National Popular Vote in CA
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:22:53 PM EST
The LA Times enthusiastically supports the National Popular Vote plan for California, which Common Cause and a coalition of groups have been pushing in CA and around the country. Thanks to the electoral college, the United States holds elections in which the candidate who wins the most votes doesn't always win the presidency. Voters in some states matter much more than others, so candidates are encouraged to ignore the concerns of the less important ones and focus on those who really make a difference. That, in turn, tends to lower turnout because many voters believe their input doesn't matter. Is this any way to run a democracy? Sidestepping the electoral college simply assures that the majority would rule in the presidential race, just as it does in every other election in this country except the one for its highest office. The National Popular Vote bill in California is likely to get a vote in the Senate soon, and then it goes to the Governor's desk; unfortunately, Schwarzenegger vetoed it two years ago, but the Times argues for him to reconsider. Schwarzenegger's rationale for vetoing the popular-vote bill two years ago was that it disregarded "the will of a majority of Californians" because it could award the state's electoral votes to a candidate the state's voters didn't approve. That's a very odd argument. The state's choice of a candidate is irrelevant if its pick doesn't win elsewhere.
Redistricting
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:22:19 PM EST
The Washington Post calls for a federal redistricting reform measure at the federal level. The remedy would be to put redistricting in independent hands; to require that districts be drawn without regard to partisan concerns; and to prohibit redrawing between censuses. A dozen states have some form of nonpartisan commission or other process to draw district lines; nearly half ban mid-cycle redistricting.
But the problem is serious enough to justify federal action. The piece points out that both McCain and Obama have made public statements in support of redistricting reform, but there's been virtually no progress yet on the federal front.
Meanwhile, in California, Common Cause and a coalition of groups have put a major redistricting initiative on the ballot in November and are now urging voters to vote Yes on Prop 11, the California Voters FIRST Initiative.
Walmart electioneering?
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
This comes from our intern Jamie McConkey, who will continue to follow this Wal-Mart story
Common Cause's advocacy for fair elections doesn't just focus on public officials and institutions. We'll challenge unfair practices wherever they may occur, so when the Wall Street Journal published an article earlier this month alleging that Wal-Mart had been warning its employees not to vote Democrat, our ears began to prick up.
Jay Mandle on T. Boone Pickens' plan
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:54:25 PM EST
Jay Mandle analyzes the strange-bedfellows partnership between oilman T. Boone Pickens and environmentalists on the topic of promoting wind power to reduce our dependence on oil. As Mandle points out, these two camps won't just need each other to push through substantive clean energy reforms -- they'll also likely need to overcome the power of wealthy special interests like Big Oil. Pickens is a steadfast Republican who notoriously financed the Swift Boat attack on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. But in advancing his plan, he will find more allies among environmentalists than among his conservative friends....
Many environmentalists welcome Pickens' wind power initiative, whatever his past politics. But even Pickens will have to battle entrenched energy special interests that have long stymied the environmental movement. Since 1990, donors associated with the oil and gas industries gave $220.4 million to politicians running for office, compared to just $3.4 million from donors connected to alternative energy production and services firms. In our political system, where private funding buys political influence, alternative energy advocates simply lacked the clout to get Congress to support renewables. Even with Pickens on their side, the green movement cannot hope to compete in the pay-to-play system of campaign financing. Again, it points to comprehensive reform like public financing as a first step to solving other, major problems.
Philadelphia call for Clean Elections
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:43:25 PM EST
Adam Bonin writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the need, despite a hostile Supreme Court, for public funding systems throughout the country. The majority's rationale rested on the notion that leveling electoral opportunities for less-wealthy candidates was not a legitimate government objective. That's a shame, because the smalldonor revolution that propelled Obama's presidential campaign has not yet reached the state or local levels.
To reform this system, states such as Arizona, Connecticut and Maine have implemented innovative methods to allow candidates to receive a public grant that covers campaign costs in exchange for forgoing private fund-raising.
In order to ensure a fair contest, candidates participating in the system can receive additional grants if their non-participating rivals or outside groups supporting them end up spending funds in excess of the public grant.
