Philadelphia call for Clean Elections
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:43:25 PM EST
Adam Bonin writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the need, despite a hostile Supreme Court, for public funding systems throughout the country. The majority's rationale rested on the notion that leveling electoral opportunities for less-wealthy candidates was not a legitimate government objective. That's a shame, because the smalldonor revolution that propelled Obama's presidential campaign has not yet reached the state or local levels.
To reform this system, states such as Arizona, Connecticut and Maine have implemented innovative methods to allow candidates to receive a public grant that covers campaign costs in exchange for forgoing private fund-raising.
In order to ensure a fair contest, candidates participating in the system can receive additional grants if their non-participating rivals or outside groups supporting them end up spending funds in excess of the public grant.
The result: a legislature that is more economically diverse than one that proceeded it - with diner waitresses and social workers now joining chambers once reserved for the well-connected - and one that is not beholden to special interests or entrenched wealth. More on that topic: the New York Times praised the high participation from candidates in the newly-created Connecticut public funding system, which goes into effect this year. Over 65% of candidates have opted in, and more may join them -- only 10 out of over 300 candidates have said they won't be running publicly-funded. Public financing encourages good governance as well as competition. Government is cleaner when lawmakers are not beholden to special interests and are free to spend their energy meeting the needs of the people who matter -- those who elected them.
Connecticut, which became known as "Corrupticut" after the recent scandals, can only benefit from this new system.
Guns, Suicide and Democracy in DC
By Ed Davis
Posted on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
I learned something new yesterday: the District of Columbia has the lowest suicide rate in the country. Why? Until the Supreme Court decided otherwise, DC had a tough handgun law - few handguns in homes=fewer suicides. Common Cause has no position on gun laws, but we do strongly support democratic rights for DC (as well as everywhere else). But some in Congress are prepared to tromp all over DC home rule and impose an ill-considered gun law on DC -- even though the DC City Council already passed a temporary law in response to the Supreme Court decision and is working on a permanent law. Global warming, high gas prices, economic distress, health care? Forget it - Congress has better things to do: Dump on the rights of DC to pass its own laws, something they would never do to their own hometowns. Read on for the text of a coalition letter:
International Delegation to Monitor Upcoming US Elections
By Lauren Coletta
Posted on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:23:33 PM EST
By: Michael Rohrs On June 16th 2008, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) embarked on a Needs Assessment Mission (NAM) to determine if they would undertake an election monitoring effort for the upcoming Presidential Elections in the United States. On June 18th the OSCE/ODIHR's "core team of election experts" met with Common Cause's own team of electoral experts, including: Director of International Programs, Lauren Coletta, Vice President of Research, Tova Wang, and Director of the National Campaign for Election Reform, Susannah Goodman. Based on their preliminary inquiries with Common Cause and other agencies and groups, the OSCE recently made the decision to undertake a limited election observation mission, you can read the full report of their inquiry by clicking here. The election monitoring team will embark on a month-long travel schedule and span the United States. The effort will include 100 long term observers from OSCE participating states. The report specifically mentions voter registration, voting equipment, provisional ballots, voter identification, absentee voting, vote by mail, unopposed candidacies, allegations of voter suppression, ex-felon voting rights, campaign finance spending, and increased voter turnout as issues that "merit further attention." The entire election-monitoring practice stems directly from adherence to the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Mentioned several times in the OSCE report, the Copenhagen Document commissions the OSCE member States to uphold the principles of free, fair, and regular democratic elections. In keeping with its commitments as an OSCE participating State, the US has regularly invited the OSCE to observe elections for federal office.
John Shattuck on Human Rights Commission
By Lauren Coletta
Posted on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:57:57 AM EST
Following is a report from Common Cause Intern Tristan Schulhof:
John Shattuck, a member of Common Cause's National Governing Board and CEO of JFK Library Foundation, recently wrote an Op-Ed in The Boston Globe concerning the creation of a U.S. Human Rights Commission. He discusses America's poor human rights record and the damage it has created to our global prestige. But, Shattuck also suggests ways in which our credibility can be restored. Firstly, "the United States was founded on the rule of law" and therefore we must abide by it. Secondly, we must practice what we preach and not criticize others for human rights abuses. After we have done the above, we must create a truth commission in order to "...get the truth about recent abuses of human rights and the rule of law by the U.S. government." Lastly, Shattuck believes that there should be a U.S. Human Rights commission that would use its oversight and authority to require the executive "...to provide regular reports to the commission on how it is complying with international human rights treaties..." Similarly, Common Cause (CC) and the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA) are gathering resources to conduct a national campaign to educate the public and policy makers about the importance of convening a bipartisan high level Human Rights Commission. The creation of such a commission is a concrete way to demonstrate that the U.S. rejects recent violations in this area and is committed to ensuring such actions are not repeated. The grassroots strength and outreach capabilities of CC and PSA will be effective in promoting the issue and educating the public. In the post 9/11 world of global terrorism and the Iraq War, America's poor human rights record has discredited our government. As General Wesley K. Clark so effectively put it, "For shame, America, that we aren't brave enough and strong enough to live our values." Let's put an end to Guantanamo Bay and other incidents of torture and restore the respect for civil liberties that America once symbolized.
