cards. The interesting thing is that they bought cards from me every year. Now they probably did look for something that had snowflakes and “Season’s Greetings” (I’m pretty certain there were no “Happy Hanukkah” cards), but they never raised the problem of goyim selling Christmas cards to Jews.

We had a Black woman who came in once a week to clean house. In the summer when I was home for lunch the lunch arrangements were interesting. She would sit at the kitchen table next to the door to the breakfast room off the kitchen while we were in the breakfast room. We would carry on a conversation with her through the door. My mother did invite her to join us in the breakfast room early on, but she declined saying it wouldn’t be proper.

When I was in high school I frequently saved my bus money by walking home from school. That took me through “Colored Town.” I was never harassed, nor was I fearful.

Posted in General | No Comments »

New Texas Poll

January 26th, 2012
TEXAS POLL AFTER SOUTH CAROLINA
Barack Obama Mitt Romney Newt Gingrich
Approve Disapprove Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable
Overall 43% 47% 28% 29% 34% 37%
Republicans 17% 79% 46% 28% 60% 22%
Democrats 80% 14% 11% 63% 13% 63%
Independents 53% 30% 20% 38% 20% 40%

Margin of error: 3.5%. Source: Dallas Morning News 1/26/2012

Maybe Obama has a chance to win Texas’ 38 electoral votes. Given that there is a 4% difference between his approval and disapproval rates, with a 3.5% margin of error — and that translates into a regression toward the mean — it is simply too close too call.

Tags: ,
Posted in Politics, Texas Politics | No Comments »

Of Gigantic Coaches and Very Tiny Constables

January 25th, 2012

The Constitution of the United States of America is a remarkable document. Written in 1787 and since amended only 27 times since then, it forms the basis of American government and law. In addition to certain rights guaranteed in the original document 10 amendments were added in 1791 guaranteeing certain rights. Among those amendments — the Bill of Rights — is the fourth amendment dealing with search and seizure. Our courts, and notably the Supreme Court, is frequently called upon to rule on current matters using the parameters set forth in that document. One of the principles that guides the decisions is the “original intent” of the authors.

Recently the court heard a case (United States v. Jones ) involving the use of a Global Positioning Device (GPS) attached by the police to a suspect’s car to gather evidence of the suspect’s criminal activity. What interests me particularly about this case is the whole question of what might possibly have been James Madison’s “intent” with regard to police GPS surveillance when he wrote the Fourth Amendment in 1789. In a concurring opinion Justice Alito (with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined) comments on the difficulty in putting the issue before the court in terms Madison might have understood. In a footnote he writes:

The Court suggests that something like this [a case in which a constable secreted himself somewhere in a coach  and remained there for a period of time in order to monitor the movements of the coach’s owner] might have occurred in 1791, but this would have required either a gigantic coach, a very tiny constable, or both—not to mention a constable with incredible fortitude and patience.

Perhaps this is just a bizarre instance in which the use of 21st century technology, inconceivable to our founding fathers, poses an impenetrable mystery as to what 18th century men might have intended. This surely requires something on the order of the proverbial wisdom of Solomon.

But the case is by no means unique. What the “demi-gods” assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 might have imagined to be “Commerce … among the several States” was certainly vastly different from what is interstate commerce today. Transportation and communication was far more restricted. The likelihood of a dairy farmer operating in Massachusetts having any possible relationship with a resident of Atlanta, Georgia was extremely remote. That is no longer true.

It is also somewhat difficult to understand what those men in Philadelphia might of understood “the general welfare of the United States” might mean 225 years later. I doubt that they had any vision of a nation that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific (plus Alaska and Hawaii) of well over three hundred million people, much less what might promote the general welfare of such a nation.

