The Best Election Money Can Buy

                                 Robert A. Levine   January 31, 2012

They say that money can’t buy happiness, but the Florida G.O.P. primary shows once again that it can buy elections. Unlike the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, winning Florida with its large and diverse population can not be accomplished by “retail campaigning.” It’s impossible to reach enough voters to make a difference by shaking hands and scheduled appearances. The only way to influence people is through the media, which means the more money, the more exposure.

 After Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina, one would have thought his momentum would have led to a surge in his numbers in Florida, another Southern state that elected a conservative Republican governor and senator in 2010. Indeed, Gingrich was ahead of Romney by 9 percentage points in Florida after his South Carolina win according to the Rasmussen Reports. However, massive spending on advertisements by the Romney campaign and the SuperPACs aligned with Romney, bombarded the airwaves with negative sound bites about Gingrich that transformed the outlook for the two candidates. As of January 29, the same Rasmussen poll had Romney leaving Gingrich in the dust, leading 44% to 28%, a stunning reversal in a short period of time.

But virtually unlimited funding can buy a lot of airtime on radio and TV, allowing Romney to constantly pound away at his opponent. ABC News has estimated that Romney and his SuperPACs have outspent Gingrich and his by a four to one ratio. And total spending by the two campaigns in Florida has been projected at over $22 million.

 On local, network and cable TV stations, Romney ads have been appearing eight to ten times as frequently as those of Gingrich. Day after day, hour after hour, the Romney machine has blasted away at Gingrich, an unending stream of negative messages that have taken a toll on the former House Speaker. Gingrich has been called an influence peddler, his role with Freddie Mac highlighted, the $1.6 million he received in fees contrasted with the housing mess in Florida. His ethics problems while in Congress with the $300,000 fine have also been featured in numerous advertisements. To target the large Latino population, the reports that Gingrich had called Spanish the language of the ghetto were repeatedly emphasized in the Hispanic media. With the barrage of damaging portrayals of Gingrich saturating the airwaves, is it any wonder that his image as a smart electable conservative has been torn to shreds.

 The Romney campaign’s funding advantage has also produced a far superior organization, with many more boots on the ground to do canvassing, make phone calls, hand out flyers, get supporters to the polls, etc.
 The developments in Florida have certainly pacified the Republican establishment that was fearful of Gingrich’s ascendancy. While Romney’s winning of the Republican presidential nomination is not yet a foregone conclusion, he will be well on his way to victory after the Florida primary. When differences among the candidates on important issues are relatively minimal, it’s evident once more that the deciding factor is who has the deepest pockets. Unfortunately, even more money will be spent and more negativity spewed forth when the general election campaign commences.

Resurrecting Democracy

http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/

Mitt and Newt at the CNN GOP Florida Debate

               Robert A. Levine

The increasingly strident tone of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as they faced off in tonight’s G.O.P. debate in Florida must be considered in the context of the battering each has been receiving from the other’s SuperPAC. Of course, both candidates deny their ability to control these attack ads and criticizes the other’s ads for falsehoods and misstatements of the facts.

 Perhaps desperation reared its head along with an obvious dislike that each candidate feels for the other, allowing them to slash away at each other with no holds barred. While that may make for fine entertainment in the tradition of the World Wrestling Federation, it bodes ill for the Republican candidate who eventually wins the nomination. The contest against President Obama will have to be fought with all the baggage that has been accumulated during the knock-down, dragged-out Republican race.

 The attacks that Mitt and Newt launched against each other’s credibility must also be viewed in the light of the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll that had Newt surging to the front of the pack for GOP primary voters nationwide, at 37% to Mitt’s 28%. Yet among all voters, Newt was swamped by Obama in a head to head match-up (55% to 37%), with Mitt faring considerably better but still losing (49% to 43%). Rick Santorum garnered only 18% of Republican primary voters, with Ron Paul trailing with 12%. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports had Romney ahead over Gingrich among Republicans in Florida by 39% to 31%.
 In tonight’s debate, it appears as if Romney came out more aggressively than in the past and held his own against Gingrich. Romney hit Gingrich as expected over his lobbying for Freddie Mac and its role in the housing collapse. Gingrich as expected denied that he had been a lobbyist and emphasized Romney’s investments in Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs. He also brought up Romney’s Swiss bank accounts and his investments in the Cayman Islands along with his low tax rate. Romney countered that he was proud of his success and accomplishments. The two men also argued over the immigration issue, with Gingrich attacking Romney as anti-immigration and both claiming each was distorting the other’s stance on immigration. Most of the venom between Romney and Gingrich came out early in the debate and simmered down after Santorum asked that the debate move away from Gingrich’s actions as a lobbyist and Romney’s business success, since there was nothing wrong with either, and there were more important issues to discuss.

