Archive for the ‘National’ Category

Shapeshifters & Flipfloppers

Friday, October 16th, 2009

The possibilities of a bipartisan (insert issue) bill are slim. In fact, they never really existed. Yet the marginal Democrats (I’m looking at you, Senator Nelson) continue to go around and proclaim that new legislation that doesn’t have a super-duper supermajority, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 votes in the Senate, is not legitimate.

Bipartisanship is a virtue to strive for, but at what cost? In my last post, I chastised Democrats for failing to get their acts together, defend their values, and stop arguing with themselves. This time, it’s something more malevolent in the system. The Republicans are trying to barter their way to favorable public policy outcomes. Note: I did not say palatable, I didn’t even say tolerable, nor did I say compromise-that-reflects-their-relative-strength; I said favorable.

How does this work? How do 40 GOP Senators and 178 GOP Congressmen barter their way to favorable policies? By pledging support for ideas, then moving the goal posts. In many ways, this is a Peanuts strip. Lucy tells Charlie Brown that she’ll hold the football for him to kick, and Charlie Brown’s been duped before and is reluctant to try try again. But, Lucy convinces him that “This time, she means it.” So, Charlie gives in and takes a run at the football. Lucy, true to form, pulls it away at the last second and Charlie careens by.

The Republicans make the right noises and say the right things, indicating that they would support a (insert issue) bill if it had certain provisions. Reasonable? Yes. It’s the art of compromising. Senators will transcend party, work ideas from both sides of the aisle into the bill, then a broad, bipartisan coalition will support the bill. Right?

Wrong. At the last minute, after the Democrats have agreed to incorporate Republican ideas, the Republicans pull the football away. They proclaim, “We never liked those ideas. We like these over here instead. If you give us those, we’ll support the bill.” Just like Lucy, the Republicans taunt Charlie Brown again, saying that THIS TIME, they’ll let him kick the football.

For example:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa:

  • Then: “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.” Fox News Sunday, June 14, 2009
  • Now: “[T]here are other points as well, but let me mention other points that you didn’t mention. And one would be the individual mandate, which for the first time would have a federal penalty against people who don’t have health insurance…. I’m very reluctant to go along with an individual mandate.”October 6, 2009.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky:

“But the core point is this: At the end of the day, if the government plan is either in the bill or out of the bill, whether they will be able to argue successfully or not whether tax funds are gonna be provided for abortion, whether or not they will be able to argue at the end that dollars for health care for illegals is in or out, what we do know is what the core of the bill is going to look like. We know that for sure,” he said.
And the bottom line, said McConnell, is that Republicans don’t like the bill at all.
“It’s going to be a trillion dollar bill,” said McConnell. President Obama has said he won’t sign any bill that exceeds $900 billion over ten years, but what’s a few billion?
“We know it’s going to have half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. We know it’s going to raise taxes on individuals and business. So however these other issues are resolved, the core of the bill is a trillion dollar government attempt to take over one-sixth of the economy, which slashes Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and raises taxes on most Americans,” he said. September 30, 2009.

Sen. Grassey, again:

“Chuck Todd asked Grassley whether he’d vote for the bill if it was a good piece of policy that he’d crafted but that couldn’t attract more than a handful of Republican votes. “Certainly not,” replied Grassley. Todd tried again, clarifying that this was legislation Grassley liked, and thought would move the ball forward, but was getting bogged down due to partisanship. Grassley held firm. If a good bill cannot attract Republican support, then it is not a good bill, he argued.Grassley, in other words, is working backward from the votes. If the Gang of Six reaches a compromise that the Senate Republicans don’t support, Grassley will abandon that compromise, regardless of the fact that he’s the guy who built it. The Gang of Six, in other words, falls apart if it can’t assure a vote of 76. Since it seems virtually impossible that such a vote will manifest, it seems similarly unlikely that Grassley will sign his name to the final bill. And Grassley, remember, was willing to say all this publicly. His version of bipartisanship is strikingly partisan.” August 17, 2009.

