Two weeks ago, Colin McEnroe had a column in the Hartford Courant with the title "Donovan's A Good Guy--Everybody Says So."
I wasn't one of the people who said so, but I would. The few times I met the speaker and the two times we shared a stage he seemed like a nice enough person. His background indicates that he became involved in politics for the right reasons. I would say the same about Elizabeth Esty and Dan Roberti.
Donovan's problem was that Esty and Roberti were raising more money--almost all of it from outside Connecticut.
And in the world we have today, fundraising is often the raison d'etre of campaigns. So the inherent advantage that should come with being the speaker of the state house takes a back seat to who is leading the race for money.
Maybe the finance director who has been indicted would have been corrupt in any circumstance. But it makes sense that because Donovan was trailing in the all-important money race his staff and supporters were more willing to accept money without concern for its origins.
What is doubly troubling is that knowledge of and positions on issues are completely overshadowed by the ability to raise money. At the last debate where I was with the three other candidates I stated that we all needed to address how we would keep 2013 from becoming 1937 (when the economy re-entered recession due to the disappearance of fiscal support from the federal government). None of the other candidates responded to the similarities we are already seeing in our current economic crisis.
But the other three all had fundraisers scheduled following the debate.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Term Limits
I was on the Colin McEnroe Show yesterday. It feels good to be able to have a wider forum to talk about the non-compete clause and how we get our democratic elections back to being democratic.
The other guests (Brian Hill and Matthew Oakes) both agreed that the process is broken and that money is way too important. However, they also both spoke in favor of term limits for Congress.
On this, I couldn't disagree more.
There might be a case for term limits AFTER implementing a non-compete clause for all members of Congress, their staffs, and everyone in the administration. But if term limits are implemented by themselves, it will be a disaster.
The most common suggestion is to limit Congressional service to 12 years--6 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate.
What that would do is give even more influence to senior members--those in their 8th-12th years of service. And these are the exact politicians who would be looking for their "next" job. The allure of a five-fold increase in income AND the ability to "stay in the game" would be too much to resist.
Lobbyists would be able to tell any committee chair that a "great job" awaited. And it is human nature not to want to disappoint a future employer, especially one who is offering significantly more money. This is pretty much the current strategy of lobbyist as described by Jack Abramoff.
I understand the appeal of term limits. But they only address a symptom. The underlying problem is that once elected politicians become addicted to the power of Washington--and right now all the power is connected to money. Listen to the This American Life episode Take the Money and Run for Office, it does a great job of making all the connections.
The other guests (Brian Hill and Matthew Oakes) both agreed that the process is broken and that money is way too important. However, they also both spoke in favor of term limits for Congress.
On this, I couldn't disagree more.
There might be a case for term limits AFTER implementing a non-compete clause for all members of Congress, their staffs, and everyone in the administration. But if term limits are implemented by themselves, it will be a disaster.
The most common suggestion is to limit Congressional service to 12 years--6 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate.
What that would do is give even more influence to senior members--those in their 8th-12th years of service. And these are the exact politicians who would be looking for their "next" job. The allure of a five-fold increase in income AND the ability to "stay in the game" would be too much to resist.
Lobbyists would be able to tell any committee chair that a "great job" awaited. And it is human nature not to want to disappoint a future employer, especially one who is offering significantly more money. This is pretty much the current strategy of lobbyist as described by Jack Abramoff.
I understand the appeal of term limits. But they only address a symptom. The underlying problem is that once elected politicians become addicted to the power of Washington--and right now all the power is connected to money. Listen to the This American Life episode Take the Money and Run for Office, it does a great job of making all the connections.
How we win
There is a great explanation in Douglas Adams' Life, the Universe and Everything.*
"We're not obsessed by anything, you see," insisted Ford.
"And that's the deciding factor. We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
I remembered this when thinking about how hard it has always been to get money out of politics. In fact, it seems much harder for liberals to achieve their public policy objectives than conservatives.
Lowering taxes, especially on the wealthy, has been an obsession for the past three decades. And if that results in an economy prone to bubbles and financial crashes, then the obsession just gets ramped up with the likes of the Tea Party.
And can the wage-war-in-Iraq-at-all-costs focus of George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisers be called anything other than obsessive?
When I talk with other committed liberals about getting the corrupting influence of money out of politics and shutting the revolving door, it doesn't quite raise to the level of obsession. The most common response is something like: "The amounts of money are outrageous. Let's make sure we elect our candidates by raising more for them."
