The incredible Molly Ivins has a piece out called "Enough of the D.C. Dems."
The piece, originally published in The Progressive, is posted on the commondreams.org web site, which doesn't require registration. So, there's no excuse not to read it right now.
This woman can purely write.
4 comments:
Amen, Sister Molly. Maybe it's even time to consider term limits. These politicians get so entrenched and cozy that they're afraid to take a position that might result in their ending up in the private sector. Where they'd have to produce. Where they'd get fired for running up jacking up the deficit.
Ah, jeez. Term limits. I thought we'd finally gotten away from thinking those were a good idea.
Be very wary of simple solutions and quick fixes.
First, look at the state of the nation since term limits became fashionable a couple of decades ago. Do you honestly think we're better off? On September 12, 2001, wouldn't you have felt a lot safer with Bill Clinton as president?
Second, for however problematic our current system is, with its domination by big money and too-powerful lobbyists, the one true check on an officeholder's behavior is still the need to consider re-election. A lame duck politician is either dangerous or ineffective. Or both. Witness current POTUS, even from the perspective of his increasingly disenchanted base.
Third, if you look at the way the revolving door works, especially at the federal government level, it's clear that anyone leaving office has only to walk down to K Street, where the jobs are plentiful, the salaries are higher, and the actual text of most of the new laws is written. So, term limits don't really remove people from power. They just remove them from accountability.
Unless you want to make the rule that no one can ever be re-elected to the same office after having been forced out by term limits, to try to stop that aspect of the revolving door, then it's hard to see how someone who has to take a seat for a term is going to be less beholden to a small group of super-rich people, when the next election rolls around.
Finally, despite my cynicism, I continue to cling to the belief that there are at least a few good people in office. I also believe that, to get good at a job, it takes some time. Having a Congress constantly filled with newbies would make it even more of a lapdog for a demagogue president and even more of a rubber stamp agency for 2000-page bills that have the lobbyists' real objective buried on page 1406.
The alternative? I don't have my reform proposal neatly packaged. But here are some elements.
First, increase the salary for officeholders significantly. This should cut down on some of the pathetic grasping for golf trips and other petty bribery. Along with this, make it illegal for an elected official to accept free air travel from anyone, and provide a publically funded travel budget to compensate.
Second, require that all political donations, whether to a person, a PAC, or a party, be widely published.
Third, install some meaningful limits on the amounts that a person or organization can give to any political entity.
Fourth, require that all televisions stations provide a significant amount of free ad slots. Perhaps this could be limited to the stations who decide to take paid ads.
I'm somewhat inclined to be in favor of pure public financing for public office, and doing away with all private and corporate giving. However, I have my doubts about this ever becoming a reality in the US, so I don't think it's the first fight to take up. Also, I do have some sympathy for the idea that, at least to a point, being allowed to make campaign contributions is an expression of free speech.
I don't really feel flamed at your comments. I think you make excellent points. My extraordinarily significant other is a big fan of term limits, so I thank you for your ammunition.
I used to be against limits on campaign donations based on my knee-jerk pro-First Amendment beliefs. But, I think the amount of money that corporations give to politicians and political parties really makes the politicians forget who their constituents are. So, now I'm wondering how to jibe those 2 ideas (freedom of speech but no donations).
I think true campaign reform would forbid any corporate or individual donations. Complete public financing. But, would corporations then be allowed to finance "issues" advertisements? Donate to parties?
How do they do this in the U.K.? Other democratic countries?
Ah, good. Always glad to help out in a spousal dispute. ;^)
Seriously, though, ask PAC to chime in on this one, in this space.
I think we can all agree that there exists some point beyond which using the "free speech" argument to support giving tons of cash is specious. The Sorkin sound bite goes something like this: Buy all the billboards you want. But money is not free speech.
As we've seen from the growth of PACs like the Swiftboaters, and it must be admitted, MoveOn.org as well, there are problems inherent in unfettered giving to these organizations, too. I'm not talking about restricting an independent organization's right to say what it pleases (although outright slander seems a bit of a stretch), but the reality is, you'll never be able to construct satisfactory firewalls between these orgs and the pols. Anyone who thinks that R. M. Scaife (the main money behind the Swifties) and Karl Rove don't communicate regularly, if possibly through cutouts, is naive. Ditto George Soros and, say, the DLC.
I don't know how they do it in other countries. Perhaps it's purely cultural. The last time Tony Blair ran, the coverage that I saw indicated that the campaign was unusually harsh and well-watched. I think it lasted about two months.
For some reason, American campaigns are a lot longer, and this means that a lot more money has to be spent, just to stay in the game.
I myself wish primaries were held in September, not March. That's a pipe dream, though. There will always be an effective shoutback from those who would say, "people need time to learn about candidates."
I think this is bunk, of course. Ninety percent of likely voters decide within a week, at most, whether because they do their own research, or because they're just "yellow dogs." For the remaining 10%, another month or two seems more than enough time for adequate education.
It gets mighty tiresome waiting for the fence-sitters to make up their minds, because they seem less to be gathering data than waiting for a chance to be interviewed on TV.
But I'm drifting off topic, here.
The truth is, money always means access and power. I don't know how to change that. I think the best we can do is to maintain a never-ending battle to keep the giving above ground.
As appealing as term limits are, to knees and other jerks, I think they ultimately work against this idea.
Post a Comment