It is also the case that what they would have understood by the word “corporation” was very different from the corporations that dominate not only the national economy, but the international economy as well. They would probably regard the strangle hold these corporations have on our political institutions — both on the federal and the state level — as a tyranny as bad as any monarch. They surely would have found the court’s notion of a corporation as a person with First Amendment rights of speech and press beyond reason. (Not to mention that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment surely had no such intention when they used the word “persons.”)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Politics, U. S. Constitution, U. S. History | No Comments »

Republic, Not a Democracy?

January 16th, 2012

So goes the rhetoric. But it makes no sense. Yes, the Constitution of the United States sets for a republican (not to be confused with Republican) form of government and requires the several states to have republican (not to be confused with Republican) governments. In political science a republican (not to be confused with Republican) form of government is representative – that is a government in which those who govern are representatives of some constituency. Thus in the Roman Republic magistrates (albeit not the Senate) were elected by an assembly of Roman citizens.

So the founders intended to create a republic – a government of representatives of some constituency. But what constituency? But what constituency. James Madison is held to be the “Father of the Constitution.” He is quite clear what that constituency was to be.  Madison’s view placed the national legislature at the center of the government as he conceived it. While the idea of a bicameral legislature was his, he seems to have thought both houses should be apportioned according to population. The Convention did alter that proposal so that the House of Representatives was to be apportioned on the basis of population, while the Senate would have two members from each state.

In the Constitution as adopted, this understanding of what was to be represented by each house of the Congress is buttressed by the manner of the members’ appointment. The Senate – explicitly representing States – was to be elected by the state legislatures The House of Representatives – explicitly representing the people rather than states – was to be elected directly by the people.

How Madison understood the House of Representatives is explicit in the Federalist Paper # 52, which is believed to been by Madison. In that paper Madison states, “[T]he right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government…. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States would have been improper for [that] reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone.” (Emphasis added)

This idea of dependence on the people alone is so important that he repeats it a few paragraphs later.

As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the [House of Representatives] should have an immediate dependence on, and an immediate sympathy with, the people.

Nothing could be more democratic! The notion of the people as the source of government Is also made clear in the preamble – “We, the People of the United States, … do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.” This point is further emphasized by the means whereby the Constitution was to be ratified – not by state legislatures, but by conventions.  And, indeed political scientists classify the American form of government as a constitutional democratic republic.

It seems to me that what Madison had to say back then is relevant to two trends in America in the 21st century. First, the method of campaign finance has rendered the federal government dependent, not on the people alone, but on accumulated wealth which manipulates government policy for a small minority’s profit. Second, the increasing tendency of state legislatures to restrict in various ways the ability of people to exercise the franchise undermines what Madison regarded as “a fundamental article of republican government” and “essential to liberty.”

Tags: ,
Posted in Book Reviews, Politics, U. S. Constitution, U. S. History | No Comments »

Book Review: Republic, Lost.

January 16th, 2012

Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress–and a Plan to Stop It: A Book Review

Lawrence Lessing documents how Congress is corrupted by our “system” of campaign financing. The cost of campaigning has risen dramatically in the past 40 years due to a number of factors including the importance of television advertising, use of scientific polling and marketing techniques and the size of the American population. How candidates for Congress pay for their campaigns has a lot to do with how the federal government functions. It is estimated that congressmen spend from 30% to 50% of their time raising money. That means attending to those who can deliver large sums of cash.

At one time Congress was a place where the issues facing the country were considered in floor debates. Today if you tune it to either the House or Senate sessions you will see someone addressing a largely empty chamber. This is true even when major issues are being debated. Then when it comes time for a vote, the chamber will gradually fill for the vote – and then immediately empty. It is quite apparent that no member of Congress is listening to the floor “debates.” The speeches are largely for public consumption, not for deliberations to persuade members to vote one way or another. Nor are the members off in committee meetings. These, again, have actually declined in recent years.  They too are largely forums for members of Congress to address the public. But members of Congress are busy on the phone or at meetings to raise money either for their own campaigns or those of their party.