We must make the focus on changing the process an obsession. If fundraising is the main qualification of a candidate, then we must call that candidate unacceptable--even if he is liberal. If a liberal member of Congress or one of her staffers goes through the revolving door to become a high-paid lobbyist, then we need to object as loudly as possible.
The formula for success is: We can't lose if were obsessed. We care, we win.
*The Hitchhiker's trilogy is great satire, and great satire often has insights not found in more serious analysis. This piece by Ezra Klein is a perfect example.
"We're not obsessed by anything, you see," insisted Ford.
"And that's the deciding factor. We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
I remembered this when thinking about how hard it has always been to get money out of politics. In fact, it seems much harder for liberals to achieve their public policy objectives than conservatives.
Lowering taxes, especially on the wealthy, has been an obsession for the past three decades. And if that results in an economy prone to bubbles and financial crashes, then the obsession just gets ramped up with the likes of the Tea Party.
And can the wage-war-in-Iraq-at-all-costs focus of George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisers be called anything other than obsessive?
When I talk with other committed liberals about getting the corrupting influence of money out of politics and shutting the revolving door, it doesn't quite raise to the level of obsession. The most common response is something like: "The amounts of money are outrageous. Let's make sure we elect our candidates by raising more for them."
We must make the focus on changing the process an obsession. If fundraising is the main qualification of a candidate, then we must call that candidate unacceptable--even if he is liberal. If a liberal member of Congress or one of her staffers goes through the revolving door to become a high-paid lobbyist, then we need to object as loudly as possible.
The formula for success is: We can't lose if were obsessed. We care, we win.
*The Hitchhiker's trilogy is great satire, and great satire often has insights not found in more serious analysis. This piece by Ezra Klein is a perfect example.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on tail risk
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
We are the Champions
My company is implementing new processes. Consultants have told us we need to appoint several employees in each office as Change Champions.
This is exactly the role citizens should play in American Democracy. Both Tea Partiers and Occupiers demonstrated it can work. Money and power continue to be increasingly concentrated. Yet even the Roberts' Court cannot deny that We are the Champions.
Of course, we have to participate like champions. To borrow a few sports cliches: we must never give up; we have to contest every "play;" to be champions we must COMPETE.
We must demand that candidates for public office respond to each voter equally. If they refuse, then we need to become candidates ourselves.
We must demand that corporations become better citizens by reducing unemployment, protecting the environment, and helping educate our children (if the SCOTUS says they are individuals then we give them rights AND responsibilities).
We must see ourselves as equal to the rich and powerful. "No time for losers--we are the Champions of the World."
This is exactly the role citizens should play in American Democracy. Both Tea Partiers and Occupiers demonstrated it can work. Money and power continue to be increasingly concentrated. Yet even the Roberts' Court cannot deny that We are the Champions.
Of course, we have to participate like champions. To borrow a few sports cliches: we must never give up; we have to contest every "play;" to be champions we must COMPETE.
We must demand that candidates for public office respond to each voter equally. If they refuse, then we need to become candidates ourselves.
We must demand that corporations become better citizens by reducing unemployment, protecting the environment, and helping educate our children (if the SCOTUS says they are individuals then we give them rights AND responsibilities).
We must see ourselves as equal to the rich and powerful. "No time for losers--we are the Champions of the World."
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Senator Blumenthal is wasting his time
I don't mean what the senator is doing is a waste of time. I mean his time would be better spent finding ways to increase employment, help the middle-class overcome two decades of income/wealth stagnation, and doing something significant on climate change before we hit a catastrophic tipping point.
But instead he is doing this:
Why are we fighting this corruption when we can put an end to it. Conservatives and CEOs often tell us that the government can learn a lot from how businesses operate. So let's agree with them and DEMAND that all members of Congress and their staffs sign a non-compete clause.
Because if Mr. MacKenzie was giving up lobbying for 5 years he would not be going "to serve on a key congressional committee dealing with defense issues."
There are many other battles to be fought. This one has an obvious solution. Let's win this battle and move on.
But instead he is doing this:
 |
Dear Randy,
Help us demand an explanation: “Why did a defense contractor pay a $500,000 “bonus” to a guy named Thomas MacKenzie on the Armed Services Committee?”