And on the subject of individual mandates:

  • Senator Jon Kyl, R-Arizona: “This is a stunning assault on liberty” and Senator Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky: These provisions trample on the feedoms of Americans.” September 22, 2009. Both of these esteemed gentlemen ARE on the Finance Committee.

At the end of the day, what it comes down to is that the Republicans are (a) determined to water down and dilute any Democratic efforts at reform, (b) unwilling to lend support to any bill that does not completely reflect their views and any noises of bipartisan compromise are only misleading, ephemeral goalposts, and (c) going to vote no.

(more…)

Senator Max Baucus comments on health care

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Today, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, when asked about how the health care bill will fair in Congress, stated that every Democrat will vote for the bill and at least one Republican will vote for it as well. In the midst of negotiations to try to satisfy liberal Democrats without bothering moderates, these words of confidence give a reason for all people in this country to be happy. It appears that an overhaul of the current health care system is on the horizon.

With ongoing political drama, town hall debates that brought out thousands of far right lunatics (to put it mildly), and a health care system that continues to cost more for consumers and provide less care, this statement allows me to take a large sigh of relief. Whether there will be enough senators to support this bill has been a topic of discussion in recent weeks, despite the Democrats control of the senate. With moderate Democrats worried about the cost of the bill, a word of confidence from the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that these moderates will, in the end, support the bill, is a very relieving thought.

The need for an overhaul of the current health care system goes beyond simply becoming cost efficient and removing the astronomical profits that insurance companies make (although these are perfectly reasonable reasons as well…). It is my personal belief that health care, the act of protecting citizens from diseases and illnesses, is a moral responsibility that the government has. Just as it is the government’s responsibility to provide an army to defend the citizens of the United States, the act of protecting citizens from a fatal illness is something that the government must do as well. With at least 15% of the population in our country completely uninsured, and endless more not getting enough care for their specific medical conditions, the government is not carrying out their responsibility.

Simply put, the current health care system is acting in a way that is morally and ethically wrong. Millions of people today who do not have the necessary treatment for their illnesses will have it in the new system. Beyond all else, this is enough of a reason to change the way health care is run.

Andrew Coleman is a blogger for the Cornell Democrats.

Beyond the pale: when sedition & nationalism threaten democracy

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

A republic requires at least two political parties to remain functionally democratic.*  Even when they have little power, as is the case in the United Kingdom, for example, the opposition proves to be a vital check on the ambitions of the ruling majority.  This is a good thing, because it ensures that if one party does something insane, their opponents will screech about it and presumably win the next election. Political parties go a long way in addressing Lord Acton’s adage on the corrupting nature of power.  In a republic where other people covet your job, you’re less likely to do something illegal – or at least you’ll have to do a better job of hiding it – because you risk losing the power you already have.

This, of course, only works if everyone is more or less playing by the same rules.

Up until recently, I had assumed that with the notable exception of some reactionary and unhinged nutjobs, many – I’ll be generous – most Republicans who claimed to love their country were in fact not lying. Sure, they wrapped themselves in the flag and were so terribly misguided as to condone torture: all in the name of defending America and her values – the ultimate irony. Yes, they fear immigrants despite the United States being a nation of immigrants and they hate government ‘handouts’ even though Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are the most popular government programs out there. Yes, they appear to value corporations over people.  Yes, there is plenty of cognitive dissonance. Still, I could believe that there were in fact plenty of Republicans out there who loved their country (e.g. John McCain).

When I read about birthers, my faith was shaken. Still, I recognize that the majority of Republicans are not morons.

But when I saw multiple reports of  conspiracy to commit sedition and treason, I had reached the end of my patience and understanding.

Last week, John Perry, a former senior editor at the reactionary Newsmax, wrote – I shit you not – that the president “is inviting” a military coup, which he shamelessly advocates: “Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars.” Newsmax subsequently removed the article and said they believe in the principles of constitutional government. Sure.

A few days earlier, when Thomas Friedman wrote about legitimate safety concerns for the president, pointing to a Facebook poll asking if President Obama should be killed and citing a similar right-wing build up of hate prior to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, RNC Chairman Michael Steele called him a nut job.

