(Photos by Robin Holland)
This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with libertarian journalist Nick Gillespie and progressive legal scholar Lawrence Lessig about the impact of last month’s controversial Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds from their general treasuries on political communications in periods shortly before elections and primaries.
While many have argued that the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission affirms free speech and the First Amendment, others have expressed grave concern that the ruling may open the floodgates of corporate money into America’s elections and undermine the voices and trust of ordinary citizens.
Criticizing the Court’s ruling as a blow to citizens’ faith in government, Lessig said:
“I think it's an ominous sign about the future of this Court and any kind of reform. Because though I support free speech, and even free speech for corporations, what this means is increasingly people are going to believe their government is controlled by the funders and not by the people... Congress has lost the respect of the people, and it’s only going to get much, much worse... Increasingly, members are thinking not about what makes sense... They think about what's going to make it easier for the lobbyists to help channel money into their campaigns. They've produced the fundraising Congress, where their obsession is, ‘how do I make the people who will fund my campaigns happier?’... The problem that I see is that when speech gets read by the ordinary American people as just another way in which Congress is focusing on the funders rather than focusing on the people, it erodes the trust in this government.”
Gillespie defended the Court’s decision and suggested that shrinking the scope of government is the best way to drain money from politics:
“I think it was a victory for free speech, in the end. If anything, it didn’t go far enough. Campaign finance regulation is always a suppression of speech... What I would argue is that we have too many campaign finance reforms. They do stifle free speech – that’s what they’re designed to do – particularly political speech... Who are the corrupt politicians? Name names, because that’s what this is about. Who are the people who are dancing to the tune of their corporate masters?... We have seen an explosion of corporate lobbying after Obama went into office. This past year has been the biggest bumper year for lobbyists ever. What I would argue is it has nothing to do with patrolling speech or even elections – what it has to do with is the fact that the budget that’s on the table now is $3.8 trillion. As long as the government is shoveling that kind of cash around, people are going to be sniffing out ways to get their share.”
What do you think?
What’s your perspective on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case?
Do you believe that a system of campaign finance laws is capable of limiting the influence of money, or do you agree with Gillespie that lobbying and corruption are inevitable with a large federal budget?
Do you agree with Lessig that Congress has lost the people’s respect? What reforms would increase your faith in Washington?
(Photo by Robin Holland)
In this week’s JOURNAL, Bill Moyers sat down with physician and activist Dr. Margaret Flowers, who was recently arrested for an act of civil disobedience – trespassing – as she attempted to deliver to President Obama a letter urging him to resuscitate the stalled effort at health reform and consider a Medicare-for-all plan, known colloquially as “single-payer.”
Flowers said:
“I went into medicine because I really do care about taking care of my patients... I really thought that medicine was going to be about taking care of patients, and I learned otherwise – that it was more about fighting with insurance companies and being pushed to see more and more patients. When I looked at what was going on and looked at what works in other places and what models have worked here, I saw that if we have a Medicare-for-all system, then really doctors can practice medicine again... [The White House was] concerned that if we let the single-payer voice in, or if it was associated in any way with [their] legislation, that it would hurt their ability to pass that legislation, so they kind of put the kibosh on it... Why is [Obama] excluding us? Why isn’t he letting us be at the table when this makes complete sense from a public policy, public health policy, and economic health policy standpoint?”
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who appeared on the JOURNAL last June, argued that single-payer is the best possible health reform but that it is not politically achievable in Congress:
“The single-payer system would be the best of all... Because a single-payer actually would have huge bargaining leverage, be able to tell the providers what they can do and what they can't do without it being ‘socialized medicine.’ A single-payer would actually have the reins... But a President, to some extent, has got to be politically realistic. There is no real political option in Congress now for a single-payer... I'm a big single-payer fan. Unfortunately, we cannot get there from here because the political forces are just too strong against single-payer.”
On the other hand, columnist John Steele Gordon of the WALL STREET JOURNAL has argued that, historically, self-interested politicians have proven unable to run large enterprises sensibly. Gordon wrote:
“It might be a good idea to look at the government’s track record in running economic enterprises. It is terrible... Because of the need to be re-elected, politicians are always likely to have a short-term bias. What looks good now is more important to politicians than long-term consequences even when those consequences can be easily foreseen... And politicians tend to favor parochial interests over sound economic sense.... The inescapable fact is that only the profit motive and competition keep enterprises lean, efficient, innovative and customer-oriented.”
What do you think?
Do you believe single-payer is the best potential reform for the U.S. health system? Why or why not?
In the wake of the Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts that disrupted Democrats’ legislation, what health reforms do you believe are politically achievable?
How are you and your community working to reform America’s health system?
(Photo by Robin Holland)
Below is an article by JOURNAL senior writer Michael Winship. We welcome your comments below.