Santorum scored his points by hitting both Romney and Gingrich over health care, pointing out the similarities between the program passed in Massachusetts under Romney’s leadership and Obama’s federal plan. He declared that Gingrich had supported a health care mandate in the past and that neither Romney nor Gingrich could contest Obama over health care because of their past actions.

 Ron Paul kept emphasizing the need for the U.S. not to interfere in the affairs of other countries, to shrink the federal government and strengthen the dollar. He spoke of medicine being better prior to the establishment of Medicare, blaming the government for the high cost of health care.

 I would call tonight’s performances by Romney and Gingrich a tie, perhaps even giving Romney a slight edge. (Romney’s new debate coach can be proud.) Santorum was able to get across his passion, but did not articulate his positions as well as Romney and Gingrich. Paul’s vision seemed anchored in the past, without a way to move the country forward. Romney needed this performance to cement his Florida lead, but there are still five days left to the actual primary where things could change.

 Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/

A Possible Path to a Centrist Third Party?

                                    Robert A. Levine   1-24-12
Though the Republican primaries and the presidential race now dominate the news, the disgust over governmental dysfunction and disdain for the two current parties remains. Polls have shown approval of the Republicans and Democrats at their lowest levels ever, along with ratings for Congress in the single digits. There is also a lack of enthusiasm for the presidential candidates of both parties. Americans may be ready for another political option- a centrist third party.

 In fact, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two thirds of respondents would consider voting for a third party candidate with whom they agreed on most issues. And about half said they thought there was a need for a third party. Various surveys have shown that 35 to 43% of Americans are self-labeled as moderates, an indication of fertile soil for planting a centrist third party. (A Gallop Poll that came out on January 9 had 40% of Americans identifying themselves as independents.) Moderate Republicans, centrist Democrats and independents at present have no appropriate political home. Many of them do not participate in elections, as the candidates running for offices do not represent their beliefs. A recent article in USA Today reported that more than 2.5 million voters have exited the Republican and Democratic parties since the 2008 election, with the number of independent voters growing.

 Given all the discontented citizens who might support a centrist third party, how could it be created?  To differentiate itself from the current parties, a commitment to integrity, transparency and pragmatism would be required, with a willingness to compromise and find common sense solutions to America’s problems.
There are already a number of organizations and nascent parties with a moderate or centrist orientation, though their objectives vary. Some are national in scope while others are limited to individual states. These include Americans Elect, No Labels, the Reform Party and state Moderate Parties among other groups.

Americans Elect believes that a non-partisan presidential ticket will change the political dynamic in the country and is presently attempting to get on the ballot in every state. They intend to have an online convention for Americans to directly nominate the candidates. All voters, Democrats, Republicans and independents will be able to participate in the selection. However, this process does not address the problem of a gridlocked Congress that will have even less incentive to deal with a president who does not have the support of a political party.

 No Labels aims to reform Congress by changing its rules and the behavior of its members. Its prescription for reform is reasonable, but many of the ideas have been considered for years without any action. Among No Labels recommendations are- No Budget, No Pay for Congress; Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointments; Fix the Filibuster; A Monthly Question Time for the President; No Pledge but the Pledge of Office; Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings and Bipartisan Seating. While No Labels’ objectives are laudable, the partisanship in Congress and demonizing of opponents are not going to suddenly go away to permit these proposals to take hold.

 The Reform Party still has a national footprint, albeit considerably weakened since its hay day in the 90s. The organization of the party varies by state. It is pro-reform with many centrist ideas. Among its objectives are removing special interest money from politics and making government more efficient, but it also has populist goals, particularly in regard to free trade agreements and the WTO.

