Our nation has endured many dangerous and demanding times. When we thought the Democracy might be torn apart from external and internal forces we have come together and met every challenge before us. One advantage we have, that has helped us in our times of need, we have been able to elect leaders that fit the times and were willing to sacrifice political capitol to make correct and courageous decisions that brought our nation and our democracy through these crises.
We now have challenges on many fronts. Some of these crises are overblown but many, too many, are in need of real solutions, solutions that take political courage and may require unpopular legislation. We have an ever growing national debit. We have an un-winnable war and one or two brewing. We have Public health and Social Security programs that are on the verge of going bankrupt. Our children are failing in our schools at an alarming rate. We have India and China who are poised to eat our economic lunch, and China may not as malevolent a world leader as the US has been. We have a potentially civilization ending environmental crisis that, if you choose to believe the people who do know, this crisis will have direct affects on our population within 50 years. Oh and there’s terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and the Middle East. All of these crisis, and I’m sure you can add a couple more, need timely and smart solutions for this country and the world to survive.
With the political climate of the last 30 years we cannot eliminate the best ideas or exclude the best people from serving in public office. I believe it is true that qualified candidates for public office and for leadership positions remove themselves from consideration because of the risk involved in public life. The risk of having to carry water for a special interest when that person does not agree wholly in the message or path that interest forces the elected official to pursue. The risk of ruining a family or a career if past indiscretions are aired in public, or just the idea of having to schlep around you district or state in order to raise money to get elected every two years. I also believe that the best ideas are left on the table because the political environment won’t tolerate them or because they come from one unpopular train of thought or doctrine.
Below are 4 ideas that I hope will fix or at least move our political process forward. These are changes in the law that other more knowledgeable people than I have proposed many times in the past.
We need the can-do spirit and attitude that we employed 30 years ago, where government, if needed could move quickly and decisively on behalf of the American people and the world. This IS the best country in the world and it is time we decided if we want to keep it the best, and if we are willing to make the investments and sacrifice we need to make it so.
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine
The Press is the 4th branch of our government. It keeps elected officials in check, and if it’s doing its job, it prevents any one entity in our society from controlling any part of our government without a complete examination in the public eye. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Unfortunately parts of the press have been co-opted by the powerful and power hungry. All major newspapers and television networks are now owned by large corporations and they are exerting control on stories and investigations by those press affiliates. Rather than examining the pros and cons of an idea or group, some parts of the press is playing cheerleader on behalf of powerful interests and the already wealthy.
After the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords it should be clear to all Americans that our political environment has become distorted and overly adversarial. Even though the shooter turned out to be apolitical, just the fact that this is the first thing everyone assumed (including myself) was the motivating cause of the shooting, shows an amount of guilt that the media and elected officials are holding onto. We cannot continue to demonize each other the way we have for the last 30 years.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. One rule in the Fairness Doctrine was called the “Personal Attack Rule”, this rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. I think that would be fair and it would help tone down the rhetoric we see on television and talk radio.
Many other parts of the doctrine would be useful today. One rule banning a single company from owning multiple of broadcast stations, and newspapers in the same market. This would guarantee more ideas in the marketplace. The idea of the Fairness Doctrine was to make as many ideas available to the electorate as possible. When the rule was repealed in 1987, it was thought that with cable TV and later the internet, many new ideas would be available and the doctrine was no longer necessary. However what happened was this; points of view and opinions began to monopolize channels, stations and whole corporations, with one point of view or another. And now the electorate is segregated, conservatives watch FOX and to a lesser degree, liberals watch MSNBC and we are beginning not to trust each other. Hostility is the next step. People naturally gravitate to the channel or source of news they agree with and both are denied an honest and fair representation of the other, or many other sides of any issue. Worse yet not only is one side promoted over the other, but the other side on some programs are castigated and demonized as extremists and evil people. Sometimes you’d think people with a different opinion from the hosts of a political program would steel from your mother and kill your children. You’d think that people would be able to see through this type of blatant hyperbole but there is always someone who isn’t in on the joke, like Byron Williams who took Glenn Beck up on one of his rants and tried to kill the CEO of the Tides Foundation, a non-profit in San Francisco, or as could be the case, shoot a congresswoman.
In any case, some rules about journalism need to be applied to the current media landscape. We cannot continue to allow the people of these United States become further alienated from each other.
Public financing of all Congressional Elections
The reality of a congressmen’s life, unless they are independently wealthy, is that he or she is a professional beggar. Every two years they press the flesh of lobbyists and other contributors, in order to build a campaign fund to ward off the next challenger. If this congressperson is in a competitive district, or his/her party is becoming unpopular that becomes a full time job unto itself. The lobbyists are more than happy to fund an incumbent, but for a little assurance of getting their way, they may fund the challenger too. I don’t want my representative selling himself to lobbyists for campaign funds; I want him to learn about issues I care about, learn what his constituents want and need, and work the levers of government on OUR behalf, not on behalf of anyone with a fat checkbook.
The other problem with our current campaign financing system is that even if your Representative is an honest person and not willing to trade a campaign contribution for a vote or favor. However if a large contributor/lobbyist calls this congressman after the campaign, he WILL pick-up the phone. I don’t know if you have ever tried to call your congressman lately, odds are, at best you’ll be speaking to an aide, more than likely an intern. Back to the qualifier at the beginning of this section, if they are wealthy, we have to be sure they don’t have an ax to grind in government. This is not always true, but it can be.