Earlier this year, Chuck Norris showed his propensity for sedition by writing on WingNutDaily that he “may run for president of Texas,” referencing a comment he made earlier speaking with Glenn Beck. He calls the comment a quip before he deadpans and says that, the “need may be a reality sooner than we think.”  In August, resident nutter Michael Savage said there will be “a revolution in this country if this keeps up” because “the white male … has nothing to lose.”

Clear Channel’s Jim Quinn said on his radio show, “The only reason you put military anywhere is to win and win as quickly as you can, as ruthlessly as you can, because mercifully it will be over quick, instead of turning it into a meat grinder. I’m looking at — guys, look, I love you all who go over there and serve, but I gotta tell you right now, run for your life, get out, this guy is gonna get you killed. Man, these people are scary.”

To top it off, a neo-Nazi named “Jim” Jim from Oklahoma called into Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show, “claiming he and 200 other Oklahomans were meeting weekly to stage a coup and that they had their ‘right to bear arms’ and that he wants to bring the country back to where it was 400 years ago, before slavery was abolished.”

It is time we call these people what they are. They are reactionary, racist, unpatriotic and seditious, and they make up an all too big and all too vocal part of the right wing in the United States.  You’d be hard pressed to find anyone on the left who advocated killing President Bush or organizing a coup to overthrow him, but that’s exactly what these people are proposing. The ‘patriotism’ these people espouse is actually mindless nationalism, and has no place in a rational society.  With protestors bringing guns to rallies and the government recognizing that the threat of right wing extremism is growing, this is a very real issue.  Rather than stoke the flames of hatred, those in the Republican Party who love the United States, its Constitution and the ideals of freedom and liberty it represent should forcefully rebuke this type of disgusting and dangerous speech.

—-

* – Having more than two would do a better job of representing the various political views in the United States, but once we go down that road, we have to talk about presidential versus parliamentarian democracy and all of a sudden we’re debating the relative value of fairer representation and legislative expediency.

Chris Frommann is the director of public relations for the Cornell Democrats.

This is starting to get rather annoying…

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

Right now, our political sphere is caught up in a violent maelstrom of buzzwords, ad hominem attacks, distortions, slander, and exaggerations. The nexus of this storm of media hysteria is the health care debate – specifically, the public option. Using a flurry of rhetoric that spans a gradient ranging from patently false to absolute lies (insert Joe Wilson joke here), the Republican Party has managed to fleece around one-third of the country while sufficiently confusing the hell out of the rest of us. However, in the words of Jim DeMint, the public option is “Obama’s Waterloo,” so it only makes sense that the GOP would revert to a scorched earth brand of politics in a fit of desperation. It appears, however, that once the dust settles around the volatile issue of health care, despite having created an artificial Waterloo; the GOP will get annihilated in the 2010 and 2012 elections with a lack of a clear-cut party platform.

Despite the free-for-all nature of Republican politics at this moment, the party faithful can always come to a unanimous decision on two issues: gay marriage and abortion. Don’t act surprised when you start to see 30-second clips of cute babies being thrown into a garbage can by a Photoshopped image of a Democratic incumbent in the upcoming midterm elections. Republicans are clearly “pro-life,” it is manifestly evident in their party platform. This language of being “pro-life” is terribly misleading, as it succinctly implies that the opposition is “anti-life.”

Seriously, is any Democrat “ANTI-life”? I don’t recall George Tiller taking a certain perverted pleasure in his work. I don’t seem to remember Roe v. Wade being about a doctor’s right to take pleasure in his work. Upon walking back from my morning basketball class, I saw an interesting display in the Arts Quad concerning the fact that babies are indeed human at conception. It really got under my skin, though -it implied that liberals and progressives everywhere just wanted to euthanize fetuses for shits and giggles. That’s absurd. To anyone possessing a modicum of intelligence, it is patently absurd.

However…GOP talking heads do a magnificent job of groundlessly demonizing the opposition without stating their position on the matter. Because if you really break it down, if you are “pro-life” to the fullest extent possible, that inherently makes you “anti-choice” to the fullest extent possible. If you grant unborn fetuses full protection, you deny their sentient carriers basic human rights. It’s simply the lesser of two evils. Liberals don’t hate babies. Liberals aren’t in favor of “unlimited underage abortions,” as if abortions were a buffet item. Liberals simply assert that the rights of the woman carrying the child have dominion over the rights of the unborn child. What’s so immoral about that? Where exactly are Satan’s minions lurking about within the concise tenets of this straightforward ideology?

