Some talking points for discussion:
Climate change is real, and threatens the viability of the very planet we live on.
Republicans are in almost total denial about climate change, leaving the Democrats as the default political party that is supposed to embrace reality, and be concerned about finding solutions.
Both Oregon and Washington have state governments that are dominated by/run by Democrats.
Both Oregon and Washington have absolutely failed to pass recent pieces of legislation aimed (in different ways) at addressing climate change. Even with control of the levers of (state) government, the Democrats failed to address the existential threat facing the entire planet.
And yet, the Democrats are the party many people who are deeply concerned about climate change look to for leadership and progress on this monumentally important issue.
Can't we do better than this?
Why? Why have both these states totally failed to respond in a meaningful way legislatively to climate change? What goes on behind the scenes to scuttle even seemingly no-brainer pieces of legislation? Almost everyone agrees on some of the practical, logical steps to take - so what makes the Democrats incapable of stepping up? The same old, same old status quo is literally going to destroy our planet, yet the status remains quo. Nothing meaningful changes.
Rather than focus on "why," let's ponder, one last time, the "what" involved here. Could it be that "what" is driving the stability of the status quo is, as always, money?
Not long ago, state representative Dan Rayfield, well, let me just quote from his own press release: "Representative Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis) announced that he will introduce two bills in the upcoming legislative session aimed at campaign finance reform and increasing government transparency." One of these bills would provide up to $250 in matching funds to match, and thereby supposedly magnify, "small dollar donations."
This idea is supposed to be some sort of great equalizer in the great donation game, whereby "small dollar" donors would be on more of a level playing field with big, corporate donations. (Left unsaid, but tacitly acknowledged is that, yes, it all does come down to raising money to stay in office - literally at all costs.) In the same press release, Rayfield is quoted as saying: "The public deserves to know what potential conflicts of interest each legislator has."
"Conflict of interest" is probably a pretty good synonym for "status quo." Because if a legislator has a "conflict of interest," it essentially means they are somehow making money off of the "status quo," right?
So Dan Rayfield's idea is to magically transmute your (maximum) of $250 into (a maximum) of $500, and sell that to you as a boon to representative government and campaign finance reform.
But how would your (maximum) of $500 stack up against the $2,500 that Rayfield got from Eli Lilly (from Indianapolis, IN) on April Fool's Day in 2016? Or the $1,000 he got from Comcast (Philadelphia, PA) a couple of weeks later?
To me, $250 or $500 is a big chunk of money, but it doesn't hold a candle to the extra zero thrown around by the Oregon Soft Drink PAC when they gave Rayfield $5,000 on October 3rd, 2016. Or, once again, Comcast two days after that with another $1,000 on October 5th, 2016.
How does $500 from, say, an environmentally-minded voter compare to the $2,000 Rayfield hauled in from the Oregon Automobile Dealers Association PAC on October 13th, 2016? Keeping with that theme, how does that hypothetical $500 from a tree-hugging voter stack up against the $2,500 Rayfield got from the Oregon Loggers PAC on October 19th, 2016? Seems kind of puny by comparison, doesn't it?
Of course, it was business as usual for Eli Lilly, who gave Rayfield another $2,500 on December 30th, 2016. That's one way to have a Happy New Year, eh? Maybe that's what good ol' Comcast thought, so they upped their game to $2,000 on December 8th, 2017.
And those are only a few of many, many, many examples - and it doesn't even bring us up to this year, but I think you get the idea. These "reforms" still leave a playing field that is severely deformed, and still very much tilted in favor of corporate interests. Which is to say, the status quo. The same status quo which is, apparently, comfortable with watching us destroy our own planet. In fact, I would argue that these "reforms" actually increase the leverage of big money and corporations in the political process. It's exactly like an auction. If before, say they'd been comfortable paying $500 or $1,000, and now someone else in competition is "bidding" a little higher, guess what? They won't be scared away, they'll just raise their bid accordingly.
Can't we do better than this?
Now, again, this is not to say that Dan Rayfield is doing anything illegal. And maybe he's the best elected representative in the history of the universe, and ignores the political and financial weight behind those big corporate donations (including numerous additional ones from Amazon, Pfizer, AT&T, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Toy Industry Association, Inc., 1-800 Contacts, Inc. PhRMA, etc., etc.) and only does what is 100% in the best interest of each and every one of his constituents. Maybe. (I'm using him as an example because he came up via the earlier explorations of money and the OLCV, and I started looking at his website and financial disclosures.)
But it doesn't take much imagination to see how, at the very, very least, it creates a perception problem - as in, it could easily be perceived that politicians are in the pocket (or the wallet) of rich, powerful interests operating at the expense of the public good. I mean, think about it: Do you, personally, feel like you can financially compete with Eli Lilly? Or Comcast? Or any of dozens of rich, powerful corporations with money to burn?
It's all pretty sickening, and extremely undemocratic. But it explains a lot about the lack of efficacy of, say, the Democratic Party when it comes to addressing huge issues, like, let's say climate change, in states they effectively control. The idea of "first, do no harm" gets replaced with "first, make no waves." Except, of course, for the ever-higher waves lapping at our coastlines due to, you know, climate change.
If you want a real campaign finance reform bill, how about something like this: Limit any and all donations from corporations, and/or their agents, and/or their employees to just $250 a year, per politician. Pair that with Rayfield's idea to amplify donations from citizens of up to $250, and you might have something. Make a case that will get Citizens United back before the Supreme Court. Take a stand, and tilt the playing field in favor of the people, rather than big money.
But that wasn't what was proposed, was it? And until something like that is proposed, and enacted, a lot of us will still be asking: Can't we do better than this?
And that brings a close to Sunshine Week. Thanks to all the people who have been reading these.