 The above three groups along with several moderate state parties could form the core of a national centrist third party that would have instant credibility and exposure. Though their visions of how to address the problem of gridlocked government are somewhat divergent, they all agree that change is necessary and want pragmatic solutions. However, these organizations and their founding members would have to be willing to suppress their ambitions and egos in order to coalesce into a centrist party. Though Americans Elect and No Labels emphasize that they are not political parties, true effectiveness and the ability to reform the nation’s politics will only come if they join with the Reform Party and compatible state entities into a single, strong party.  The question remains whether these disparate groups are capable of compromising and unifying. Another question is how quickly they would be able to challenge the current parties if they did unite. Each of these groups has already set an agenda for the fast-approaching 2012 elections. Thus it might be more reasonable for this new centrist third party to set its sights on the 2014 and 2016 contests.

Hopefully in the near future, the organizations of the moderate middle will be able to overcome their differences, develop a unified vision and present Americans with a real alternative to the current political duopoly. It is a logical path to a centrist third party.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
           

Romney's Private Equity Burden- It's Not Just About Jobs

                                                                        Robert A. Levine   1-19-12

 Mitt Romney’s ascendancy in the Republican presidential sweepstakes has put his career at Bain Capital, a private equity firm, under the microscope, the result of attacks against him from other GOP candidates. Romney’s apparent strength, his business experience, has instead become a possible liability. It would appear to be counter-intuitive to have Republicans assailing private equity firms, a part of the free-market system. But in the heat of political battle, adversaries strike at the perceived weak spots of a front runner, particularly when the polls are unkind to those in the back of the pack.

 Newt Gingrich’s broadsides may partially be payback for the hatchet job Romney’s super-PAC has done on Gingrich. Given the electorate’s concern about unemployment, Gingrich has repeatedly claimed that Bain and Romney were responsible for firing employees while looting companies. Romney was also labeled as a predatory corporate raider by a pro-Gingrich PAC. And Rick Perry called Bain Capital’s business model “vulture capitalism” for destroying jobs. Many Republican Party figures, including Rush Limbaugh, have come to the aid of Romney and private equity, declaring that attacks against him have been divisive and will boost Obama in the general election. But are these attacks fact-based or merely opportunistic?

 Private equity firms buy companies that are in trouble, or at least those they assess as undervalued, believing that by restructuring these companies they will be able to make money. The funds utilized in these purchases are mostly borrowed, usually from private pools of capital that are unregulated by the SEC or any government agency. By leveraging these funds with a small amount of their own capital, the private equity firms are able to lessen their own risks while increasing possible profits from the companies they have bought.

Once the private equity firm owns and is managing a company, it strips away underperforming assets and excess personnel. This results in job losses and reduced worker benefits for those retained. However, companies previously on precarious ground may be returned to a firm footing, which can lead to job growth in the future. Those businesses that can not be salvaged are closed. Since the private equity firms are not subject to public scrutiny, it is not usually clear whether the jobs created offset those that are lost. One study of thousands of private equity buyouts suggested that about 6% of the workforce were downsized over a five year period. On the other hand, some of these firms that were restored to financial stability were able to expand their businesses and add jobs over time.

 Whether or not job losses occur because of these private equity leveraged buyouts, there are aspects of the way they function that are troubling. Management fees for the private equity firms are taken out of the revenues of the purchased companies, or borrowed and added to the debt of these companies. This can make it more difficult for the businesses to be successful, since more cash is needed to service a high debt load. And even if the companies go under, the private equity firms often make money.

 Another point of contention regarding private equity firms (and hedge funds) is the lowered tax burden for much of the partners’ compensation through so-called “carried interest.” The private equity firms charge 2% for investing people’s money and also extract 20% of any profits. The latter is taxed at a 15% rate as capital gains, instead of the 35% that would be due from ordinary income. Yet unlike capital gains, those who reap the tax benefits do not place any of their own capital at risk to warrant the lower taxes. While the reduced taxes on the “carry” are currently legal due to arcane rules in the tax code, attempts to change the regulations in regard to this issue have failed, having been blocked in the Senate under pressure from private equity lobbyists. Both Republicans and Democrats have been complicit in this action, enhancing the wealth of private equity and hedge fund partners. Over $6 billion annually is lost to federal government coffers because of this tax giveaway. (Mitt Romney has stated that he pays about 15% of his income in taxes.)