Demand an answer. Add your name. And let’s pretend you work for me. Imagine you just got offered a position in Washington on the U.S. House Armed Services Committee — the one that givesme billions of dollars in government contracts. Cool, right? Now, let’s say I gave you a $500,000 bonus just three weeks before you stopped working for me to go join that committee. OK, stop pretending. Last week, we found out a guy named Tom MacKenzie actually did this! If that sounds an awful lot like bribery to you, you’re not alone. He’s being questioned. Help us demand an answer. Add your name. Let’s get Thomas MacKenzie fired, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal is leading the charge and we need to stand by him. Sign your name to tell Blumenthal he’s right. If it looks like a bribe and smells like a bribe... you guessed it! Our investigative news team at Republic Report broke this story late last week. The giant defense manufacturer Northrop Grumman actually did give one of its lobbyists half a million dollars in bonus pay right before he left to serve on a key congressional committee dealing with defense issues. In fact, it was Republic Report’s research that got the Senator riled up and started making national headlines. Now, it’s our job to follow up on their great work and put some shoulder behind this effort. The last time we spoke out against corruption, Pennsylvania Representative Tim Holden lost his seat in the House. That’s because the combined voice of thousands of us can’t be ignored. Add your name to show that you won’t stand for this kind of corruption. To read Republic Report’s original story, click here. Thanks for keeping up the fight against corruption. |
Because if Mr. MacKenzie was giving up lobbying for 5 years he would not be going "to serve on a key congressional committee dealing with defense issues."
There are many other battles to be fought. This one has an obvious solution. Let's win this battle and move on.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Democrats are failing (cont.)
"The Baseline Scenario" should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand the inter-relation between our economic problems and political failures.
In the latest post, James Kwak hits the bulls-eye when he addresses Peter Orzag's analysis of our current situation:
Peter Orszag wrote an article for the latest Democracy** about political dysfunction and the “looming fiscal showdown” at the end of this year. A lot of it is a warmed-over description of political polarization, although Orszag ignores one of its most important causes: the growing influence of money in politics and the resulting need for politicians to go chasing after contributions from extremist billionaires. (Orszag instead subscribes to the theory that political polarization results from public polarization, which has been pretty well debunked by Fiorina and Abrams.)
But Kwak doesn't go far enough. His reference to "extremist billionaires" obviously relates to the impact of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and other right-wing funders. It is just as accurate to define the problem as the need for politicians to spend the majority of their time chasing after donors who can give them thousands of dollars.
As outlined in my first post on this topic, the middle-class is financially where they were in the mid 90s. One of the things that means is that almost no one below the 90th percentile of income/wealth has thousands of dollars sitting around to donate to any candidate.
The New York Times magazine had an article about President Obama's Wall Street donors. One of them asked why the president didn't make a speech similar to his race speech from 4 years ago to make Americans "understand" how beleaguered those in the financial sector really are.
This is one of the reasons why I say Democrats are failing. The pursuit of more money doesn't allow Democrats to "hear" middle-class voters. Because candidates spend so much time listening to the folks who can sign a $2000 or $5000 check.
Candidates need to self-limit the maximum contribution to their campaigns. It must be an amount most voters can give ($200 or $500).
Many folks will say this concedes elections to those candidates who are willing to court large contributors. That may be true for an election or two. But if the middle-class has stagnated for almost 2 decades, what do Democrats call success.
If candidates quit playing by the rules that hugely favor the wealthiest, then they can truly listen to and represent middle-class and working families.
If we want to know how a candidate will represent us, we should require that she be willing to start by changing the balance of power in her own campaign.
In the latest post, James Kwak hits the bulls-eye when he addresses Peter Orzag's analysis of our current situation:
Peter Orszag wrote an article for the latest Democracy** about political dysfunction and the “looming fiscal showdown” at the end of this year. A lot of it is a warmed-over description of political polarization, although Orszag ignores one of its most important causes: the growing influence of money in politics and the resulting need for politicians to go chasing after contributions from extremist billionaires. (Orszag instead subscribes to the theory that political polarization results from public polarization, which has been pretty well debunked by Fiorina and Abrams.)
But Kwak doesn't go far enough. His reference to "extremist billionaires" obviously relates to the impact of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and other right-wing funders. It is just as accurate to define the problem as the need for politicians to spend the majority of their time chasing after donors who can give them thousands of dollars.
As outlined in my first post on this topic, the middle-class is financially where they were in the mid 90s. One of the things that means is that almost no one below the 90th percentile of income/wealth has thousands of dollars sitting around to donate to any candidate.
The New York Times magazine had an article about President Obama's Wall Street donors. One of them asked why the president didn't make a speech similar to his race speech from 4 years ago to make Americans "understand" how beleaguered those in the financial sector really are.
