reform

With Occupy Protesters Dispersed, What Next?

Political ferment on multiple fronts Dec 11 2011

Commentators who criticized the Occupy Wall Street movement for not having a specific policy agenda failed to grasp the movement’s more potent message — the general anger at a corrupted government and an economic structure rigged against them that mere policy tweaking would not fix.

This inchoate national malaise has brought greater attention to a host of organizations that seek to bring about change — anathema to the two political parties, beholden as they are to special interest money. These are not your left and right groups such as MoveOn.org and FreedomWorks, or the coalition of progressive groups under the banner of Rebuild the Dream. Our subject is the broader groups that think America needs structural changes, and for that they need widespread support beyond parochial ideologies if they can ever hope to achieve their objectives. The 99%, after all, includes not just the Occupiers. The Tea Party is part of the 99% as well.

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig has been at the barricades early on with Fix Congress First, which subsequently became Rootstrikers. The curious name derives from Thoreau — “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root” — which reflects Lessig’s conclusion that attempting incrementally to fix the nation’s ills no longer works, that we now have a government completely incapable
Congress for sale is the motif of Lessig's latest book
of addressing and resolving the most fundamental policy problems. Thus, we must attack the root — political campaign funding — which underpins all.

the dormant article V

But how? The only route to overturn the Supreme Court’s rulings, beginning with Buckely v. Valeo and two years ago the catastrophic Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that opened the door to unlimited corporate money to influence elections, is a constitutional amendment. Lessig, along with co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler, convened a conference at Harvard in September to discuss moving toward a first-ever constitutional convention under its Article V. If you are interested in an education in constitutional law, the links at the site to the keynote addresses and panel discussions are well worth the time spent.

Dylan Ratigan, who hosts a show on MSNBC, is another entrant in the campaign to upend the Supreme Court. His website, Get Money Out” has attracted over 250,000 signers and serves up the text of three variations of proposed amendments.

Realizing that a number of organizations redundantly chasing the same goal is likely to be ineffective, both Lessig and Ratigan recently announced that they are joining forces with a larger group, United Republic, in order to create critical mass.

United Republic, found here, is a new and seemingly better funded organization that, like those that have joined it, wants first to get money out of politics and offers what may be its mantra of “democracy should never be for sale”. Its website chronicles the misdeeds of government but is not yet specific about intentions other than to “hold politicians accountable; expose how corporate lobbyists hurt ordinary Americans; build a coalition of supporters from left, right and center; and provide financial support to the best people and organizations”.

Taking an entirely different approach is Americans Elect, with what has to be a first ever approach to a third party. There have been many, but all have been brought into being by a self-appointed candidate such as Robert La Follette, George Wallace, Ross Perot, John Anderson, the irrepressible Ralph Nader, and, of course, Teddy Roosevelt with his short-lived Bull Moose party.

But Americans Elect turns this around. Its two million adherents (and counting) will in April choose a third party candidate for president. Whoever is chosen (and accepts) will then be required to select a running mate either from the opposite party or an independent. The organization is already on the ballot in 11 states, working on 16 more states, and awaiting ballot certification in two others.

This avenue offers the chance of re-birth to candidates such as Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, and for those disillusioned by Barack Obama, it’s a good bet that Hillary Clinton will score highly. All have been asked and demurred, with Clinton saying the chances of her accepting are “less than zero”. But in politics, one never knows.

But once chosen, the unspoken assumption is that Americans Elect would raise funds from its membership to combat the two money-drenched parties, but we find no indication that this key follow-through is the plan. where — at this late stage — would its candidates

Successfully getting on the ballot in 2012 automatically wins American Elect ballot slots in 2014 and 2016. The approach entirely sidesteps the grotesque imbalance of the primaries, where minor states compete to get ahead of each other on the calendar. Attention should be paid to the method more than the results. However, the Reason Foundation found that 80% of Americans would consider an alternative presidential ticket in the upcoming election. If you are of like mind, participate at sign up here.

amendment ferver

A third party candidate would still be faced with the same campaign finance laws frozen in place by a Congress, most members of which do not deserve re-election, say 76% of Americans in the latest Gallup poll, the highest such percentage Gallup has measured in 19 years of asking this question. The public’s 9% approval rating has spurred some in Congress to climb on the reform bandwagon.

Five senators e-mailed an Internet petition titled “Reverse Citizens United”, asking readers to “support the constitutional amendment to give Congress and states the authority to limit corporate and special interest money in our elections.” It asks that we “stand with” Senators, Durbin, (IL), Merkley (OR), Schumer (NY), Udall (NM) and Whitehouse (RI) — all Democrats ) — but with no text of the amendment they have in mind. We are appenrently to trust them. Their strange appeal seems frozen in time. When revisited at this link weeks after it reached our mailbox, there was no change in the number of signers, stuck at 123,261.

Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders is the latest Congressional entrant. He has filed this constitutional amendment that would disallow unrestricted and secret campaign spending by corporations permitted by Citizens United. His View:

”A corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have the right to spend as much money as it wants without disclosure on a political campaign....in order to buy elections. I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about. In my view, history will record that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is one of the worst decisions ever made by a Supreme Court in the history of our country."

mandating the money

Presidential races have become interminable. As television journalist Bob Schieffer says, "Our campaigns begin earlier and earlier … Remember when campaigns were the interval between governing? Now governing has become the brief interval between campaigns”. The cost of the permanent campaign now runs to billions, with no sign of that changing. So how would candidates fund campaigns if the big money were prohibited? Would only the richest, such as Michael Bloomberg, be able to run for the office?

Larry Lessig says small dollar funding would work, and proposes this scheme: all voters would pay $50 in taxes but the money would be rebated to them in a form that could only be used as a donation to a presidential or congressional candidate. (Beyond that, there would be a $100 limit for voluntary gifts to any candidate, in place of today’s $2,300). The $50 alone would generate $6 billion per election cycle, and that’s two-and-a-half times the amount spent in 2010.

“Then nobody could believe, when Congress did something stupid, it was because of bribes”, Lessig says. What chance would this have, asked Charlie Rose on PBS? "Under this Congress? Exactly zero. I looked it up in Google", quipped Lessig. Many in Congress don't want to change the current system. Capitol Hill has become, as Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper put it, a "farm league for K Street", because, once out of office, they have their eye on becoming a lobbyist to rake in money. If corporate money no longer influences legislation, the lobbyist industry will dry up. To win money for re-election, our representatives in Washington would at last turn their attention to the public’s concerns rather than to special interests.

Please subscribe if you haven't, or post a comment below about this article, or click here to go to our front page.