In short, the GOP mindset seems to have devolved from issue cherry-picking into a degenerate form of tabloid journalism. Unfortunately, to denigrate the GOP’s current tactics in such a manner is a terrible insult to the professionalism of tabloid journalists.

Tony Montgomery is blogger for the Cornell Democrats.

What Leadership Is All About

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

In a surprising and uncharacteristic move, former Republican Senator Bill Frist, R-Tenn, recently told Time magazine he would vote for health care reform – although he admits the bill is not perfect. In a Swamlamp blog post, Frist is quoted by the writer: “Or so the former Senate Republican Leader, a surgeon who has written a new book on health care, told me a few minutes ago in an interview. Were he still in the Senate, ‘I would end up voting for it,’ he said. ‘As a leader, I would take the heat for it…That’s what leadership is all about.’”

Of course Frist does not agree with every aspect of the bill. Of course, there are things he would change. But that does not stop him from putting his support behind the health care bill. That is what leadership is all about – political, religious, and corporate leaders taking a stand for the common good of the people.

Sadly, Republican leaders in Congress cannot seem to follow their former majority leader and grasp this concept of leadership. In honoring an age-old Republican philosophy, they simply do not seem to care for the good of the people. Health care is not something that can “trickle down.” Democrats struggling for health care reform need the support of the Republican Party as well, and honestly, it’s the least the Republicans can do. Honor the memory of one of the greatest leaders of our time – Ted Kennedy – by passing the bill he worked so hard to bring about. In a slightly clichéd, but appropriate directive, I tell the Republican Party “leaders,” “If you can’t take the heat [of decision-making], get out of Washington.”

At one time or another, every great leader deals with a difficult issue. The true test of their leadership potential is shown in their reaction in times of crisis. Many people wonder if one life can really make an impact on the world. Do the choices individuals make really matter? I believe they do. And I believe that one person can change many lives for better or worse. I believe a leader works to change lives for the better. Each one of us has the potential to lead, but sometimes it’s too hard. For this reason, we elect leaders who will guide us, help make our collective decisions, and work to improve our country. When these leaders fail to pass health care bills and fail to look out for the good of the people, they fail each one of us.

At this point in time, most Americans are in an anti-establishment mind frame. Failure to deliver health care reform will further erode an already crumbling public faith in Washington’s ability to get anything done. A middle ground must be reached – not only for the good of the public, but also for the good of both parties. As daunting as passing the health care bill seems to be – the most dangerous choice is to do nothing at all. Our leaders, both Republican and Democratic, must make a stand. They must put aside the pettiness of politics and work for the good of the people. Washington, a city of leaders, must finally learn the meaning of leadership.

Jessi Pachak is a blogger for the Cornell Democrats.

It’s Time for Democrats to Stop Arguing with Themselves

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

The previous post offers a lot of food for thought and my own follows closely on its heels. It’s time for Democrats to stand up, like Rep. Grayson, and call Republicans out for what their doing. Time after time, they are choosing to stand between the American people and guaranteeing quality, affordable universal health care to all Americans.

Rep. Grayson is not out of the mainstream. His ideas should not be controversial. His rhetoric may be construed as hyperbolic, but, honestly, is it anymore hyperbolic than the garbage that the right wing fringe has been spewing all summer? No, no it is not. It is the rhetoric of the frustrated and besieged, finally standing up for first principles. I submit to you that Rep. Grayson is evidence that the Democrats, at least some of them, might actually be willing to stand up and publicly offer full-throated defenses of the ideals that Democrats believe in. It is well past time.

Buried just under the surface of Rep. Grayson’s remarks is the deep-seated belief that government can be a force for good. Those that proclaim that the government is incompetent, get elected as a rebuke to government, and then perpetuate their anti-government beliefs are the problem. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that “Government is not the solution, it is the problem” and “The nine most frightening words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” With values like that in government, it should come as no surprise that incompetence trickles down from the top.