Lessing argues that the system doesn’t, for the most part rise to the level of outright criminal bribery. Those who campaign and those who pay for campaigns know that is illegal and avoid it. The corruption is more subtle in Lessing’s view.

The first part of the book deals with the question of trust. Scientists disagree about the dangers of PSA in plastics or global warming. But when that disagreement takes the form of a significant difference between studies independently funded and those funded by industries with a financial interest in the study’s results, public trust in the science is undermined. William Howard Taft warned that it was not so much a question that a judge might be influenced by favors granted by those with cases pending before him as the danger that such relationships inevitably lead to the public mistrust of the judicial system. That is the basis of the Judicial Code of Ethics developed by Taft.

Instead of outright bribes which are illegal, Lessing argues that the system operates on the model of reciprocal gifts. If a friend gives me something I feel an obligation to reciprocate in some way. It isn’t compulsory. I am not required to give something in return, but psychologically I have a need to do so. Given the reality of the cost of mounting a campaign for Congress, large donations would seem to create that gift relationship in which the candidate is obliged to reciprocate – at least by giving the donor access. The reality also is that special interest donations are “bundled” by individuals representing that interest. This is one way lobbyists operate.

Lessing admits that it is hard to prove that this gift relationship influences congressional behavior, but – like the scientific studies that seem to favor the interests of their sponsors, there does seem to be a high correlation between the amounts donated to congressional campaigns and congressional outcomes – even to what matters even get a congressional hearing. Correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, given that the approval ratings of Congress are near the single digits, clearly the public trust is severely affected by the way political campaigns are funded, if not the actual acts of Congress. The complaint is that the actions of Congress more closely reflect the will of special interests that contribute large sums to campaign funds than to the will of the American people.

Lessing show how the system does not work for the political left. Clear mandates of the 2008 elections were that the majority of American voters wanted change – specifically a health care reform that included a public option, regulation of too-big-to-fail banks and limitations on the ability of special interests to subvert the government. All three failed in Congress; they were all blocked by special interests contributing millions to congressional political campaigns – yes on both sides of the aisle.

But the same is true of the right. The Republicans have long advocated smaller government, less regulation and tax reforms. Lessing points out that none of this ever happens because each proposal eventually runs into the problems created by campaign finance. Congressmen, regardless of party do not want smaller government and less regulation of markets because that means less opportunity to raise campaign funds. Similarly, the tax code is riddled with exceptions that are the result of lobbying by special interests. Interestingly most of these exceptions have “sunset clauses” that require that they expire after a set period of time. But the sun never sets because when twilight comes the inevitable extensions – again for a set period of time – are a source for additional campaign contributions.

Most of the book details how campaign financing leads to a broken system which does not reflect the idea of the Founding Fathers that the federal government they were creating should be dependent on the will of the people alone. But toward the end of the book he does suggest a number of ways we, the people, might regain control of our government. The problem with each of these approaches is that they depend either on legislatures and the Congress to adopt legislation which breaks the current system of campaign funding. That, in turn requires that we send to Congress and state legislatures people who are independent of the financing of special interests and pledged to change the system.

One interesting proposal is what Lessing calls the Grant-Franklin project. The idea is that instead of that checkbox on your 1040, each person is given a $50 (Grant) voucher which can be given to the federal candidates’ of the individual’s choice. In addition voters could contribute up to $100 (Franklin) out of pocket. Candidates would not be allowed to accept any additional funds. In principle, this would raise more money for candidates’ campaign funds that is currently raised. But it would be totally independent of special interests.  The main problem I see with the proposal is that first it must get enacted into law by Congress. Special interests and many congressmen are sure to oppose it. The second problem I see is that it does not address the problem created by Citizens United.

But read the book. It is a valuable read to understand why our federal government is broken and does suggest ways we, the people, can take back control of it. I would also add that what is described here in terms of the federal government is also true of our state and even city governments.

Tags:
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries