Killer Politics (20 page)

As a matter of credibility,
Mother Jones
magazine, one of the last bastions of fierce journalistic integrity, survives without ad revenue. They do seek donations for their watchdog journalism. The
Nation,
edited by my
friend and frequent contributor to my shows Katrina vanden Heuvel, has a similar model. Public radio and television is funded by a combination of government dollars and donations. (Of course, those government dollars make it vulnerable to the political power of the day.)

As a news consumer, would you pay for a subscription to a radio program, a television program, or a magazine if you were convinced you were getting objective journalism? If you get HBO or satellite radio, you are already paying a premium not to be interrupted by commercials. Isn't that what TiVo is all about—the convenience of getting media without the intrusion of advertising?

Perhaps the next step is for news consumers who lament the state of journalism to put their money where their democracy is and support subscriber-based journalism. This is the next frontier, and I believe you will see someone with deep pockets and a dedication to real journalism give this a try. Imagine if Ted Turner had created twenty-four-hour cable news based completely on subscriber revenues? What he did by launching CNN was revolutionary. Had he had the vision to make it subscriber-based only, it could have been transformational. I don't intend to be unfair to Ted Turner by asking a visionary to be even more of a genius! I admire him a great deal, and what might work now may not have worked then.

No matter what, the minute one of these subscriber-based, nocommercial publications or broadcasts becomes profitable, it will get imitators/competitors. Ideally, the competition will be to see who can be most objective. But, human nature being what it is, sensationalism might well creep in. While journalists are considered the watchdogs of society, who watches the media?
You do.

Turner, who once called Rupert Murdoch the most dangerous man in the world, doesn't like what he sees. “The media is too concentrated, too few people own too much,” he says. “There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy.”

Some have cursed Turner's invention of the 24/7 news cycle, but you cannot blame him for the inability of news consumers to keep up. The
incredible number of news sources may seem overwhelming, but being an informed citizen is your responsibility. You have to determine how credible a news source is.

A vote is an awesome responsibility. You ought to study for an election like it's a test. Actually, it is. It is a test of democracy, and judging from the election of some goofballs like Representative Michele Bachmann (D-MN), who is a regular on
The Ed Show
segment entitled “Psycho Talk” for her bizarre rants, we need to hit the books a little harder. God help us if she and Glenn Beck ever have a love child. He will goosestep out of the womb and cry a lot.

While we wait as if for Godot, for a new enlightenment in journalism, we should concentrate on breaking up the media monopolies. If we don't open the airwaves to more owners and more diversity, the conservatives will exercise more control over the microphone, the press, the Internet, and the message itself.

As a progressive, you have to be smart enough and curious enough to get to the facts, and you can't be shy about sharing them and correcting misconceptions and lies. You have to challenge the Righties at every turn, at every coffee shop, on every talk show, on every editorial page—just like they do us. Complacency will kill the progressive movement, so pay attention and stay active.

Stop Big Money from Trumping Your Vote

CHANGE. NEARLY
67
MILLION
—53
PERCENT OF VOTING AMERICANS—
voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but instead of change we have experienced gridlock and a rude awakening, discovering that our votes don't count as much as the big money interests that really call the shots in Washington.

I've said this before: I fear big business far more than big government. The reason is pretty simple. Government is restricted by more rules. Unless you regulate monsters like the insurance industry, energy companies—you name the industry—you get what we have now, behemoths able
and willing
to put their interests above those of the country in perpetuity. All elected officials know they can be targeted in the next election and defeated by these ruthless people.

Unless we get serious about breaking up the stranglehold big business monopolies have on our political system, they will render this democracy unrecognizable.

Dwight Eisenhower saw it coming and warned about the “military industrial complex.” What few people know is that Eisenhower's original draft warned against the “military industrial
congressional
complex.”
But, having enjoyed a good working relationship with Congress, he decided to exit on a positive note. The unholy entanglement of big business and big government continues.

There are plenty of Democrats who have been compromised by big money, but as the party of deregulation and K-Street bribery, the Republicans have been the greatest enablers.

Throughout this book, I have illustrated the ways the system has been rigged to transfer the wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and corporate elite. Since Ronald Reagan took office, according to census statistics from 1979 to 2005, the top 5 percent of Americans have increased their wealth
81 percent
while the bottom 20 percent, the American workers, saw their income decline 1 percent.

Sadly, right wing propaganda has convinced many in the middle class that the enemy is the poor, that entitlements for the poor are the problem. Yet somehow entitlements for corporate America are never mentioned.

BIG MONEY INFLUENCE PEDDLERS

Why is change so slow in coming? The truth is that even though we changed dealers, the deck has been increasingly stacked against the middle class by influence peddlers for years. Changing this will take more time and more effort. The sad fact is that many politicians worry more about being reelected than they do about doing the right thing in Washington. They know if they take on these big money interests, they will not only lose their campaign donations, but their opponent will get them. Campaign advertising works, and most of the time, the guy with the biggest war chest wins. According to Common Cause, an organization seeking election reform, “The average winning U.S. Senate race in 2006 cost nearly $10 million and the average winning House race that year cost $1.3 million. The decisions about who runs and who wins in our democracy increasingly come down to big money and special interests, not regular voters.”