We'll save transparency for next year
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:17:51 PM EST
The Washington Independent takes a look at the absurdity that is the U.S. Senate's continuing to file paper campaign finance reports, largely thanks to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) blocking the bill that would make report filing electronic. It doesn't have to be this way. The House moved to mandatory electronic filing at the start of 2001. The Senate was exempt at the time (and remains so) because that law applied only to those filing directly with the FEC. (The Senate, recall, files first to the Sec. of the Senate.) Searchable House records are available online almost immediately after members file. Some people just really liked the 20th century and don't want it to end, I guess.
Freddie, meet Billy
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
Dancing with himself -- for good reason.
Idol, that is.
Freddie Mac, the mortgage lending giant, is pulling out of the Democratic and Republican conventions, ending plans to host lavish parties and shower lawmakers and other delegates with food, drink, and merriment.
Oh, no one at Freddie Mac will say he's "Dancing With Myself." They say it's "as a result of current market conditions and financial considerations" but the truth is that no lawmaker could afford to appear at a Freddie Mac-sponsored party during a massive foreclosure crisis, so they're pulling the plug and trying to save face.
Don't worry, delegates can still attend a swanky gathering thrown by Coca-Cola, Xcel, Amgen, Teletech, JPMorgan, Solar Energy Industries Association, American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Institute, Service Employees International Union, Target, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, CH2MHill, Qwest, and Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, [or] Schreck and that's just in Denver.
Now, Rove
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
A big question of late is whether Karl Rove will be compelled to testify before Congress on his role in the politicization of the Department of Justice, specifically in the investigation of Don Siegelman. Rove has claimed an expanded version of executive privilege: "absolute immunity" from congressional subpoena.
Today a big decision undercuts Rove's entire argument. U.S. District Court judge John Bates (a Republican appointee, notably) ruled against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in their claim of executive privilege. It determines that Bolten and Miers must comply with the subpoenas and appear before Congress.
But the bigger impact may be on Rove. Bates eviscerates Rove's entire justification for ignoring the congressional subpoena, citing that "absolute immunity" has no basis in case law and was rejected in the case of--you guessed it--U.S. v. [Richard] Nixon. emptywheel explains further: But with respect to Rove, this decision makes it very clear that Rove must show up to testify--and (unless the White House invokes executive privilege with respect to the HJC subpoena of Rove, which they haven't done) he must answer all questions. That's because the sole basis the White House gave to justify Rove blowing off HJC's subpoena was "absolute immunity"--the White House did not invoke executive privilege with regards to this subpoena. And here's the key line and quote from Bates' decision: The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity. The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides. In other words, the oversight role and strength of Congress has been vindicated, and now they must apply it. Karl Rove must appear before Congress to testify immediately. He has offered no justification for his absence that stands up to the rule of law. And Miers and Bolten must appear immediately, too.*
Congress goes on recess for the whole month of August. They leave this weekend. I say: let's do the hearings tomorrow. The rush home to raise reelection money can wait a day so that we can restore the rule of law here in our democracy, or so one would hope.
We'll have a statement out soon.
* UPDATE (or NOTE): I should note that, frankly, this White House has shown itself masterful at stalling tactics to drag out oversight proceedings. I'd expect nothing less this time. But it's all the more important that Congress show some real urgency in holding these hearings, and fast-track any judicial proceedings and hurdles that the White House throws up. Time is short but the institutional impact of an executive branch that abuses its power and defies the Constitution will be long.
State Secrets hearing today
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
Our intern Grace Campion put together this brief on today's House hearing on state secrets.
At 12:30pm today, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will be holding a hearing on HR 5607, the State Secret Protection Act of 2008.
Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and the Judiciary committee members, of late, have kept busy defining and redefining the role they should play in keeping tabs on the Executive Branch. This is the latest effort put forth by Rep. Nadler (D-NY) along with his three co-sponsors, Rep. Petri (R-WI), Conyers, and Rep. Delahunt (D-MA) to curb the powers the President has abused in the name of national security.
The legal precedent was set by President Jefferson during Aaron Burr's trial for treason. In contention was a letter between the President and General Wilkinson said to include sensitive information that would be a risk to national security if divulged.
|
Common Blog