Climate change is real, and threatens the viability of the very planet we live on.
Republicans are in almost total denial about climate change, leaving the Democrats as the default political party that is supposed to embrace reality, and be concerned about finding solutions.
Both Oregon and Washington have state governments that are dominated by/run by Democrats.
Both Oregon and Washington have absolutely failed to pass recent pieces of legislation aimed (in different ways) at addressing climate change. Even with control of the levers of (state) government, the Democrats failed to address the existential threat facing the entire planet.
And yet, the Democrats are the party many people who are deeply concerned about climate change look to for leadership and progress on this monumentally important issue.
Can't we do better than this?
Why? Why have both these states totally failed to respond in a meaningful way legislatively to climate change? What goes on behind the scenes to scuttle even seemingly no-brainer pieces of legislation? Almost everyone agrees on some of the practical, logical steps to take - so what makes the Democrats incapable of stepping up? The same old, same old status quo is literally going to destroy our planet, yet the status remains quo. Nothing meaningful changes.
Rather than focus on "why," let's ponder, one last time, the "what" involved here. Could it be that "what" is driving the stability of the status quo is, as always, money?
Not long ago, state representative Dan Rayfield, well, let me just quote from his own press release: "Representative Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis) announced that he will introduce two bills in the upcoming legislative session aimed at campaign finance reform and increasing government transparency." One of these bills would provide up to $250 in matching funds to match, and thereby supposedly magnify, "small dollar donations."
This idea is supposed to be some sort of great equalizer in the great donation game, whereby "small dollar" donors would be on more of a level playing field with big, corporate donations. (Left unsaid, but tacitly acknowledged is that, yes, it all does come down to raising money to stay in office - literally at all costs.) In the same press release, Rayfield is quoted as saying: "The public deserves to know what potential conflicts of interest each legislator has."
"Conflict of interest" is probably a pretty good synonym for "status quo." Because if a legislator has a "conflict of interest," it essentially means they are somehow making money off of the "status quo," right?
So Dan Rayfield's idea is to magically transmute your (maximum) of $250 into (a maximum) of $500, and sell that to you as a boon to representative government and campaign finance reform.
But how would your (maximum) of $500 stack up against the $2,500 that Rayfield got from Eli Lilly (from Indianapolis, IN) on April Fool's Day in 2016? Or the $1,000 he got from Comcast (Philadelphia, PA) a couple of weeks later?
To me, $250 or $500 is a big chunk of money, but it doesn't hold a candle to the extra zero thrown around by the Oregon Soft Drink PAC when they gave Rayfield $5,000 on October 3rd, 2016. Or, once again, Comcast two days after that with another $1,000 on October 5th, 2016.
How does $500 from, say, an environmentally-minded voter compare to the $2,000 Rayfield hauled in from the Oregon Automobile Dealers Association PAC on October 13th, 2016? Keeping with that theme, how does that hypothetical $500 from a tree-hugging voter stack up against the $2,500 Rayfield got from the Oregon Loggers PAC on October 19th, 2016? Seems kind of puny by comparison, doesn't it?
Of course, it was business as usual for Eli Lilly, who gave Rayfield another $2,500 on December 30th, 2016. That's one way to have a Happy New Year, eh? Maybe that's what good ol' Comcast thought, so they upped their game to $2,000 on December 8th, 2017.
And those are only a few of many, many, many examples - and it doesn't even bring us up to this year, but I think you get the idea. These "reforms" still leave a playing field that is severely deformed, and still very much tilted in favor of corporate interests. Which is to say, the status quo. The same status quo which is, apparently, comfortable with watching us destroy our own planet. In fact, I would argue that these "reforms" actually increase the leverage of big money and corporations in the political process. It's exactly like an auction. If before, say they'd been comfortable paying $500 or $1,000, and now someone else in competition is "bidding" a little higher, guess what? They won't be scared away, they'll just raise their bid accordingly.
Can't we do better than this?
Now, again, this is not to say that Dan Rayfield is doing anything illegal. And maybe he's the best elected representative in the history of the universe, and ignores the political and financial weight behind those big corporate donations (including numerous additional ones from Amazon, Pfizer, AT&T, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Toy Industry Association, Inc., 1-800 Contacts, Inc. PhRMA, etc., etc.) and only does what is 100% in the best interest of each and every one of his constituents. Maybe. (I'm using him as an example because he came up via the earlier explorations of money and the OLCV, and I started looking at his website and financial disclosures.)
But it doesn't take much imagination to see how, at the very, very least, it creates a perception problem - as in, it could easily be perceived that politicians are in the pocket (or the wallet) of rich, powerful interests operating at the expense of the public good. I mean, think about it: Do you, personally, feel like you can financially compete with Eli Lilly? Or Comcast? Or any of dozens of rich, powerful corporations with money to burn?
It's all pretty sickening, and extremely undemocratic. But it explains a lot about the lack of efficacy of, say, the Democratic Party when it comes to addressing huge issues, like, let's say climate change, in states they effectively control. The idea of "first, do no harm" gets replaced with "first, make no waves." Except, of course, for the ever-higher waves lapping at our coastlines due to, you know, climate change.
If you want a real campaign finance reform bill, how about something like this: Limit any and all donations from corporations, and/or their agents, and/or their employees to just $250 a year, per politician. Pair that with Rayfield's idea to amplify donations from citizens of up to $250, and you might have something. Make a case that will get Citizens United back before the Supreme Court. Take a stand, and tilt the playing field in favor of the people, rather than big money.
But that wasn't what was proposed, was it? And until something like that is proposed, and enacted, a lot of us will still be asking: Can't we do better than this?
And that brings a close to Sunshine Week. Thanks to all the people who have been reading these.
No comments:
Post a Comment