The result: a legislature that is more economically diverse than one that proceeded it - with diner waitresses and social workers now joining chambers once reserved for the well-connected - and one that is not beholden to special interests or entrenched wealth. More on that topic: the New York Times praised the high participation from candidates in the newly-created Connecticut public funding system, which goes into effect this year. Over 65% of candidates have opted in, and more may join them -- only 10 out of over 300 candidates have said they won't be running publicly-funded. Public financing encourages good governance as well as competition. Government is cleaner when lawmakers are not beholden to special interests and are free to spend their energy meeting the needs of the people who matter -- those who elected them.
Connecticut, which became known as "Corrupticut" after the recent scandals, can only benefit from this new system.
We'll save transparency for next year
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:17:51 PM EST
The Washington Independent takes a look at the absurdity that is the U.S. Senate's continuing to file paper campaign finance reports, largely thanks to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) blocking the bill that would make report filing electronic. It doesn't have to be this way. The House moved to mandatory electronic filing at the start of 2001. The Senate was exempt at the time (and remains so) because that law applied only to those filing directly with the FEC. (The Senate, recall, files first to the Sec. of the Senate.) Searchable House records are available online almost immediately after members file. Some people just really liked the 20th century and don't want it to end, I guess.
Freddie, meet Billy
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
Dancing with himself -- for good reason.
Idol, that is.
Freddie Mac, the mortgage lending giant, is pulling out of the Democratic and Republican conventions, ending plans to host lavish parties and shower lawmakers and other delegates with food, drink, and merriment.
Oh, no one at Freddie Mac will say he's "Dancing With Myself." They say it's "as a result of current market conditions and financial considerations" but the truth is that no lawmaker could afford to appear at a Freddie Mac-sponsored party during a massive foreclosure crisis, so they're pulling the plug and trying to save face.
Don't worry, delegates can still attend a swanky gathering thrown by Coca-Cola, Xcel, Amgen, Teletech, JPMorgan, Solar Energy Industries Association, American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Institute, Service Employees International Union, Target, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, CH2MHill, Qwest, and Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, [or] Schreck and that's just in Denver.
Now, Rove
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
A big question of late is whether Karl Rove will be compelled to testify before Congress on his role in the politicization of the Department of Justice, specifically in the investigation of Don Siegelman. Rove has claimed an expanded version of executive privilege: "absolute immunity" from congressional subpoena.
Today a big decision undercuts Rove's entire argument. U.S. District Court judge John Bates (a Republican appointee, notably) ruled against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in their claim of executive privilege. It determines that Bolten and Miers must comply with the subpoenas and appear before Congress.
But the bigger impact may be on Rove. Bates eviscerates Rove's entire justification for ignoring the congressional subpoena, citing that "absolute immunity" has no basis in case law and was rejected in the case of--you guessed it--U.S. v. [Richard] Nixon. emptywheel explains further: But with respect to Rove, this decision makes it very clear that Rove must show up to testify--and (unless the White House invokes executive privilege with respect to the HJC subpoena of Rove, which they haven't done) he must answer all questions. That's because the sole basis the White House gave to justify Rove blowing off HJC's subpoena was "absolute immunity"--the White House did not invoke executive privilege with regards to this subpoena. And here's the key line and quote from Bates' decision: The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity. The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides. In other words, the oversight role and strength of Congress has been vindicated, and now they must apply it. Karl Rove must appear before Congress to testify immediately. He has offered no justification for his absence that stands up to the rule of law. And Miers and Bolten must appear immediately, too.*
Congress goes on recess for the whole month of August. They leave this weekend. I say: let's do the hearings tomorrow. The rush home to raise reelection money can wait a day so that we can restore the rule of law here in our democracy, or so one would hope.
We'll have a statement out soon.
* UPDATE (or NOTE): I should note that, frankly, this White House has shown itself masterful at stalling tactics to drag out oversight proceedings. I'd expect nothing less this time. But it's all the more important that Congress show some real urgency in holding these hearings, and fast-track any judicial proceedings and hurdles that the White House throws up. Time is short but the institutional impact of an executive branch that abuses its power and defies the Constitution will be long.
| 
Common Blog