Once upon a time, the American people believed and accepted that the government could work and serve their interests. They still do, but they’ve just forgotten. The protester who proclaimed “Keep your government hands off my Medicare” is one such example. Rep. Grayson went on CNN’s Situation Room, bluntly stated that he would not apologize for his remarks on the House floor, and followed it up by stating that “what we have to do is solve people’s problems.”

Simply creating a government program, whether it’s the public option or anything else, is not the whole answer, but it is a substantial portion. No one should have to choose between paying for the medication that they need and putting food on their family’s table. As I noted in my comment to Chris’ post, Senator Jim Bunning (R-TX) said that creating a public option would be a “major step toward universal health care coverage.” Good! It’s only been 50 years in the making. But Sen. Bunning meant that as criticism.

It’s high time that Democrats start defending our objectives and proclaiming our values. I’m tired of listening to Republicans define the terms, frame the debate, and chastise Democrats for being “liberal.” Especially when their view of the debate is built upon lies. There are no, and never were any, death panels in any of the bills in committee. That’s patently absurd – yet that is what engulfed the summer, fueled by many of the same Republicans that the congressional Democrats are expected to negotiate with.

With colleagues like these, who needs opponents? It’s time for the Democrats to stop giving away the store to garner Republican support. If we continue down this road, we will end up with a weak reform package at best, and still no Republican support. The Democrats are, in fact, only arguing with themselves.

Rep. Grayson, and Senate veterans like Senators Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy, are forcing the issue. They are defending, not only the reforms of the moment, but the belief that government can be a force for good and can help to “solve people’s problems.”

I leave you with Rep. Grayson’s appearance on CNN’s Situation Room. We need more Democrats with spine.

Mike Schillawski is the President of the Cornell Democrats.

Wait, there are Democrats with a spine?

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Lately, discussing the topic of health care reform with friends and fellow liberals, I can’t help but feel crestfallen. I was (am?) a serial optimist, but given the inability of the imbeciles on the Senate Finance Committee to pass anything that can justifiably bear the label of reform (read: a public option or single payer) and the willingness of Congress and the president to allow these special interest-group-beholden pansies to control the debate, I don’t know what to think anymore. True, 65% of the public support a public option. Yes, four out of five congressional committees have passed bills with a public option. And yes, Nancy Pelosi appears to want to talk the talk. But no one seems to want to expend the political capital to push this through, even though the eventual public option or single payer system will inevitably be wildly popular. How could it not if it will dramatically improve health care quality and lower costs? What is the most popular health care plan? Oh, is that Medicare you say? Socialized medicine you say? Not private insurance companies?

But I digress.

It was in this depressed state yesterday that I discovered Rep. Alan Grayson’s (D-FL) exposition of the Republican Health Care Plan ™. That is, there is no Republican Health Care Plan. Or rather, the Republican’s Health Care Plan calls for more exploitation of individuals by the health insurance industry and higher profit margins. Oh, and tort reform.

Finally, a representative with the balls to say what everyone else is thinking. (Clearly this is because he’s a freshman and doesn’t realize that calling the opposition out on obvious bullshit is strangely enough often not a winning strategy. I guess that’s what happens in a ‘fair and balanced’ world where fringe lunatics get equal time to debate fairly unequivocal facts.)

You should check out his video on YouTube and get excited about it…before he’s forced to apologize.

An addendum:

Mike reminded me of Rep. Barney Frank’s wonderful “trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table” comment a few months back. If you haven’t already seen that video, you should really check it out here:

Chris Frommann is the director of public relations for the Cornell Democrats.

Because the first Cap and Trade Bill wasn’t Watered-Down Enough…

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Earlier this summer, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, also known as Waxman-Markey or ACES), by a vote of 219-212.  This vote was an important first step in America’s efforts to both curb the devastating effects of global climate change and end our dependence on foreign sources of energy.  In addition, this bill creates a new market for clean energy in the United States, which has the potential to create countless jobs and stimulate the economy.