 The lack of transparency in these private entities that borrow huge sums of money and are highly leveraged is another problem that has not been addressed. The economic repercussions of one or more of these major firms going under could be considerable.

The bottom line is that the emphasis on job losses because of the business models of Bain and other private equity firms may be inappropriate. Rapacious management fees by these firms, unwarranted tax benefits on carried interest and the lack of transparency are much more important concerns. These features will not be corrected until Senators and members of Congress are willing to resist the largesse offered by the firms’ lobbyists. We should not hold our breath waiting.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Menendez Relents- Highlights Blue Slipping and Senate Holds

Menendez Relents- Highlights Blue Slipping and Senate Holds Robert A. Levine  1-17-12  New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez has relented and is no longer blocking the appointment of Judge Patty Shwartz to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. His obstruction was apparently due to Menendez’s antipathy to Shwartz’s long time boy friend, federal prosecutor James Nobile, who had investigated Menendez for possible corruption charges in 2006. Menendez’ blockade came despite Judge Shwartz having been designated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association, the highest rating possible. New Jersey’s other Democratic Senator, Frank Lautenberg, praised Judge Shwartz when she was nominated, as did judges and lawyers with whom she had worked. Before he changed his mind, Menendez claimed he had misgivings about Shwartz’s knowledge of constitutional issues.  This imbroglio highlights the arcane Senate rules and rituals that allows lone senators toblock appointments and hold up legislation. In the case of judicial appointments, home state senators are given the courtesy of certifying the nominee before he or she comes up before the Senate Judicial Committee, a custom known as “blue-slipping.” If both senators from the nominee’s state do not “blue slip” the candidate, the Chairman of the Judicial Committee will not schedule the hearings necessary to make a recommendation to the Senate. And the individual senator holding up the nominee is under no obligation to provide reasons, which can be personal or political in nature.  Menendez’ resentment of Shwartz’s companion was evidently enough to impede the judicial nomination of someone to the bench who was eminently qualified. This obstruction should be seen in light of the fact that many federal judgeships are now vacant, delaying cases and increasing the workload of the current justices. Some of these vacancies have been the result of the Republicans blocking Obama’s nominees for political reasons, but to have a Democrat responsible for the obstruction was unusual. Menendez’ turnabout and agreement to support Judge Shwartz came after a meeting and lengthy discussion with her, which was obviously a face-saving measure that permitted him to change his mind. He had been excoriated in the media and by other politicians for his stance.  The glacial pace that is the norm in Washington and the difficulty Congress has in getting important things done are partially the result of vestigial Senate traditions that are unseemly for a modern government. These include the “hold,” the filibuster and pro forma sessions. The Senate “hold” is the practice that allows individual senators to prevent a bill from reaching the floor of the Senate for a vote, with no explanation required. Similarly, senators can block the appointment of officials for government agencies that the president has nominated and sent to the Senate for confirmation. Thus a single senator has the ability to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of government by slowing down or obstructing the entire body of the Senate. As seen with Menendez, the motivation can be personal animosity or revenge, and a senator can poke a finger into the eye of a president from the same party. Senators are very protective of the privileges that evolved in past sessions and provide them with inordinate power and stature, making reform difficult. But for government to function efficiently, cryptic Senate rules and traditions that are not legally binding, and impede the institution from conducting its business, must be adjusted in consonance with the new digital world where speed can be critical. Certainly, there is no rationale for the Senate “hold” or “blue slipping” and eliminating them should be part of future reform measures.  Resurrecting Democracy www.robertlevinebooks.com

Amnesia or Forgiveness? American Voters Disregard of Ethics Violations

Amnesia or Forgiveness? America Voters’ Disregard of Ethic Violations
                                    Robert A. Levine    1-11-12
In the current Republican presidential primaries, Newt Gingrich has garnered significant levels of support despite past ethical “missteps.” He was involved in the House banking scandal with bad checks in the late 80s and early 90s. The House Ethics Committee levied a $300,000 fine on him in 1997 for using non-profit organizations for partisan political purposes. He excoriated President Clinton for sexual improprieties while he himself was married and having an affair with a much younger woman. There was also a sweetheart deal Gingrich made with a publisher in 1994 that gave him a $4.5 million advance. The pattern of unethical behavior is clear, yet has been disregarded by many voters.