This is one of the reasons why I say Democrats are failing. The pursuit of more money doesn't allow Democrats to "hear" middle-class voters. Because candidates spend so much time listening to the folks who can sign a $2000 or $5000 check.
Candidates need to self-limit the maximum contribution to their campaigns. It must be an amount most voters can give ($200 or $500).
Many folks will say this concedes elections to those candidates who are willing to court large contributors. That may be true for an election or two. But if the middle-class has stagnated for almost 2 decades, what do Democrats call success.
If candidates quit playing by the rules that hugely favor the wealthiest, then they can truly listen to and represent middle-class and working families.
If we want to know how a candidate will represent us, we should require that she be willing to start by changing the balance of power in her own campaign.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Democrats are failing
As someone who ran as a Democrat, I believe that my party offers better solutions than the opposition to the nation's problems. However, I am beginning to wonder.
Here is the lead from a New York Times article yesterday:
The recent economic crisis left the median American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, the Federal Reserve said Monday.
Because Democrats have not found a way to diminish the influence of money and lobbying in politics, they must share the blame.
As long as it cost millions of dollars to be a "serious" candidate for the House, or tens of millions to run for the Senate, then Democrats as well as Republicans will listen more to the donors who can contribute thousands of dollars.
If states and municipalities use tax breaks that benefit the owners and CEOs of corporations at the expense of middle-class residents, then elected officials from both parties are being seduced by the illusion that more money for the powerful means growth for all.
If we Democrats want to reverse the decline of the middle-class, then we must commit to removing the outrageous amounts of money from the political process. Democrats talk about wanting to serve the 99%, but if we continue to play by the rules of the 1%, then we are doomed to failure.
Here is the lead from a New York Times article yesterday:
The recent economic crisis left the median American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, the Federal Reserve said Monday.
Because Democrats have not found a way to diminish the influence of money and lobbying in politics, they must share the blame.
As long as it cost millions of dollars to be a "serious" candidate for the House, or tens of millions to run for the Senate, then Democrats as well as Republicans will listen more to the donors who can contribute thousands of dollars.
If states and municipalities use tax breaks that benefit the owners and CEOs of corporations at the expense of middle-class residents, then elected officials from both parties are being seduced by the illusion that more money for the powerful means growth for all.
If we Democrats want to reverse the decline of the middle-class, then we must commit to removing the outrageous amounts of money from the political process. Democrats talk about wanting to serve the 99%, but if we continue to play by the rules of the 1%, then we are doomed to failure.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Inoculating against dishonesty
Dan Ariely is doing great work in behavioral economics. In promoting his most recent book, The Honest Truth About Dishonesty, he recently wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal. In it he outlines how most of us are "a little" dishonest on a regular basis--though some people are boldly and often dishonest.
The challenge is to provide people with inoculations against their daily failings. Ariely has discovered that making people (even atheists) read the 10 Commandments before doing a task makes them more honest. He also finds that signing insurance applications before filling them out as opposed to the traditional method of signing them on completion makes people more honest.
What we need for politicians is to have them commit to some moral guidelines before they seek office.
You can read my original post for my choice of guidelines. What are some others you think would work?
The challenge is to provide people with inoculations against their daily failings. Ariely has discovered that making people (even atheists) read the 10 Commandments before doing a task makes them more honest. He also finds that signing insurance applications before filling them out as opposed to the traditional method of signing them on completion makes people more honest.
What we need for politicians is to have them commit to some moral guidelines before they seek office.
You can read my original post for my choice of guidelines. What are some others you think would work?
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Top Industries by Percent of Revolvers
I mentioned in my first blog post that lobbyists who use the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street don't serve the interests of most citizens. According to the Center for Responsive Politics these are the top industries associated with the Revolving Door:
Beer/Wine
Communication/Electronics
Tobacco
Finance/Credit Companies
TV/Movies/Music
The complete list and accompanying article can be accessed by the link above.
When you vote this November, remember you might be deciding who gets the next lobbying job for Anheuser-Busch or Verizon.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Politics: Sex and Money
Put simply, there is a point beyond which economic inequality in its
own right complicates electoral control. The appropriate comparison is perhaps with a
powerful magnetic field. When The Force is with them – when, that is, Congressmen and
women, their staffs, presidential aides, and federal regulators can be sure of walking out
of their offices to become multimillionaires when they retire or step down – expecting
them to act consistently in the public interest is idle, even if all representatives were
elected on 100% public funding. Thomas Ferguson--Legislators Never Bowl Alone:
Big Money, Mass Media, and the Polarization of Congress
When politicians fall from power, it is usually due to either sex or money. I don't have any ready solutions for the likes of Anthony Weiner or John Edwards. To paraphrase Montaigne, I have never had the temptation that comes with power, so I cannot boast of my moral strength.