Of course, that’s not all there was to the legislation.  In order to gain the votes of conservative democrats and a handful of reasonable republicans, the bill was weakened substantially.  Led by House Agriculture Committee Chairman (and rock star) Collin Peterson, these conservative democrats added huge giveaways to the coal industry and agricultural interests, added new subsidies for nuclear power, and introduced new offset provisions which may be nearly impossible to regulate.

While these changes certainly aren’t good for the country, just about everything Congress does has some compromises in it.  And the bill still reduces America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.  In other words, despite having to give away some key provisions, we still won, right?  After everything that was added to the bill, it seemed like nothing could derail Cap and Trade.

Enter Joe Lieberman.

Convinced that bipartisanship is more important than actually reducing climate change, the Connecticut senator is seeking to weaken the bill even further.  He thinks that the key to getting Republicans on board is more funding for coal and nuclear plants.  This is especially foolish because some of the Republican senators that he’s trying to bring on board are 100% opposed to any sort of cap and trade system being created in the United States.  But knowing Senator Lieberman’s history, it wouldn’t come as a great surprise to any of us if he compromised that away too (leaving a bill with nothing but new subsidies for coal and nuclear power that far exceed the bill’s other incentives for clean energy).

You would think that with such large majorities in Congress, we should be able to pass good pieces of legislation without having to completely cave in to proponents of the status quo.  But thanks to good people like Joe Lieberman, making progress on climate change is as difficult as ever.

Terry Moynihan is the Treasurer and former Director of Public Relations for the Cornell Democrats.

Get Wall Street While It’s Down – The Need for Tough Regulation

Monday, September 21st, 2009

With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which precipitated the global financial crisis, now a year in the past, it is important not to forget the lessons that the country was forced to learn. As top Wall Street firms are returning to business as usual, doling out lavish bonuses shortly after receiving life support from the tax payers, it is vital for the President and Congress to push harder for regulatory reform. Even as the stock market recovers, it is important to bear in mind that, as the New York Times puts it, the US government is “the nation’s biggest lender, insurer, automaker, and guarantor against risk for investors large and small.” Nine out of ten mortgages are government financed, the government owns 80% of insurance giant AIG, and government spending has reached 26% of GDP.

This unprecedented government intervention into the economy was of course fully necessary and justified. The bold action that was taken undoubtedly prevented the financial crisis from causing a second Great Depression. Still, Americans have a right to be angry that their tax dollars are benefiting Wall Street firms that do not seem to have changed their practices. The crisis proved that the financial sector, like a rebellious child, is unable to regulate and restrain its behavior even when it is in its own best interest.

It’s time to get Wall Street while it’s still down. The financial sector, armed with unimaginable amounts of money and influence, has traditionally been untouchable when it comes to any regulation that might slightly decrease short-term profits. Finance money has even found its way into the pockets of many Democrats. It was under the Clinton administration (though with a Republican Congress) that the Glass Steagall Act, New Deal legislation which prevented commercial banks from gambling with depositors’ money, was essentially repealed and legislation was passed that exempt derivatives and other complex financial instruments from regulation.

Even as the worst of the financial crisis was unfolding, financial firms including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Credit Suisse, got together to form a lobbying group called the CDS Dealers Consortium. This lobbying group already scored a victory when the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act was passed without a provision to allow families facing foreclosure to have their mortgages renegotiated in bankruptcy courts. Though President Obama supported this measure, he sat on the sidelines, not wanting to pick a fight with the finance industry.

If Democrats don’t take on Wall Street now, while the industry is still reeling and Americans are still furious, they will not likely get another chance. Obama’s proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would ensure that ordinary consumers are not taken advantage of by financial firms, is already running into opposition by Blue Dog Democrats in the House who claim it would be too onerous for banks. Currently, consumer protection is provided for by an inefficient, ad-hoc, patchwork of regulators. Creating a single agency to ensure that ordinary people understand what they’re buying is crucial; many purchasers of subprime mortgages were unaware that they could qualify for ordinary prime mortgages. Banks are in no position to complain about onerous regulation and the President needs to stand firm on this issue.