By voting for them again, Americans repeatedly seem willing to forgive politicians’ ethical lapses, questionable conduct and frank hypocrisy, or are citizens simply amnesic?    
      
Almost daily, there are revelations about elected officials at municipal, state and federal levels who are guilty of ethical transgressions or frank felonies. Democracy is supposed to act as a check on officeholders who utilize their positions for venal purposes. Periodically, the voters sit in judgment of those they have elected and are able to dismiss them. And those who have committed egregious offenses can be recalled through petitions and special elections. But that rarely happens.

The electorate is far too lenient in the way it indulges ethically-challenged politicians. Sitting officeholders have been re-elected by their constituents while criminal charges were pending and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. And ethics violations often seem to mean nothing to the voters, even when affirmed by established ethics committees or independent watchdog groups.

In addition to Gingrich, examples abound. Mary Jo Kopechne drowned at Chappaquidick when Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy was apparently driving drunk and went off a bridge into the water. He left the scene of the accident without reporting it and did not go to the police to try and rescue the woman. Yet in spite of his conduct, his constituents in Massachusetts saw fit to send him back to Washington repeatedly.

Republican David Vitter, a family values religious conservative from Louisiana was involved with prostitutes both before and after his election to the Senate in 2004 and was re-elected in 2010 after all the information regarding this became public.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for his actions as one of the Keating Five in the late 1980s. McCain and the others interceded with federal regulators of the banking industry on behalf of Charles Keating and the Lincoln Savings Bank after having received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Keating. The senators were able to block the closing of the corrupt bank, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Yet McCain was successfully re-elected four times afterwards and secured the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was returned to Congress in 2006 by his constituents in Louisiana after $90,000 in unexplained bills were found wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer and he was accused of various criminal schemes. He was subsequently found guilty of multiple counts and sentenced to thirteen years in prison.
         
In the House Banking Scandal from 1988 to 1991, hundreds of Congressmen wrote overdrafts on their House bank accounts. No penalties or fees were assessed and many of those involved were subsequently re-elected.

There were also dozens of Senators and members of Congress who took money from Jack Abramoff to vote certain ways, or to help Abramoff’s clients deal with federal agencies. Both Republicans and Democrats participated in these schemes, among them Senators Harry Reid, Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan. Congressmen included Tom DeLay, Denis Hastert, J.D. Hayworth, Roy Blount and Patrick Kennedy.

These are only a small fraction of federal legislators involved in unethical activities over the years. Executive branch members have also been compromised, as well as numerous officials at lower levels. But this problem of corruption is not being addressed by voters. They do not hold elected officials to high standards, perhaps reinforcing perverse conduct.  It is time that Americans became more discerning when they vote and less forgiving of corrupt behavior by officeholders. Character is far more important than a candidate’s ideology. Past actions usually predict politicians’ future performance.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Iowa Caucuses- A Made for TV Reality Show

                                                                               Robert A. Levine   1-4-12

What purpose do the Republican Iowa caucuses really serve? They are an unofficial primary in a state with an overwhelmingly white population unlike the national demographic, with the Republican caucuses even more lily-white than the state as a whole. And since 1980, only two of the Republican winners eventually became the Republican nominee for president, Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000. (Seven of the Democratic winners of their last ten caucuses went on to claim the nomination.) In the caucuses, delegates are chosen for county conventions in each of Iowa’s ninety-nine counties, in proportion to the popular vote for the candidates. The county conventions then choose delegates to a state convention where the nominee is eventually anointed. So why have the caucuses at all? Wouldn’t a primary vote be simpler? But then it would lose some of its unique entertainment value.

