Beyond 'lesser of two evils'

Article first published as Beyond "Lesser of Two Evils" on Blogcritics.

No one needs a long lecture about how thoroughly the U.S. Congress has squandered “the consent of the governed.” It’s no secret that the current campaign finance system enables and reinforces Congress’s preferential treatment of wealthy donors and their corporate masters. The exclusive access and legislative consideration they enjoy are the expected ‘return’ on their investment. So, when push comes to shove about a crucial decision, voters can forget about their phone calls, letters or protests—they don’t stand chance against the tsunami of large donor dollars that fills an incumbant’s (or challenger’s) campaign fund every election season.

Even after a clear majority of voters have voiced their support for a balanced approach to resolving the debt-ceiling impasse, their showing wields no influence on legislators bent on forcing a national default. Indeed, Tea Party pol’s rush in... .

Given such dim prospects for fair, accountable representation, voters return to the polls every election with the task of choosing between ‘the lesser of two evils’—and regrettably they believe this is a cemented status quo, since this is how it has always been. To imagine and believe otherwise is where we should begin: to see and know that with enough effort and cooperation among voters we can elect representatives worthy of our trust; legislators whose decisions remain transparent and accountable to vigilant electors.

Toward that end it is worth mentioning one or two initiatives in politics just peering over the horizon. They present a couple of the best, though underdeveloped, prospects for  voter-responsive governance.

Calling the current U.S. tax code an “insanely complicated system of special favors to the richest and most powerful in our society”, former Louisiana governor Charles “Buddy” Roemer has recently re-entered the political arena to declare his candidacy for the 2012 presidential race.  Front and center to his platform is campaign finance reform.  To underscore his commitment to the issue he has sworn off PAC money as well as any individual contribution greater than $100.

While everyone should applaud his initiative, one of his arguments about election financing could benefit from some fine tuning.  Reform should not limit how much any donor can give, he asserts. Rather, every voter should contribute to the candidacy he or she favors.  Since Congress remains dependent on large dollar donors, “our first objective must be to remove this dependency by expanding the number of givers… .”  Doing so will “balance the system,” he suggests.

Keep in mind that almost sixty percent of the funds raised by Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign came from donors who gave less than $1000. In spite of aggregating the majority share of Obama’s funding, one can trust that very few of those givers enjoyed the access and consideration granted to the likes of a Robert Wolf or Blair Effron. In spite of that small donor majority share in Campaign Obama’s 2008 victory, the president still went with the Wall Street- friendly appointees and economic advisors.

Another emerging reform phenomenon to take notice of is an organization called Americans Elect. So far it has signed up 1.7 million voters with the intent of qualifying in all 50 states to run a small-’i’ independent candidate for president in 2012. With plans for “THE FIRST EVER!” open  primary scheduled for June 2012, Americans Elect aims to give rank-and-file voters of any- or no- party affiliation, the chance to participate as delegates.

From a first glance, AE appears as a well-coordinated attempt to connect voters directly to the nominating process. However, its web site gives no information about the group’s leadership and funding. These omissions resemble the kind of secrecy that never bodes well for accountability to voters. (Paired with The Los Angeles Times profile of the group [dated 28 July] was an article with a link to its board of directors roster just recently distributed).

Looking at AE’s ‘About’ page, what neglected and downtrodden voter could dismiss seductive appeals like “A greater voice for all Americans, no matter their party. Every registered voter can be a delegate. Any constitutionally-eligible citizen can be a candidate”? Or a gem like “The power to choose your candidate in the 2012 election. Real issues. Real candidates. Real votes.”

Yet trouble abounds for this wired and well-oiled machine. Among a number of complicities that gum up its purported independence, most obvious are the organization’s disavowal of influence by any special- or corporate interests (thanks goes to Jim Cook’s Irregular Times, which has charted AE’s story from what appears its beginning). However, a significant fraction of its 50-member board of directors seats investment industry insiders; and--perhaps even more damning--includes the presence of Morton Meyerson, chairman of Alsbridge, who the company credits as an “innovator of a concept called outsourcing.” That alone should earn plenty of praise from the ‘vocationally-challenged’ community.

All complicities aside, the crucial element to campaign funding reform that Gov. Roemer and Americans Elect overlook is how influence is cultivated and wielded. It is only very recently that a critical mass of voters have begun to recognize the impact of PACs, large dollar donors and the lobbyist apparatus. It has had the effect of thwarting their physical, political and economic destinies.