When it comes to regulating derivatives – the complex financial instruments that helped bring down the financial system – the administration’s plan unfortunately has too many loopholes. Though some derivatives would be regulated and traded on public exchanges to provide for transparency, many “customized” derivatives would still be unregulated. As Senator Harkin (D-IA) eloquently put it “you’d get a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.”

For the good of the American people and even the financial industry itself, it is time for Democrats to take off the kid gloves. For once, someone needs to pick a fight with the bankers.

Dan Smith is the Vice President of the Cornell Democrats

Because We Need MORE Money in Our Politics

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Last Wednesday, 9 September 2009, the Supreme Court convened before their October 2009 term begins to rehear a case that was held over from the October 2008 term. Since that case was initially heard, the composition of the Court has been altered by President Obama’s nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (Docket No. 08-205), goes to the nature of our democracy and what voices should be heard in the electoral process.

There is no question that campaign finance is not the sexiest public policy arena; to many, it is the most esoteric. Citizens United v. FEC challenges the restrictions on corporate speech during elections. Some background: there have been laws regulating spending in elections (and corporations spending money in them) since 1907. It wasn’t until Watergate that Congress developed a comprehensive regulatory scheme, through the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 92-225). That law had strict contribution and spending limits for donors and campaigns, respectively. In 1976, the Supreme Court handed down Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), which invalidated the spending limits, but upheld the contribution limits and restrictions on corporate speech.

Citizens United stems from the FEC’s refusal to allow the corporation to pay to distribute “Hillary: The Movie” prior to the primaries last year, ruling that the film constituted an electioneering communication, which corporations were prohibited from paying for within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The plaintiffs argue that it is unconstitutional to limit “corporations’ independent spending during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress.”

This stems from a legal argument that the corporation is a person, and thus entitled to all the rights of a person under the U.S. Constitution. In 1886, the Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite said, prior to the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), oral argument,

“The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

The court reporter later included this in the syllabus and case history. This was eventually passed by Congress and codified at 1 U.S.C. §1. On 15 September 2009, Stephen Colbert presented this information in an amusing segment of “The Wørd.

If the Supreme Court broadly overturns the limitations on corporate speech in elections, it will open the door for millions, if not billions, of dollars to flow into the electoral process, dwarfing the sums that citizens are able to contribute. Today, corporations (and unions) are prohibited from contributing to campaigns from their general treasuries. They can finance ads within strict parameters. If the wall that Congress has attempted to construct between politics and the economy – or to borrow a phrase from Robert Kerr, to “subordinate the economic to the political” – is torn down, we will not like the results.

All of the federal campaign finance laws were drafted and enacted to combat the corrupting influence of corporate money in the political process. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has said “Politicians are the only human beings in the world who are expected to take thousands of dollars from perfect strangers on important matters and not be affected by it.” As it is, money already permeates our elections. Barack Obama decided against seeking public financing of his presidential campaign, and raised (and spent) over $600 million dollars. The entire 2008 election cycle (President, Senate, and House) cost about $5.3 billion dollars.

The Supreme Court stands poised to unleash the beast into the process. In the 2009-2010 election cycle, a citizen is limited to contributing $2,300 per election, $4,600 total (primary + general). Exxon posted a profit of $45.2 billion dollars in 2008. It is time that we recognize that corporations are not people. They should not be legally treated as people. While the legal fiction was useful in the development of the economic framework, which dates to the 19th century, it has outlived its usefulness. A new framework, which preserves the attributes necessary for the economic purpose of the corporation, such as limited liability, but does not equate the corporation to a person, is needed. The myth of corporate personhood exists only in statute. There is no reference to a corporation anywhere in the Constitution and a court should not be able to read such corporate rights into it.

We will not like the election cycles to come if the flood gates are opened. The electoral process will be inundated with money. Corporations have a major stake in the status quo, and would prefer reforms to bend in their direction, often in opposition to the public good. A single corporation, were it to spend all its profits on electioneering activities, would distort the electoral process beyond recognition. While we may not like the election cycles to come, we will like the results of future Congresses even less.

Mike Schillawski is the President of the Cornell Democrats.