Winning Progressive

For this weekend’s reading list, we have reports on the battle between nuns and the Vatican over the meaning of Catholicism, how to improve elections through better ballot design, the failures of for-profit colleges, private prison companies pushing for laws that increase and lengthen prison sentences, and how a small wealthy elite are trying to use SuperPACs to buy our democracy.

American Sisters Haven’t Strayed.  The Vatican Has – an argument that it is the increasingly conservative aging bishops in the Vatican who are straying from Catholic teachings far more than American nuns who are fighting for social justice have.

Better Design, Better Elections - a report from the Brennan Center for Justice on how better design of ballots, voter instructions, and voting machines could help reduce the nearly 400,000 votes that were discarded in the 2008 and 2010 elections combined due to technical errors.

For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success – the report on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions’ two year investigation into for-profit colleges, and how they are shortchanging their students even as they received nearly $32 billion in federal aid in 2011.

Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies – a report on how private, for-profit prison companies are using campaign contributions and millions of dollars in lobbying to support policies that will lead to more and longer prison sentences and, therefore, more profit for private prison companies.

Million-Dollar Megaphones: SuperPACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections – an in-depth look at the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars of secret outside cash is being funneled by a small number of obscenely wealthy people through SuperPACs in an attempt to buy our democracy.

(Winning Progressive is happy to introduce everyone to our newest contributor, Joanne Boyer.  Joanne is a Minneapolis-based writer, publisher and speaker, and author of the book “Wisdom of Progressive Voices.” You can read more about Joanne online at wisdomvoices.com.)

By Joanne Boyer, cross-posted at Wisdom Voices

If you think the insanity of money spent on political races is at an all time high, you are correct.  In the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, many believed that the unlimited amount of money pouring into political campaigns would be “over the top.”  But even those “in the know” are finding the spending frenzy amazing.

Take the Wisconsin state senate recall elections that came to a dramatic close on August 9.  Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan group tracking the flow of money in Badger state politics, said, “This is so out of whack from everything we’ve ever seen.” On the weekend before the recall elections were held, it was estimated that nearly $31 million (that’s right, $31 million for state senate races) was spent.  That compares with $3.75 million for the entire slate of all Wisconsin senate races in 2010.

That’s just one example of what Citizens United unleashed.  The same scenario is being repeated across the country and serves as a harbinger of what to expect on a national level in 2012.  One wonders if the electoral system can sustain itself with this type of financial lunacy at play.

Campaign Finance Reform.  The end of Citizens United.  Those two phrases cannot be repeated enough by those concerned with our democracy.  In a nutshell, Citizens United (in a sharply divided 5-4 ruling) decided that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections. The ruling overturned two previous cases where the Court ruled that Congress and the States may try to keep corporate money out of politics.

Jim Hightower offers another view of the deep consequences of the rulings of the John Roberts Supreme Court in his recent piece: Why are we letting corporate Supremists steal our democracy from us?

Free Speech For People, a national non-partisan organization, is one group diligently working since the day of the Citizens United ruling to educate American voters about its devastating impact and what can be done to overturn it.  The group is pressing for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to restore democracy to the people and to ensure that people, not corporations, govern in America.

It may seem like a daunting task, but one that must be pursued, according to John Bonifaz, co-founder of Free Speech For People: 

The Citizens United ruling presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy, unleashing a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in our history, Bonifaz said.  The ruling also marks the most extreme extension yet of a corporate rights doctrine that has placed corporations over people. 

We must begin the process of restoring the Constitution and fair elections to the people. While there are many calling for legislative fixes—including public funding of elections, which we support—we must face the reality that only a constitutional amendment will enable us to reclaim free-speech and other constitutional rights for people, not corporations.

For the first 200 years of our nation’s history, corporations were never defined by the courts as persons with free speech rights under the First Amendment.  Only in recent years have we witnessed this corporate takeover of our First Amendment, culminating in the Citizens United ruling.

Bonifaz and Free Speech For People take an historical look at amending the Constitution to keep them energized as they continue the battle.  “Americans have amended the Constitution repeatedly since the Civil War to expand rather than dilute democratic participation of people in elections,” Bonifaz said.  “Most of the 17 amendments that followed the 10 amendments of our Bill of Rights were adopted to defend and expand our democracy.”.”