"Lobbyists Retreat But Never Surrender"
By Michael Winship
George Washington’s birthday is approaching and with it will come the attendant mythology: hatchet and cherry tree, wooden teeth, throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River – or the Rappahannock.
Of course, as the old joke goes, a dollar went a lot further then. Today, if you tried to hurl a silver dollar across the Potomac, chances are some member of Congress would snatch it in flight like one of those nature film grizzly bears grabbing a salmon in mid-leap.
And the more likely person doing the throwing would be a lobbyist, tossing coins in the air to keep the playful legislator’s attention. The other day, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics reported that more than 15,600 companies spent at least $3.2 billion on federal lobbying last year. Five hundred thirty-five members of the House and Senate, more than 13,000 registered lobbyists in DC – you do the math.
This week, White House Special Counsel Norm Eisen blogged about President Obama’s plans to further crack down on lobbyists by updating the Lobbying Disclosure Act and getting Congress to mandate “low-dollar limits on the contributions lobbyists may bundle or make to candidates for federal office,” bundling being that insidious practice by which you raise a lot of money by hitting up a number of people for contributions and “bundling” their donations together.
Continue reading "Michael Winship: Lobbyists Retreat But Never Surrender" »
(Photos by Robin Holland)
This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with legal experts Zephyr Teachout and Monica Youn about the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling last week on the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court cited the First Amendment to strike down laws that restricted corporations and unions from spending funds from their general treasuries on political communications in periods shortly before elections and primaries. The decision has aroused passionate reactions from observers across the political spectrum about corporate influence on elections and whether money spent on political advertising should qualify as free speech protected under the First Amendment.
Zephyr Teachout, who teaches law and politics at Fordham University’s School of Law, said:
“This is not just a First Amendment question. This is a question of what kind of society do we want to live in... Imagine a Senate race in a few years [if] efforts to break up the banks got into a high pitch, and a candidate recognizes that people in her state are very supportive of this effort to break up the banks, but the polls are close. So, she comes out with a strong statement saying ‘I want a cap on how big a bank can be, in the billions.’ That night, there can be ad hominem attacks funded by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley on her, directly paid, that cover the airways. Not only can that happen, but she knows that can happen. How likely is she to take on one of the most important economic questions that we have right now, how to structure our financial industry, when she knows the financial industry is already spending $400 million a year on lobbying?”
Monica Youn, who directs the campaign finance reform/money in politics project at New York University’s Brennan Center for Law and Justice, said:
“The marketplace of ideas doesn’t give anyone, any corporation or any individual, the right to buy an election. The First Amendment is an important part of our Constitution, but so is the idea that this is a democracy. This is a society based on the idea of one person – one vote, and our elections should not be marketplaces. They should be about voters. They should be about helping the electorate make an informed decision, and the electorate is not going to be able to make an informed decision if all they can see on the air, hear on the radio, are attacks ads funded by hidden corporate agendas... There’s a reason our Constitution was set up the way it was, and there’s a reason you can’t buy an election, because we didn’t intend for those who have the most money just to be able to get everything in the system the way they want it every time.”
Progressive author (and former lawyer) Glenn Greenwald, who has appeared on the JOURNAL several times, has expressed qualified support for the Supreme Court’s decision. On his blog, he wrote:
“I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling... Even on a utilitarian level, the long-term dangers of allowing the Government to restrict political speech invariably outweigh whatever benefits accrue from such restrictions... The speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws... Laws which prohibit organized groups of people – which is what corporations are – from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood... The invalidated statute at issue here exempted media corporations – such as Fox and MSNBC – from these restrictions, since the government obviously can’t ban media figures from going on television and opining about elections (the way they do all other corporations)... It allowed the views of News Corp., GE, and Viacom to flourish (through their ownership of media outlets) while preventing the ACLU and Planned Parenthood from speaking out.”
What do you think?
If you were a Justice on the Supreme Court, how would you have voted in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Explain.
Should Congress move to pass new laws regulating political spending from corporations and unions? If so, what would you suggest?
How are you and your community working to win political power for the people over deep-pocketed special interests?
(Photo by Robin Holland)
In this week’s JOURNAL, Bill Moyers had a wide-ranging conversation with AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka about the relevance and agenda of the labor movement, as well as how unions are evaluating President Obama’s performance in office thus far.
Trumka had this to say about Obama’s State of the Union speech on Wednesday night:
“I think the speech was interesting in a lot of ways. [Obama] knows that there’s a lot of anger and frustration out there, and he was willing to look at people and say ‘you’re an obstructionist.’ He looked right at the Republicans and said ‘you can’t say no to everything and call that leadership.’ He looked at the Supreme Court and said ‘you made a bad decision that’s gonna hurt this country. Corporations already have too much power. You just handed ‘em more.’ So, I think he’s starting to understand and feel the anger, and I think he’s willing to work his way through. Now, the question becomes will he do it on a scale that’s necessary or essential to solve the problem... it has to be large scale... Our job is to make sure that his understanding of the anger translates out into a jobs program of sufficient size to solve the problem.”