The most important advantage of Public Financing is it keeps politicians honest.
Public financing of campaigns is the only way we can take the begging out of the job description and give Representatives the time to do their job well. It will also make the office more competitive. The effort to make public office term limited was a lazy way of not being able change representation. People were frustrated that the same person held an office for decades. But what if that person was doing a good job? What if the people liked what he or she was doing? Do we just force them out anyway? Public financing for congressional campaigns would make it easier for the citizens to change representation without a draconian rule that kicks them out no-matter-what.
Redistricting by Fair and Non-Partisan Committees
Every 10 years after the census, every political boundary, from precinct to congressional district, is re-drawn to reflect changes in the population. In most states this is decided by the state legislature. The thing is they (Statisticians in the legislature) know pretty well how everyone votes, and can estimate likely voting down to the street level. Precincts, neighborhoods and streets are traded and altered to create friendly or unfriendly legislative districts for incumbent officials.
It’s more like the elected officials are choosing the voters than the voters choosing the elected official.
In Minnesota, after the legislature takes a crack at this puzzle, the Governor gets to approve the plan. If he doesn’t, the plan goes to an appointed judicial panel. This is good because Judges are less political and trained to be fair. California Doesn’t even let the legislature try; the task goes directly to a panel of judges.
More states need to move to this type of system. It will prevent abuses like the Texas redistricting that happened 2 years after the first redistricting in 2002 where Tom Delay illegally funneled money to state legislature elections to win the Texas legislature, so they could re-re-district the state to create more “Republican” congressional districts. It worked! The following election Republicans picked-up 5 seats.
While you can say, this is someone taking advantage of the existing rules to benefit their party (with the exception of illegal funding). It is not good for the Democracy. It’s not right that once in power; a party can ensure their grip on power and thus taking that choice away from the voters.
Rewrite the Legal Definition of Corporations
Corporations are a great invention of our society. They provide the tools for entrepreneurs and innovators to build organizations that provide needed services and products to consumers and create capitol for further investment in other enterprises. They are intended to be a tool of the Democracy for the benefit of society. Since the turn of the 19th century Corporations (and I’m sure before then) the national government has become a tool to some degree of the corporations.
I own stock in corporations through mutual funds like thousands of other citizens. And while I think it is extremely important to vote and get involved with your government to try to make a better world. It may be more effective to use the proxy ballot I get every now and then and vote for or even lobby a member of the Board of Directors on one of the companies that I own, in part. If you can influence BP or GE to make a serious investment in renewable energy it may do more good than getting a congressman elected. And that of course is the problem.
In politics, if you show up, you make a difference. If you vote, you make a difference. Corporate board elections are very complicated and closed. As a small shareholder I’m not invited to a shareholders meeting. The only reason I get the proxy ballot is because the corporation is required to send me one. And it is a proxy, not an actual ballot. Of course the more shares (money) you own the more votes you have. Corporate governance is not very democratic.
Case in Point: The Citizens United v Federal Election Commission case in the Supreme Court needs to be reversed. It is a travesty to Democracy. That decision makes money equal to speech and those with more money are now able to speak, yell really, with a bull horn, out of every speaker in the country literally, whereas us mortal Citizens are only able to have $2300 worth of speech. If money is speech then only those with money will be heard. If corporations can contribute an unlimited amount of money to any or all campaign(s) and I can only contribute $2300 (like I can afford to donate that amount). That makes them more of a citizen than me. They have more “voice” than any human citizen and can afford to use it.
Just the fact that there are corporations that are “to big to fail” should cause some unease at the size of these companies, and the might they have to influence elections and the direction of our country. Their only purpose is to make money for their shareholders, NOT for the health or good of the Country. The Citizens United ruling must be reversed. Corporations should have LESS say in the governing of the Democracy than human citizens. Corporations are supposed to be a tool of society, not the other way around.
I add this suggestion with some reluctance for two reasons: While Corporations have started wars, assassinated democratically elected leaders and manipulated our government with ease to the benefit of themselves and in many ways harmed the society at large, they are the economic driver in our country. They are why we are rich and happy. Corporations are an Integral part of our society. The second reason is honestly, I am not an expert. I am not exactly sure how the law should be changed. I only know corporations should not have as much influence over our government either with campaign contributions, or the billions of dollars they spent on lobbying elected officials.
In most cases CEOs and other corporate officers and board members are inclined to do the right thing. But they are only human. If a CEO can get a Senator or congressman elected to change a policy or regulation, and that allows a corporation to create more profit for the shareholders, it’s just a good investment. Really isn’t that all that matters?
In Conclusion
To me the political atmosphere in this country is so much more toxic than it was 30 years ago. Conservatives are whipped into a frenzy every evening and liberals are amazed at the lengths Republicans will go to win. It seems that politicians aren’t working for the middle class or the average American, they’re working for someone else who we can’t see and don’t really know anything about. These changes will be very hard to enact because there are some very selfish and moneyed forces out there that would rather keep things just the way they are.
These suggestions I believe, are some basic changes that would help our country deal with the major issues before us, and strengthen our Democracy in the process. They are mechanisms that protect us from corporations, the wealthy and elected officials themselves. They will make a better informed electorate and more honest elected officials. These ideas are not particularly clever. They are not something new that no one had ever thought of before. These are old ideas that are in essence going back to what the country did in the 1950s.