In case you need a refresher: Constitutional amendments ended slavery; guaranteed liberty, due process, and equal protection for all; guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race; empowered the people to elect senators, who previously were appointed by state legislatures; guaranteed the right of women to vote; eliminated the poll tax, previously used to block poor people, often African Americans, from voting; and established a standard voting age.

How Does One Amend The Constitution?

Other than via a constitutional convention, a two thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress begins the process.  The proposed amendment must then be approved by three-fourths of the states; in other words, through the support of engaged, educated American citizens. 

It appears a strong basis of the support is already there:  According to a Hart Research Associates poll released by Free Speech For People, 82% of American voters believe Congress should take action to limit corporate spending in elections, and 79% of voters would support an amendment making clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people under the Constitution. The survey also revealed that support for an amendment transcends party lines, with large majorities of Democrats (87%), Independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) supporting its passage.

What Can One Person Do?

Too often we hear the electorate bemoaning, “What can I do?”  This is one instance where organized people can take a stand against organized money.  Free Speech For People offers a list at their web site of simple things that everyday citizens can do to start the hard work to amend the Constitution and stop the damages being done by the Citizens United ruling.  Perhaps, for many, just learning and knowing about Citizens United may be the first step.  Becoming educated, informed, and engaged is a must.

 Many of us have what we like to think of as our “favorite causes” to which we throw our support – be it environmental issues, single payer health care, voting rights, etc.  However, the chance of progressing on any issue today with corporate power maintaining such a gridlock over every level of elected official in this country remains slim.  To borrow from a phrase from Paul Newman in the movie The Verdict:  This (stopping unlimited corporate expenditures and the corporate takeover of our government) is the only issue.  There are no other issues.

(By Mark McCutchan)

The 2011 budget will likely be settled this week, and the looming 2012 budget struggle is on its way into the public spotlight. There is a little discussed fight coming, however, that the Republicans would love to keep quiet – redistricting and reapportionment.  Sounds boring, right?  Maybe so, but the results of this legislative process could decide which party wins most battles for at least the next 10 years!

A Refresher

Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires redistricting of the states every 10 years, based on the results of the last U.S. Census, so that each district has approximately the same number of citizens.  Each district elects one representative to the U.S. House of Representatives.   The Constitution does not proscribe how the redistricting process shall be performed.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires preclearance of these districts in the jurisdictions of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, due to their history of racial discrimination towards African-Americans and Native Americans in these states.

The Current Situation

Some states have the state’s legislature in charge of drawing the district lines, while others hold a nonpartisan body responsible.  When the state legislature is in charge, the process can be quite contentious if the Republican-Democrat balance of power is close, but that is not the case currently – 26 states have Republican controlled state legislatures, 15 Democratic controlled ones, 8 states have the control split, and Nebraska is officially nonpartisan.

Because I’m more familiar with Ohio’s politics, I’m going to use the state as an example of redistricting action.  In the 2010 elections, Ohio Republicans gained firm control of the legislature (23-10 in the State Senate, 59-40 in the State House) as well as a Republican Governor Kasich.   Ohio’s slow-growing population will likely lead to a loss of two U.S. congressional districts in the state, and you can bet the Republicans make sure the lost seats will be Democratic ones.  Similarly, the Democratic Party was devastated in Texas during the controversial 2003 redistricting, which changed the state legislature from Democratic Party control (17-15) based on the 2000 census, to Republican Party control (21-11) in 2004.

From Sunday’s Columbus Dispatch:

If history is a guide, the [Republican] party will gerrymander districts to give it the highest possibility of retaining their legislative majorities for the rest of this decade.

The Dispatch has learned that Democrats, backed by an unidentified $3 million commitment of support, had planned to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November aimed at depoliticizing the line-drawing process. But that plan has been shelved because of concern that a redistricting amendment “would dilute the effort to overturn Senate Bill 5,” according to a Democratic source who asked not to be named.

In other words, Ohio Republicans have used Senate Bill 5 for three purposes (and similar bills are being used across the country):

1)      To lower state labor expenses (without attacking public unions, according to the GOP!)

2)      To reduce public unions’ finances to limit their ability to help state Democrats.

3)      To weaken the Democrats directly by attacking at two points at once.  Should the party protect a powerful wing (the unions), or protect their future viability through depoliticizing the redistricting process?  It may be too difficult for the Democrats to succeed at both.

To save their own jobs, some legislators have even hired lobbyists to influence the redistricting process, as detailed in this New York Times story.