It is doubtful that Roemer or AE would make a point to remind many voters of their own responsibilities as citizens in our democratic republic: to stay informed; to continually engage elected officials as well as one another.  Least of all would either candidate or organization impress upon Americans to vote only for candidates who refuse any donation greater than $200 per individual per year. That determination has to be self-realized.

The immense financial resources required of a campaign for public office no one underestimates. In place of the oceans of cash necessary to achieve “viability”--a motivated and organized class of voters could make known their solidarity for at least one goal: to eliminate money’s obligating influence upon an incumbent or challenger.

What if a plurality of voters within any congressional district committed to this citizen-imposed limit?  And while they’re at it, draft candidates willing to abide by this limit.  It’s the only campaign pledge of any merit with the most far reaching impact. Establishment candidates would seriously have to consider whether to embrace the campaign finance limit--or face losing the election. No matter which competitor won the election, all voters would be the winners for having the resolve to reassert their “consent”.

Homeland Security, FOIA and the governing cult of secrecy

 

Of course no one would have dreamed of such a hearing the last time Republicans controlled the House of Representatives: 'Why Isn't The Department Of Homeland Security Meeting The President's Standard On FOIA? No matter the political leveraging behind the committee session On Oversight & Government Reform, President Obama's administration has proven itself not much more FOIA-friendly than George W. Bush's.

At said hearing happening today, the committee will listen to testimony by former Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan (an appointee of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano). As the official in charge of transmitting sensitive government files to political advisors for vetting before such documents can be released to the public, she confided to her then-deputy, Catherine Papoi, what a zealous ideological scouring they endured. "This level of attention is CRAZY," she wrote in a 2009 email, and expressed the hope that "someone [would] FOIA this whole damn process."

Perhaps such frank talk by a federal paper pusher may sound unbecoming, however, it may be an emblem of the extraordinary level of screening applied to the release of government records. Ms. Callahan would not be the first guest of the Oversight & Governement Reform Committee to suggest this.

William Leonard, current COO of the National Endowment for Democracy,  testified to the same congressional committee on March 14, 2006--when he was classification czar for the National Archives-- asserting the extreme lengths taken for secrecy's sake.  Yes, insufficient classification of military or government documents poses a potential threat to national security and can undermine diplomatic efforts.  "Conversely, too much classification, the failure to declassify information as soon as it no longer satisfies the standards for continued classification, or inappropriate reclassification, unnecessarily obstructs effective information sharing and impedes an informed citizenry, the hallmark of our democratic form of government."

More recently, as a panelist at the Criminal Law, National Security, and the First Amendment symposium held in Washington, DC in October 2010, Leonard said there was no defense for Wikileaks' unlawful disclosure of the Iraq and Afghan military diaries. Rightfully, governing officials have condemned such actions, he goes on, “…but I have yet to see any of our government leaders accept responsibility for what is directly under their control, and that is the reckless manner in which the critical national-security tool is applied.” Or one could argue, the reckless manner in which it isn’t applied.

As an example he pointed out that no classification distinction exists between a document reporting an auto accident and a document that records the identity of an Afghan national serving as an informant. Additionally, the former secrecy czar argues with blinding logic that in the case of a situation like Abu Ghraib, the abuse endured by captured enemy combatants or high-value targets, at the hands of U.S. ordered interrogations, isn't subject to classification because the experience itself isn't a secret to the victim of torture; nor are they required to sign a non-disclosure agreement should they be fortunate enough to be released.

From today's House hearing on Homeland Security's FOIA obligations, don't expect too much in the way of questioning that interrogates our government's prevailing paradigm of secrecy. To enable such a line of inquiry would require an open national debate about exactly what national security factors that merit privilege over civil and human rights.

This imploding, mortal coil

This planet speaks from the deep does it not? Earthquake, tsunami and pestilent radiation--altogether a braided emblem of unrest the world over. The Middle East has awakened from the stupor of populations divided and thusconquered.

The West, even while performing democracy's chorus, stage manages fortriumph of the box-seated season ticket holders, no matter the outcome ofthe drama. We, the remainder of the audience, sit flattened by the torrent of words, images and sound--a phenomenon we confuse as deus-ex-machina; that technology's widening scope and velocity will in the end deliver us all.