 The Republican Iowa caucuses must be considered a cross between a TV reality show and American Idol. Instead of “The Biggest Loser” we are viewing a contest for “The Biggest Conservative.” The countdown on television starts shortly after the previous presidential election ends. It is retail politics at its best with TV cameramen following the candidates everywhere, filming their handshakes and sound-bites, in coffee shops and supermarkets, school auditoriums and churches. Every word uttered by the candidates is parsed by the pundits and opposing campaign staffers, searching for slips and stumbles that might influence the outcome. However, both the candidates and Iowans love the attention. And it gives the TV networks and cable stations supplementary programming at a minimal cost.

Part of the attraction is that in the run-up to the caucuses ordinary citizens are turned into television stars. Their views on the candidates, the economy and other issues reverberate over the airways, their pictures and ideas featured in national newspapers and magazines. They have opportunities to question and pose with candidates, one of whom may ascend to the presidency.

The caucuses also stoke Iowa’s economy with a welcome infusion of cash starting a year or more before the defining event. Out-of-state visitors jam the hotels and lodging places, patronizing restaurants, supermarkets and pharmacies. Iowa’s TV stations are bolstered by political advertisements round the clock, building to a crescendo in the last months of the contest. The whole state of Iowa gets extra exposure as well, a boost to its tourist industry.

As an extra benefit during this particular election cycle, the competition enhanced the reality-show aspects of the caucuses, increasing the television ratings. Tension grew over the last six months as the lead frequently shifted among the candidates in this popularity contest. At various times, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Romney were on top in the polls, with Paul and Santorum surging at the end. There were three lead changes in the last month alone, the outcome in doubt until the vote was counted. Even the final results that had the leaders, Romney and Santorum, separated by only eight votes, played to the image of a reality show.

One might go to Shakespeare’s Macbeth to summarize the actual impact of the Iowa caucuses- “it is a tale…full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” But the entertainment value of the process should not be discounted. As long as the TV cameras are rolling, the pundits pontificating and the viewers tuning in, the reality show Iowa caucuses will retain its regular place on the media schedule.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Ethics and Politics in a Centrist Third Party

Ethics and Politics In a Centrist Third Party
                                    Robert A. Levine  1-3-12 

“If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”
                                    The Federalist Papers, Number 15, Alexander Hamilton

In a recent dialogue in the New York Times on the need for a centrist third party, I listed ethical conduct as one of the necessary hallmarks of this new party. Many respondents asserted that it is not realistic to expect politicians to have ethics guide their actions, since being honest and upright will not help them win elections and would in fact hinder them. They also noted that even if candidates and officeholders in this new party began their careers untainted, politics would soon force them to dirty their hands.

I disagree. The electorate has become accustomed to double-dealing and deceit from politicians and now accepts this as the norm. But if a centrist third party made integrity one of its defining characteristics and showed citizens how this could be accomplished, the party would be applauded and rewarded with votes. Americans are appalled by the corruption and partisanship of the Republicans and Democrats and many of them would be happy to support a new party that emphasized ethics. Integrity, transparency and pragmatism are the ways this new entity could differentiate itself from the current parties.

Legislating ethical reform does not work when legislators are constantly seeking ways to subvert the laws they have enacted and when they value the veneer of respectability more than ethical conduct. From its inception, this new party would have to have a strict code of conduct that its members agreed to observe and that the leadership enforced, unlike the Republicans and Democrats who generally ignore ethical lapses. Self-policing and transparency from the party would ensure integrity, particularly if there were onerous penalties for deviant behavior. Just as a culture of corruption in an organization can spawn more corruption, a culture of integrity is likely to foster ethical behavior.

To demonstrate its commitment to ethics, this fledgling party could utilize a written Oath of Conduct that mandated a different system of financing political campaigns. Candidates would agree not to take payments from any groups or individuals personally, but would direct all donations toward designated party administrative entities. (The funds could then be distributed anonymously according to the donor’s wishes.) Party members would also eschew political action committees and would never use political funds for personal gain. They would promise as well not to accept meals, trips, vacations, fact-finding junkets, or tickets to any events from individuals or organizations that had an interest in current or future legislation or executive actions. Any party member elected to office, appointed to an executive position, or serving on the staff of an elected or appointed official would also agree not to work as a lobbyist for five years after he or she left office. Officials from this party would be free to meet with lobbyists or representatives of special interests as they would with any constituent, but the discussions would be open and they would not accept any favors or funds. (This would not be unilateral disarmament as funds would be solicited from those who believed in this new party’s principles, with small donations also collected over the Internet.)