In addition to state districts being decided this year, there is also apportionment, which means that different district lines will be drawn for the purpose of selecting state house and state senate representatives.  The state legislatures are in charge of this process as well, and in Ohio, the Apportionment Board is composed of the governor, the state auditor, the Ohio secretary of state, one Republican Assembly member, and one Democratic Assembly member.  Again, Democrats are outnumbered 4-1, and will have little pull in a very political process.  Lines will likely be drawn to maximize the number of Republican-safe districts and minimize the Democrat-safe districts.

Hope For Fairness in Redistricting

There have been recent efforts to reform redistricting; Proposition 20 won overwhelming approval in California, which gave a citizen commission responsibility for Congressional and state legislative redistricting.  Florida passed two Fair Districts initiatives requiring lawmakers to follow certain rules promoting fairness to the voters during the redistricting process. This Huffington Post article explains that the success of these efforts was due to their limited scope, and their media and financial backing. Keeping the public’s attention on the issue of fair redistricting costs money, and having progressive benefactors was key to passage of these reforms.

Here’s a quote from a certain Illinois senator on his take of the issue:

Of course, there are technical fixes to our democracy that might relieve some of this pressure on politicians, structural changes that would strengthen the link between voters and their representatives. Nonpartisan districting, same-day registration, and weekend elections would all increase the competitiveness of races and might spur more participation from the electorate – and the more the electorate is paying attention, the more integrity is rewarded. Public financing of campaigns or free television and radio time could drastically reduce the constant scrounging for money and the influence of special interests. …  But none of these changes can happen of their own accord.  Each would require a change in attitude among those in power.  Each would demand that individual politicians challenge the existing order; loosen their hold on incumbency; fight with their friends as well as their enemies on behalf of abstract ideas in which the public appears to have little interest. Each would require from men and women a willingness to risk what they already have.

-          Barack Obama, Audacity of Hope

There are eight state legislatures that are under Democratic Party control currently, and it helps those Democratic state parties to keep the redistricting process as is – political.  However, it is in the long-term best interest of both major parties to see that redistricting is performed in all states by a nonpartisan committee, using the following criteria:

• Create compact districts along county lines when possible
• Keep communities within a single district
• Avoid the drawing of boundaries for purposes of partisan advantage or incumbent protection
• Ensure representational fairness

Take Action!

We need to move quickly to ensure that the progressive movement succeeds as part of a viable Democratic Party.  Redistricting needs to be completed before the first primary in March 2012, and it is important that all citizens can take part in the process, rather than leaving it in the hands of the (mostly Republican) legislators across America.  Here is how you can help:

1)      Play the Redistricting Game to try your hand at redistricting, and see how drawing lines can change lives. Dave’s Redistricting App lets you use real 2010 Census data to redistrict your own state.

2)      Join the efforts of Americans for Redistricting Reform.  It’s a national organization of groups from across the political spectrum that recognizes the critical need to reform our nation’s redistricting process.  Their website has news on groups in every state that are working towards fair redistricting.

3)      Write to President Obama. He has not said anything about redistricting since elected, but his powerful national megaphone could focus the public’s attention if he would publicly identify redistricting reform as a vital part of maintaining a strong democracy.

4)      Write to your state Democratic Party and your local newspapers to explain why nonpartisan redistricting is important to the viability of the Democratic Party.  Here are links for submitting letters to the editor for national papers, and to newspapers in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,  Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Thanks goes out to Ohio State Representative Debbie Phillips and Caucus Research Director Chris Glassburn for their help in deciphering the redistricting and reapportionment process.

Why are these two so happy? They're scheming to steal the Presidency in 2012.

(By guest blogger Mark McCutchen)

 Update: At 2:12pm, H.R. 359 was passed 239-160, mostly along party lines, “terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions”.  The bill goes to the Senate next.  It may be stopped by the Democratic majority, but senators need to be reminded how important public financing is to their constituents (that’s you!). 

So, please call your Senators (contact info can be found here) and urge them to reject any effort to end or weaken the Federal Election Campaign Act

* * * * * * * * *

Last week, Rep. Eric Cantor, the majority whip, announced the GOP’s plan to vote on a bill as soon as today – without debates or hearings – to repeal the presidential financing system, one of the few remaining programs to stop corporations from buying the presidency.

The ostensible reason for the desire to end this program passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal is “cost-cutting” – a ridiculous claim, given that the entire $139.4 million distributed through the 2008 presidential election cycle was raised from Americans voluntarily checking off that little $3 box on their tax returns.   That’s right, no tax money was used.

The real reason for the GOP’s desire to repeal the Federal Election Campaign Act? To remove one more way that the American people can participate in our democracy, and make candidates more dependent on corporations for campaign financing.   Corporations and deep-pocketed donors tend to favor conservative causes like lower taxes for themselves and fewer government regulations, so this move by the Republicans is a no-brainer to put themselves in a better position for 2012.

Progressives value public financing of campaigns for the opposite reason – we want our elected officials to respond to the will of the people, not the will of corporations (despite the Citizens United ruling by the conservative-controlled Supreme Court, equating corporations to people). 

The Federal Election Campaign Act has not aged well since its passage and is in need of strengthening, not repeal.  Through “Clean Elections” legislation (passed in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine), candidates have the opportunity to qualify for full public funding, which ends their reliance on special interest campaign cash.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C) have introduced the Fair Elections Now Act which would provide full public financing for candidates for Congress. The bill in the House has more than 140 co-sponsors. 

A similar bill should be passed for presidential campaigns.

The FECA repeal bill could be voted on as soon as today – Wednesday –  so we need to move fast.

Call your member of the House of Representatives (contact info can be found here) and tell them you want corporate influence on our elected officials to end, and that they should support public financing of all elections, not the repeal of the FECA.

Today, it was revealed that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk’s campaign is planning to send “voter integrity squads” into African-American neighborhoods in Chicago and other Illinois cities in the run up to election day.  While Kirk and other Republicans claim that such efforts are designed to prevent voter fraud, the evidence shows that it is actually a continuation of consistent efforts by Republicans to suppress voting in Democratic precincts throughout the country.

Conservatives have engaged in numerous efforts to try to suppress the Democratic vote, including:

• Caging – Caging involves sending letters marked “do not forward” to voters, compiling a list of all of the letters that are returned as undelivered, and then challenging the voters on that list when they show up to vote.  This approach ignores the fact that the letters might be undelivered because of a mistake in the address list, or because the voter is a college student or in the military, rather than because of a problem with the voter’s qualification to vote.  The tea party and other conservatives were found to be planning a major caging effort in Wisconsin for the 2010 election, and caging has been carried out by Republicans in Florida, Ohio, Philadelphia, and other areas in the 2008 and 2004 elections.

• Misinformation – There has been a long string of examples of information targeting Democratic or minority voters with misinformation designed to reduce their voting.  Such misinformation includes phone calls announcing that polling places have been moved or fliers informing people of the wrong election day or that people with unpaid traffic tickets will get arrested if they try to vote.  Such misinformation targeting Democratic or minority voters was found to be “widespread and deliberate” in the 2006 elections in Virginia, and an organization known as Womens’ Voices has engaged in such misinformation campaign in numerous states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina.

• Polling Place Challenges – Polling places in urban areas (which tend to be heavily Democratic), often have too few voting booths, leading to long lines that can discourage voters.  These lines are made even longer by deliberate efforts to conservatives to challenge the qualifications of virtually every voter that shows up, with the intent of discouraging both the challenged voter and people who leave the line after staying in it for a few hours.

While Republicans attempt to justify such voter suppression efforts on the grounds that there is purportedly widespread voting fraud occurring, a five-year long investigation by President Bush’s Department of Justice found “virtually no evidence of any organized effort” to fraudulently impact federal elections and other analyses have similarly found no evidence of fraud.  Instead, the Bush Administration’s five year effort led to very few arrests or convictions, and most of those were for simple mistaken efforts by non-eligible voters to register or vote.

While there is a complete lack of evidence of any significant voter fraud occurring in elections, Republican continued widespread efforts to suppress Democratic votes in 2008 and, as Kirk’s statements show, those efforts are likely to be replayed this year.

It is up to us to ensure that these Republican vote suppression efforts fail.  To help make sure that every registered voter who wants to vote is able to, sign up for the Democratic Party’s voter protection effort, or volunteer to work on get-out-the-vote efforts for your local Democratic candidate.  And, as always, write letters to your local newspaper editor and talk to your family, friends, and neighbors to make sure they have accurate voting information and are aware of the Republicans’ vote suppression efforts.