Sunday Funday: Daily Show on SCOTUS and Campaign Finance

Sunday Funday: Daily Show on SCOTUS and Campaign Finance 

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down McCutcheon v. FECstriking down campaign finance law which limited aggregate federal campaign contributions. The Daily Show‘s Jon Stewart lampooned the decisions and the majority Justices’ alleged political naivete.

Here is a description of the opening clip:

A historic Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance offers a resounding victory for the rich that pales only in comparison to the gains Citizens United made for corporations.

Here is a description of a clip with “Senior Legal Analyst” Aasif Mandvi:

Senior Legal Analyst Aasif Mandvi explains how political representation in America is relative to net worth.

This post was originally published on the SLACE Archive.  For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive for daily podcast recommendations.

Civic Engagement and Political Disillusionment

Last Tuesday, I attended a talk hosted by the University Lecture series featuring Eric Liu.  Liu’s talk, which was titled “The True Meaning of Patriotism,” offered a progressive definition of patriotism and citizenship. He argued that since the 1960s the American Left has largely abandoned the concept of patriotism and allowed the Right seized it as part of its ideological lexicon.  Because the notion of patriotism has largely gone uncontested in the public arena, the idea has become impoverished, reduced to a jingoistic affirmation of American military and economic power.

However, Liu asserted that patriotism is a far richer concept than this.  Instead, patriotism, at bottom, is about putting country above self.  It is about public service and civic engagement—or as he put it “showing up” to one’s public obligations of being politically informed and part of the democratic process.

Underpinning Liu’s definition of patriotism is a commitment to the philosophical tradition of civic republicanism. As we all learn in our high school civics classes, the United States is not a democracy but a republic.  However, Republicanism (the classical political theory as opposed to the current political party) stands in contrast not only to Democracy as a form of government, but also Liberalism (classic philosophical liberalism as opposed to the current political ideology).  Where Liberalism is largely about rights and non-interference, Republicanism is rooted in civic obligations and engagement.  According to Republicanism, self-governance requires moral virtue and public spiritedness. Although Liberal and Republican thought can be seen throughout American history, the latter was more prevalent at the Founding than it is today.

Part of what Liu’s talk was about was reinvigorating our Republican tradition.  At one point during his lecture, Liu argued that the notion of “Rugged Individualism,” a very Liberal concept, was a “myth.”  According to Liu, self-governance cannot work if we think of our Nation merely as a conglomeration of egoistic individuals who use government only as a means of advancing and protecting our own interests. Rather, being part of a Republic requires some sacrifice, putting country above self.  It requires sacrificing some time and mental energy to being an effective citizen—keeping informed about social issues and engaging others about them.

There can be no doubt that our politics suffers when it focuses solely on individual rights to the exclusion of the common good.  However, where I was disappointed with Liu’s lecture is that he did not address what he considered to be the major barriers to civic engagement. Instead, Liu echoed Gandhi asserting essentially that the solution to our civic deficit problem was to “be the change you want to see in the world.”  This strikes me as a good first step but insufficient the face of systemic obstacles.

Hyper-partisanship, gerrymandered congressional districts, a broken campaign finance system, and parallel media universes (on the Left: MSNBC and liberal media outlets, and Fox News and conservative talk radio on the Right) all combine to prevent citizens from being engaged in their government.  As a result, to quote Yeats, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.”  Until we can empower the silent majority of reasonable people to enter the political fray—something that is understandably considered to be unsavory and pointless, we are destined to be politically disillusioned.

Will Lobbying Destroy the American Empire?

Will Lobbying Destroy the American Empire?

Recently, Fareed Zakaria began his Sunday show discussing the deleterious influences of lobbyist on American politics.  

Here are the basics of “Fareed’s Take”

The entire political system creates incentives for venality. Consider just one factor – and there are many – the role of money, which has expanded dramatically over the past four decades. Harvard’s Lawrence Lessig has pointed out that Congressmen now spend three of every five workdays raising money. They also vote with extreme attention to their donors’ interests. Lessig cites studies that demonstrate that donors get a big bang for their campaign bucks – sometimes with returns on their “investment” that would make a venture capital firm proud.

Now, taking money out of politics is a mammoth challenge. So perhaps the best one could hope for is to limit instead what Congress can sell. In other words, enact a thorough reform of the tax code, ridding it of the thousands of special exemptions, credits, and deductions, which are, of course, institutionalized, legalized corruption.

The most depressing aspect of This Town, by Mark Leibovich, is how utterly routine all the influence-peddling has become. In 1990 Ramsay MacMullen, the great Yale historian of Rome, published a book that took on the central question of his field: Why did the greatest empire in the history of the world collapse in the fifth century? The root cause, he explained, was political corruption, which had become systemic in the late Roman Empire. What was once immoral had become accepted as standard practice and what was once illegal was celebrated as the new normal. Many decades from now, a historian looking at where America lost its way could use This Town as a primary source.

Watch the video for the full take and read more in the Washington Post

 

NY Corruption and the Revolving Door

NY Corruption and the Revolving Door

Last night, Rachel Maddow started her show by discussing New York State’s outrageous public corruption scandal.  The scandal involves New York State Senator Malcolm Smith, New York City Council Member Daniel Halloran, and four others in an six count complain, which alleges bribery, extortion, and fraud charges.  

State Senator Malcolm A. Smith, a former Democrat, allegedly paid off party bosses in order to get on the ballot  in the New York City mayoral race as a Republican. 

 Aside from this blatant corruption, Maddow discussed subtler, routinecorruption–the revolving door between Washington and the private sector.  As an example, Maddow noted former Securities and Exchange Commission  (SEC) chief Mary Schapir.  Schapir, who was tasked with being  Washington’s top bank regulator, recently took a job with a consulting firm which advises banks about compliance with SEC regulations.   

The video (17:55) includes a brief introduction to the rest of the episode, and the relevant part of the story begins just under two minutes in.  

For the FBI press release regarding New York State corruption scandal, click here.

David Strauss: “Campaign Finance First Principles”

David Strauss: “Campaign Finance First Principles”

University of Chicago Law Professor David Strauss discusses how an ideal democracy would regulate its elections.  Strauss argues that the problem with American campaign finance laws stems from a fundamental distinction that the Supreme Court made in Buckley v. Valeo– between equality and corruption. Buckley held that the only legitimate end of campaign finance reforms laws was to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption.  However, equalizing candidates ability to be influential is not a legitimate interest of campaign finance reform.   The Court held that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”

Strauss says that this was the original sin of the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence.  “Equalization” is precisely what campaign finance reform law should do.

 

It is a law lecture that is  57:55 min.