But I do know one way in which politicians in Washington can lessen the corrupting influence of money. Every candidate who runs for Congress and every political appointee in the executive branch should be bound by a non-compete clause. This is fairly common practice in the private sector. The basic purpose is to keep an employee from using knowledge gained from an employer in ways that disadvantage that employer.
That is exactly what happens when a member of Congress, a congressional staffer, or executive-branch staffer leaves and takes a high-paying lobbying job. While all lobbying does not disadvantage every citizen, the most influential and best-financed lobbying entities are truly "special interests" that do little to benefit the greater good. Why should citizens, the employers of elected officials and their staffs, "train" people who turn around and work against our interests. No Fortune 500 corporation would stand for this. Why should we?
The non-compete clause should remain in effect for 5 years after service in Washington ends. This would ensure that our elected officials and their staffs are doing the work we send them to do. Otherwise people we pay will continue to focus on working the system and making connections. Because in reality much of what happens in Washington is preparing and auditioning for high-paying lobbying jobs.
Congress is not going to implement this. We must demand that candidates commit to having a non-compete agreement in place before they take office.
"Neither I nor any of my staff will become a lobbyist, work for a firm whose primary function is lobbying, or take a position that relies on institutional knowledge for at least five (5) years after service in Congress has ended."
The "institutional knowledge" wording can be thought of as the Newt Gingrinch clause.
Many other things need to happen to restore citizens' faith in Washington. Other folks are doing great work trying to close the Pandora's Box that is Citizens United. But those are big efforts that will take several years to complete.
You can ask the candidates in your district to commit to a non-compete agreement in this election. So if you attend any debates or candidate events ask each candidate present if they will commit to serving only their constituents. Or write to your local newspaper and ask them to publish the agreement and have candidates respond.
I think Professor Ferguson is correct--until the revolving door is shut even public financing is idle.
own right complicates electoral control. The appropriate comparison is perhaps with a
powerful magnetic field. When The Force is with them – when, that is, Congressmen and
women, their staffs, presidential aides, and federal regulators can be sure of walking out
of their offices to become multimillionaires when they retire or step down – expecting
them to act consistently in the public interest is idle, even if all representatives were
elected on 100% public funding. Thomas Ferguson--Legislators Never Bowl Alone:
Big Money, Mass Media, and the Polarization of Congress
When politicians fall from power, it is usually due to either sex or money. I don't have any ready solutions for the likes of Anthony Weiner or John Edwards. To paraphrase Montaigne, I have never had the temptation that comes with power, so I cannot boast of my moral strength.
But I do know one way in which politicians in Washington can lessen the corrupting influence of money. Every candidate who runs for Congress and every political appointee in the executive branch should be bound by a non-compete clause. This is fairly common practice in the private sector. The basic purpose is to keep an employee from using knowledge gained from an employer in ways that disadvantage that employer.
That is exactly what happens when a member of Congress, a congressional staffer, or executive-branch staffer leaves and takes a high-paying lobbying job. While all lobbying does not disadvantage every citizen, the most influential and best-financed lobbying entities are truly "special interests" that do little to benefit the greater good. Why should citizens, the employers of elected officials and their staffs, "train" people who turn around and work against our interests. No Fortune 500 corporation would stand for this. Why should we?
The non-compete clause should remain in effect for 5 years after service in Washington ends. This would ensure that our elected officials and their staffs are doing the work we send them to do. Otherwise people we pay will continue to focus on working the system and making connections. Because in reality much of what happens in Washington is preparing and auditioning for high-paying lobbying jobs.
Congress is not going to implement this. We must demand that candidates commit to having a non-compete agreement in place before they take office.
The "institutional knowledge" wording can be thought of as the Newt Gingrinch clause.
Many other things need to happen to restore citizens' faith in Washington. Other folks are doing great work trying to close the Pandora's Box that is Citizens United. But those are big efforts that will take several years to complete.
You can ask the candidates in your district to commit to a non-compete agreement in this election. So if you attend any debates or candidate events ask each candidate present if they will commit to serving only their constituents. Or write to your local newspaper and ask them to publish the agreement and have candidates respond.
I think Professor Ferguson is correct--until the revolving door is shut even public financing is idle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)