Others expressed a less positive perspective on Obama’s speech. The WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial board wrote:
“If President Obama took any lesson from his party's recent drubbing in Massachusetts, and its decline in the polls, it seems to be that he should keep doing what he's been doing, only with a little more humility, and a touch more bipartisanship... On health care, Mr. Obama offered a Willy Loman-esque soliloquy on his year-long effort, as if his bill's underlying virtues and his own hard work haven't been truly appreciated by the American public. He showed no particular willingness to compromise, save for a claim that he was open to other ideas... Many of the President's opponents will welcome this failure to change because they sense partisan opportunity. But our guess is most Americans will be disappointed because they sense a Presidency that began with such promise but now finds itself at a crossroads and doesn't really know what to do—except to stay on the same road that got it into trouble.”
What do you think?
What was your take on President Obama’s State of the Union speech? Did it change your opinion of his administration?
Were there issues that you wanted the President to cover that he did not address? Explain.
On Wednesday, historian and activist Howard Zinn, author of A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, passed away at the age of 87. In December 2009, Zinn appeared on the Journal to discuss his film THE PEOPLE SPEAK and the continuing resonance of people's movements throughout history. We invite you to watch that conversation here.
(Photos by Robin Holland)
This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with liberal academics Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Eric Alterman about why Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s former seat in Massachusetts’ special election for Senate and how progressives should proceed from here.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign, said that the significance of the Massachusetts election has been overstated, but that the loss reflects the failure of both the administration and its supporters in the general public to maintain the excitement of the campaign:
“I think a lot of our emotions about this particular seat has to do with Senator Kennedy, the sense that Senator Kennedy was one of the first and strongest voices on health care, and that somehow replacing Kennedy with a Republican who is voting against health care or is likely to vote against health care is a very painful sort of shift.. The changes that may have been happening in the electorate may be these secular shifts that have occurred for some time. They're not just about the moment of this one question about this President... [There’s been] a failure on the part of the Democratic Party writ large to tell a better story and just a more accurate story about what’s going on... The brilliance of the Obama campaign had to do with creating a sort of outline figure of who Obama was – a figure of change, of hope, a representation of what America most wanted itself to be. But what was amazing was how at the level of very ordinary people, there was an opportunity to project onto Barack Obama all of your greatest hopes... The missing piece is that those same people who had such enthusiasm to tell a story during the campaign have failed to tell those stories during governing.”
Eric Alterman said that the Massachusetts defeat was due to a mediocre Democratic candidate and that President Obama has not fought hard enough to enact the progressive agenda:
“[Massachusetts is] a liberal state. They went for McGovern. They have gay marriage. They elected a conservative to replace Ted Kennedy, who by the way replaced John Kennedy. It is shocking. The question is what’s at the source of the shock. If you ask me, it’s the fact that this President and particularly this candidate has not given people an inspiration to turn out the way these same people had an inspiration to turn out a year ago. Barack Obama carried Massachusetts by 28 points. That is a liberal state, and so it should be a shock to the system, but it’s not a repudiation of everything that Barack Obama believes, and it’s clearly not a repudiation of him for being too liberal, much less socialist. It’s equally plausible, and to my mind more plausible, that it’s a repudiation of his being unwilling to fight for the agenda that people thought they were electing him for.”
In his syndicated column, conservative historian Victor Davis Hanson argued that Democrats have alienated many voters by arrogantly pursuing policies opposed by a majority of Americans. He wrote:
“In Plato's ideal society, philosopher kings and elite Guardians shepherded the rabble to force them to do the "right" thing... We are now seeing such thinking in the Obama administration and among its supporters. A technocracy -- many Ivy-League-educated and without much experience outside academia and government -- pushes legislation most people do not want but is nevertheless judged to be good for them. Take the Obama proposal for health care. A large percentage of Americans do not trust those who run the Postal Service to oversee the conditions of one-sixth of the U.S. economy... In fact, on a number of other major issues, polls show more than half of all Americans are at odds with the Obama agenda: more federal takeover of private enterprise, gargantuan deficit spending, and ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform, for starters... Why, then, does the Obama administration persist with such an apparently unpopular agenda? Like Plato's all-knowing elite, Obama seems to feel that those he deems less informed will ‘suddenly’ learn to appreciate his benevolent guidance once these laws are pushed through.”
What do you think?
Why did Democrats lose Massachusetts’ special election for the Senate?
Do you expect Republicans to score more victories in November’s midterm elections? Why or why not?
In the wake of the defeat in Massachusetts, what strategies should progressives pursue?