To give the Oath teeth, candidates and officeholders would sign the document and confirm that they understood its intent, agreeing to forfeit a monetary sum if their pledges were not honored. The amount of the penalty would be set by a party ethics board along with the details of the contract, but would be severe enough to dissuade members from abrogating the agreement. If members did not comply with their contracts and did not pay the penalties, they could be sued by the party. To prevent deceit, members would be required to list their assets with the party if they held an office or government post. Every two years, this would be updated as a further guarantee of financial rectitude. The Oath of Conduct and the willingness of party members to list their assets would prove to the public that this new party was serious about limiting corruption and conflicts of interest. The use of the Oath might seem draconian to some observers, but only robust measures will remove the stain of ethical laxness that most citizens associate with politicians.

Though there might be cynicism regarding this attempt at ethics reform based on past failures, a centrist third party could change the political dynamic in America with self-policing and transparency.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

"Easy Riders" Subvert the Democratic Process

“Easy Riders” Subvert the Democratic Process
                                                            Robert A. Levine 1/1/2012

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” James Madison, The Federalist Papers

 Madison would have been appalled at the incoherence of much of the legislation enacted by Congress in the modern era. While the body of these bills is generally voluminous, and the language employed abstruse and confusing, its complexity is compounded by numerous “riders” that are attached. Members of Congress and Senators utilize these riders to win approval of legislative measures that might have otherwise been rejected, or at the very least subjected to further scrutiny and delay. They are really separate bills bearing no relationship to the primary legislation.

There has been a proliferation of these appendages to bills in recent years. Those who add riders to unrelated bills are trying to avoid offering these attachments as stand-alone legislation. On occasion, they may be introduced at the last moment to place time constraints on any opposition. They may also be buried in the midst of pages of convoluted legalese. It is done ;this way because the riders may benefit or antagonize special interests, or may be of value only to a small group or segment of the population and of limited national interest. Or the riders may fulfill a particular political objective.

In the past, riders were used to place earmarks in legislation, generating funds for legislators’ pet projects, or supporters’ schemes. They were often hidden within lengthy bills and objections to them were uncommon since so many other legislators were doing the same thing. This type of activity is less prevalent now, but the riders remain.
The budget bill passed by Congress prior to the holiday recess is an example of how legislation with a specific goal can be larded with extraneous items. Obviously, in a budget bill many provisions have to deal with expenditures and taxes, and this one included a two month extension of the Social Security tax cut and unemployment compensation benefits. But there was also a mandate that President Obama make a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline project which has nothing at all to do with the budget. And the appropriation of funds by Congress was also used to try and direct policy decisions by the White House. These measures included restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo to the US or any foreign country, curtailing aid to Afghanistan if it did not make headway in rooting out corruption and empowering women, prohibiting payment of salaries for four presidential advisors including a specialist in climate change, proscribing funds that might be employed to alter or delay  reports by the Department of Homeland Security’s privacy officer, blocking the assignment of American military forces to United Nation’s peacekeeping missions, and various other items outside the purview of the budget.

These unrelated attachments to legislative efforts undermine the democratic process. The press may focus on the major part of the bill and the public may not be aware of some of the riders that are being passed. They may also be so numerous that they become difficult to monitor. These riders deceive the public and force opponents to vote in favor of the attachments if they went the primary legislation enacted.

Future reform measures by Congress should include the elimination of additions to legislation that are unconnected to the original proposals. Bills should be crafted with clean cut objectives instead of being sprinkled with irrelevant riders. Legislators should be voting for or against specific measures and not be coerced into ratifying riders in order to get the principal bill enacted. But as with other reform initiatives, it will not be easy to get Congress to consider this kind of reform. Both the Republicans and Democrats are happy to have the opportunities and the ability to place their riders into unrelated bills. It’s the way things are done in Washington.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Dialogue in New York Times About a Centrist Third Party 1/1/2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-will-a-third-party-help.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper