Use of the legal tools at our disposal to get an Amendment to the Constitution which repairs the disadvantages of ordinary citizens against Super-PACS at the election booth.
A- Revolution: Part II- Tools at Our
Disposal
No doubt there are many potential means for
achieving the changes we need to correct the flaws of our electoral system.
Means implies using tools that might be available to us. It would be foolish to
think we should focus on only one or two tools available to us, and abandon any
other potential tools at our disposal.
a.) Voting:
Efforts by voting, to defeat the two major
defiant parties and their constituents, who will not give us the Amendments we
need: One of the tools we have available is the vote, which, while rarely
effective against the two parties and special interests, there are some places
and times third parties and progressives have won. (Note, there have been and
will be some candidates who are not literally progressives, but may have some of
the same goals we have, and should be considered. We can't forget that Politics
often requires skills in the art of compromise.) We must continue campaigning
for independents everywhere, even though hope is small in most major
elections. How small?
Some of the strongest "hopefuls" should be mentioned here,
inasmuch as they might run again and need some support. We must also consider
candidates for local elections, not because these people will be directly
involved in any constitutional changes, but because they inspire the public and
can give a lot of support to State candidates. Here are some interesting
candidates from our recent past:
Maine Green Party State
Representative John Eder, 2002;
San
Francisco mayoral election, 2003;
Richmond,
California municipal elections, 2006;
Burlington,
Vermont mayoral election, 2009;
New
York City mayoral election, 2009;
Alaska 1996 : Green Party
Jeff Whittaker : 12.5%: second ahead of the Democrat;
Hawaii
1992: Green Party
Linda Martin: 13.7%;
Virginia
1994: Independent
J. Marshall Coleman:
11.4%;
Massachusetts
2000: Libertarian Party
Carla Howell: 11.9%;
Arkansas
2008: Green Party
Rebekah Kennedy: 20.5%:
a two candidate race;
Minnesota
2008: Independence Party and former U.S. senator
Dean Barkley: 15.2%;
Indiana
2006: Libertarian
Steve Osborn: 12.6%. second
in a two candidate race;
We also have had some
Democrats who have been strong proponents for election campaign reform, among
them John Kerry, Paul Wellstone, et al. For an example, the campaign of Paul
Wellstone shows a history of how a progressive might win election with
minimal
campaign funds. In fact, since his death his family has established a
training camp,
Sheila Wellstone
Institute, for candidates that need help in structuring their
campaigns.
b.) Campaigns and rallies and
petitions to Congress for an Amendment to reform election campaigns:
Not at all hopeful. Most acts that come
forward are watered down, short of what we need to overcome the inequality of
voting strength because of the "outspending" by Super PACS. For example, just
as the Affordable Care Act was short of the Single Payer Act we needed, so are
the Acts for Campaign Reform always way short of the exclusive Public Funding
for Campaigns that we NEED, or at least something close to that. A bill to
"amplify the voices of small minorities" sounds good to small minorities, but
one that SUFFICIENTLY amplifies those voices is quite another matter and more
realistic. And even those watered down amendments we can get through Congress
end up defeated by our corrupt electoral system. It is worth the time to
review the article
Have
efforts to rein in political donations failed? By
Thomas
J. Billitteri. Of particular interest on this site is the chronology of
events on major campaign issues, and a pro-con debate on the value of the 2002
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
And so, efforts in Congress were not only
unsuccessful, but also led to Citizens United which made matters worse. At least
for the present time and in the near future, as long as these "special
interests" have a large voting block, we are very, very unlikely to get an Act
of Congress that will succeed, no matter how weak it is, and especially if it is
strong. That does not mean we should not keep trying. But there are those who
still argue it is our "best hope" to keep using the same old "tools" of the
system, EXCLUSIVELY.
Listen to Paul Wellstone here 1991 on
Corruption. Listen
to Nancy Pelosi here on systemic problems that corrupt our system..
c.) - The Disclosure Act and Ethics Bills
Advocating for more disclosure and ethics is recommended
by many would-be reformers. These are people who obviously do not want very much
change. So good luck with that. In any event we have had similar special
interest involvement in defeating disclosure acts. See more
on that. Disclosure of some kind will still be a necessary component of any
good Amendment giving us exclusive public funding for Federal and State
campaigns.
d.) - Others want to teach voters how to determine how to vote
"en bloc" for the best candidates who will bring about the reform we need.
"Ask them before you vote," is their suggestion. Make reform
of campaigns a one-issue advocacy. I'm not sure how this is done, as it seems
to be a new idea. I'll be appreciative of anyone who can explain it to my
open-ears. As I recommend, we should try everything. But I believe people making
this recommendation are using diversionary tactics which would fruitlessly waste
our energies and attention. I don't believe they are really interested in true
reform.
e.) Finally, together with all the above, we must also consider another
tool given to us by the Founders of our Constitution - the Article V
Constitutional Convention.
I am much a part of advocacy of this
option through Wolf-PAC. But not exclusively. Did you see the latest video on The Young Turks about Wolf PAC?
Cenk was all amped up with some exciting news of the great progress we are
making toward the end goal of overturning Citizens United. There are many,
many enemies of the Article V Constitutional Convention. The fear of having one
could, by itself, cause Congress to act in a manner to avoid it. The pros and
cons will be the subject of the very last part of my article on A Revolution.
Final note:
Once we have fair elections, no matter how we reach that goal, we can
much more easily find candidates to put in office who will help us on all our
popular and/or more urgent issues. The best way for Democracy to work, however,
is within the Economy, not at the political level. There are wonderful
alternatives to the failures of capitalism, socialism and communism. The best
advocate for the right solutions comes from my favorite Economist, Richard D.
Wolff, and we should all be sure to listen to this Economist with the most
respectful attention, and follow his lead in such advocacy. How comforting it
would be to have, in place, a government we can trust while we go out and earn a
living independently.
Learn Macro Economics, with Richard D. Wolff -
two enlightening speeches: http://bit.ly/1iT0wLE and http://bit.ly/1kwb4hL Whether or not we succeed in getting a
remedy for our broken political system, we should turn to the problems of
Economic Freedom, Economic Democracy, Economic Equal Opportunity. I believe
this tool for use in achieving equality and freedom in our country could evolve
very slowly over time to eventually become dominant, even within our present
system. But it could become dominant much faster if we could achieve political
reform.
End Part II. Next Part coming soon, devil in details.
Palsimon, formally educated in journalism & law, is an independent progressive activist & writer, focusing on guarding integrity of media & government. (.)
1
1
1