(Photos by Robin Holland)
In this week’s JOURNAL, Bill Moyers talked with policy analysts Jean Johnson and Scott Bittle about how America’s energy policy should change to reflect 21st century realities.
Jean Johnson suggested that America’s current dependence on oil is untenable even if one thinks the threat of global warming is exaggerated:
“In China, until recently, not that many people had a private car. If the Chinese will begin to own cars the way we do, it would put a billion cars on the planet. So if you're worried about global warming, you have to think about that. And even if you're not, you have to think about a billion Chinese drivers competing with Americans, competing with the Europeans, competing with the Indians for the oil that we can manage to get out of the ground and transmit it around the world. It is not going to be good for the price or the reliability of energy here. We are heavily dependent – about 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels... There’s only so much of it, it’s expensive to get, and it’s not going to be here forever. We need to get started on the alternatives.”
Scott Bittle argued that the energy debate has been too arcane for ordinary citizens to follow and laid out a few basic decisions that must be made:
“One of the ways in which the debate that we're currently having is so unhelpful to most people in that everyone is talking about percentages and numbers. Should we cut greenhouse gases 20 percent or 17 percent? And it makes a huge difference between the two. Should it be based on 1990 or 2005? Should it be 350 parts per million of carbon? No, maybe it's 450 parts per million... And what it comes down to, though, are a few concrete choices. What kind of power plants do we wanna build? And everything branches out from that. What do we put in our cars? Do we wanna stay with a liquid fuel in our cars like gasoline or biofuels or liquefied natural gas?... Or do we move to electricity? In which case we need to build an infrastructure for that. We can do these things as soon as we make the choice for what we want to do.”
What do you think?
Does America need to wean itself off fossil fuels? If so, what energy source(s) should replace them?
How are you working to promote alternative sources of energy in your home, community, and the nation?
(Photo by Robin Holland)
Below is an article by JOURNAL senior writer Michael Winship. We welcome your comments below.
"Progressives: Don't Mourn, Organize"
By Michael Winship
Tragic events continuing out of Haiti make all the bad news for progressives this week wither in comparison. Nonetheless, over these last few days, for liberals in particular, there has been no joy in Mudville – aka American politics.
Just for starters: Thursday’s Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates for corporate dollars dominating campaign advertising; the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate, ending the Democrats so-called supermajority of 60 votes; and the subsequent collapse of health care reform as Democratic members of Congress scurried for the fire exits.
For a moment at least President Obama must have felt like he was in one of those animated cartoons where the hero tries to rally his troops shouting, “What are we, men or mice?” and the response is a chorus of rodent-like squeaks.
Add to this John Edwards confessing – finally – to paternity, and the withdrawal of Erroll Southers’ name as Obama’s choice to run the Transportation Security Administration after weeks of harassment by conservative Senator Jim DeMint (and the revelation that Southers had dissembled about incidents 20 years ago when he accessed a Federal database to investigate his estranged wife’s new boyfriend). Yikes.
Continue reading "Michael Winship - Progressives: Don’t Mourn, Organize" »
(Photo by Robin Holland)
This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with humanitarian Greg Mortenson, best-selling author of THREE CUPS OF TEA and STONES INTO SCHOOLS, about his work promoting education and building schools in remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mortenson said:
“I really think that fighting terrorism is based in fear, but promoting peace is based in hope... Peace is about hope, it’s about compassion, it’s about love. It doesn’t mean we just go around the world holding hands and drinking tea and having peace. But I really do believe that there’s a lot of power behind love and compassion and respecting and listening to people. Obviously there are atrocities happening, and we witness and hear about them daily. One thing I noticed, having met some former Taliban, is even they as children grew up being indoctrinated. They grew up in violence. They grew up in war. They were taught to hate... One thing we do is hire former Taliban to teach in our schools... They’ve become now our greatest advocates for education. They’re willing to go out into the most volatile areas and promote education.”
Other voices have emphasized that the Taliban still represent a dangerous threat to the region. Another humanitarian working in Afghanistan, Sarah Chayes, told Bill Moyers a year ago that she believes many troops are necessary to protect Afghan civilians and maintain stability. She said:
“At this point the Taliban kind of military campaign plan is effective enough that you do need troops to prevent them from making military encroachments that are really dangerous. You also need troops to protect the population from the Taliban. There are people who don't like the Taliban but may kind of knuckle under to them because, on the one hand, the government isn't doing anything better for them. And the Taliban are going to kill them if they don't visibly divide themselves away from the government. So you need to be able to protect people from that kind of an intimidation campaign, and that takes troops.”
What do you think?
Do you believe Greg Mortenson’s work building schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan will contribute to achieving peace in that troubled region?
Do you think that missions like Mortenson’s to promote education can affect other problems elsewhere in the world? Explain.
|
 |
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal
|
|
|
