Category: incumbents

Categories
First Amendment rights incumbents national politics & policies

The Kill-Political-Discourse Act

Sometimes politicians name their legislation the better to hide what they are trying to do. The name fails to disclose, you might say.

Consider the so-called DISCLOSE Act, which just passed the House of Representatives by a mostly party-line vote of 219-206 and is now awaiting action in the Senate. The full name of the monstrosity is the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. It should be called the Democracy Is Undermined by Rigging the Game to Favor Incumbents and Especially Democrats Act.

The goal is to hamper political advertising by independent groups and corporations by requiring disclosure of the names of contributors who give above $600 a year. The new rules would harm corporations more than unions, and would foist anew some of the same burdens on First Amendment rights just overturned by the Supreme Court. The same court that threw out chunks of McCain-Feingold on free speech grounds would also likely find DISCLOSE unconstitutional.

But could the court do so before the 2010 elections? Democrats like Hank Johnson ― who told fellow partisans that the Act, if passed, would stop Republicans from being elected ― are betting that it can’t. Their hope is that with the speech-shackling new law skewing things in their favor until the high court acts, they’ll be more likely to escape political annihilation in November.

No, we can’t wait for the Supremes on this one. Call your senator.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
election law incumbents partisanship Voting

Is the Election Over?

Sneaky Democracy

The election is weeks away, but a new report from the non-partisan Center for Voting & Democracy picks the winners in every congressional race. In the past, their accuracy has been astounding.

In 1997, 18 months prior to the ’98 elections, leaders of the Center predicted 340 congressional races with incumbents and 21 open seats where there was no incumbent. The results? They were right in 339 out of the 340 incumbent races, or 99.7 percent. In open seats it wasn’t quite as easy, but they were right in 19 out of 21, or 90 percent.

How do they do it? They look at the breakdown of voters by party affiliation. You see, one of the most serious problems we face in creating a competitive electoral system is gerrymandering. This is the process whereby state legislatures draw the political boundaries. It allows politicians to pick their voters before voters can choose them. Add to that the awesome power of incumbency, which scares off competition, and you can see this is not exactly crystal-ball gazing.

The courts have struck down districts drawn to get a certain racial outcome, but have turned a blind eye to districts that arbitrarily favor one party over another. The solution to incumbents monopolizing our elections is term limits. But another key factor in promoting democracy is to stop the politicians from drawing rigged districts that squelch competition.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
incumbents national politics & policies

Without a Vision

Close your eyes for three seconds — not if you’re on the road right now though — and imagine what you would do if you were in the Congress. Fight for new legislation? Repeal misguided old statutes? Block pork-barrel spending? Combat corruption?

Our dreams shape our horizons; they’re an inspiration and a challenge to do our best. That “vision-thing” is important. If we don’t envision it, we don’t attempt it. Now, I don’t want to start preaching, but the Bible itself says, “Without a vision, my people perish.”

Take Senator Trent Lott from Mississippi. He leads the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. Asked by reporters what he hoped to accomplish this year, Lott replied: “We don’t have to score a touchdown, we just have to control the clock.” Huh? Republicans have the ball, and they ain’t exactly winning out there on the field, and all they want to do is run out the clock?

Lott and those like him would rather stay in Washington twiddling their thumbs than take a political risk to advance the issues they claim to care about. Commentator Robert Novak says, “They lack courage because they are professional politicians. They are much more worried about the next election, about keeping their majority, about keeping their seats, than they are about having the courage do the right thing.”

Good point. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to win elections. But to junk your agenda simply to hold on to power?

Power to do what?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.