The obvious answer is to prohibit corporate donations. However, an 1886 Supreme Court decision,
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,
dubiously granted corporations the same rights as individuals. Direct contributions from corporations were limited after it was learned that Teddy Roosevelt's 1904 presidential campaign was funded in part by direct contributions from the insurance industry.

But today, corporations and unions form political action committees to circumvent the law forbidding direct contributions. So these PACs write the campaign checks, and the system goes merrily on. Industries continue to flood Washington with lobbyists and money. Jeffrey Kaplan, of ReclaimDemocracy.org, writes, “Democracy is at risk when we permit vast amounts of money…to buy power over the political process itself…. In other words, the money big donors withhold, not just money they give, helps keep legislators in line. The result is a ‘chilling effect'…whereby certain policies are not even discussed for fear of alienating wealthy donors.”

The McCain-Feingold finance reform bill was passed and put into place in 2003 to limit soft money and issue advocacy ads, but it was like building a dam that doesn't reach the other side. Special interests found another loophole with the increased use of tax-exempt 527 groups, like the Swift Boaters who slimed John Kerry. These 527s are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs, and the courts say they are legal as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with a candidate or party.

This is a huge loophole, leaving room for all kinds of mischief. The 527s can sling mud while the candidate they support can throw up his hands and say disingenuously, “What can I do to stop them?” That is exactly what George W. Bush did while John Kerry's Vietnam service was discredited in 2004.

And now, ominously, the Supreme Court has decided by a 5–4 vote, in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
that it is unconstitutional to prohibit direct contributions by corporations and unions. The
floodgates of corporate money will be opened wider as a hundred years of election reforms are rolled back.

Are campaign contributions, as some would argue, an extension of free speech? If so, it is obvious that big money has quite a megaphone.

GOVERNMENT FOR THE RICH BY THE RICH

Ideally, campaigns would be wholly publicly funded to keep corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals from contributing. Nor should we allow wealthy individuals to fund, beyond a modest amount, their own campaigns, in essence to buy elections. What Mayor Bloomberg did in New York, first by extending term limits to suit his personal quest for another term and then by funding his 2008 campaign to the tune of $102 million, is a slap in the face of democracy. I don't question his intent, but his method sets a terrible precedent.

Any man or woman's opportunity to serve should not be dictated by money. Otherwise, you get a government by the rich for the rich—people who are completely out of touch with the middle class. According to Politico.com, there are 237 millionaires in Congress! Forty-four percent of those in Congress are millionaires! And these are the folks looking out for you and me? Tell me again the fairy tale about this being a democracy.

It's a plutocracy.

Along with publicly funded campaigns, the public airwaves should be used to broadcast debates. You see, the airwaves are owned by the public and only licensed to broadcasters with the provision that they serve the public good. Setting aside some time for debates is certainly in the public interest.

Because we are asking the fox to guard the henhouse, getting big money out of politics any time soon isn't realistic. But a good first step would be to forbid or strictly limit out-of-state campaign contributions.
Should out-of-state interests be able to buy U.S. senators and congresspeople simply by contributing more than can be raised in the actual legislative district to be represented?

I'm not saying every senator and congressperson is bought and paid for, but all of them are influenced at one level or another, and all it takes is for a few of them in key positions to gum up the works. Even though for a short time the Democrats had a sixty-seat majority in the Senate, just a handful of conservative Democrats had the power to control the fate of health care and other legislation.

There are some politicians I respect—people I know to have good hearts and good intentions—but even then I am disappointed because I see them calculate their votes sometimes based on how it might affect their reelection, imagining corporately funded campaigns against them, and they lose the courage to do the right thing. Noble, principled votes
do
still happen in Washington. And even votes for compromise are not always sellouts, but just part of the give-and-take you have to have.

DISTRUST IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS

After Barack Obama was elected president, people began saying that this was proof that, finally, all parents could honestly tell their children that
anyone
really could become president. But, hell,
Obama
didn't prove that; President Rainman did—twice!

I'll say this about the Republicans—they're not worth beans at governing, but they sure know how to win. There were enough conservative zealots in place to heist an election in Florida in 2000 and possibly another in 2004, when the exit polls indicated John Kerry would be the winner. With all the suspicions surrounding our democratic process, specifically after the debacle in Florida, when we criticize elections around the globe, especially in Afghanistan, we look both naïve and hypocritical.

Jimmy Carter said once, “The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation.” If that's the case, we have some work to do.

As a Democrat, I always had the feeling that Barack Obama would have to win big in 2008 so they couldn't steal the election. Maybe it's paranoia, but after eight years of Bush and Cheney, it is
justified
paranoia.

The neocons have shown they will do anything to win. They had no compunction about manipulating the public through fear to win. Didn't you get suspicious as the election approached that suddenly the specter of terrorism was reintroduced just to remind Americans what a dangerous world it is? It came as no surprise when former Bush Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge revealed in 2009 that he was pressured to amp up the threat level on the eve of the 2004 election. (He later tried to back away from those comments.) Was that brazen manipulation enough to swing the election to Bush? It surely didn't hurt.

EXCUSE ME, COULD I GET A RECEIPT, PLEASE?

Maybe Dubya really did win both times, but the fact that so many doubts remain should tell us the system needs more transparency. I don't like the way my vote just disappears into thin air and presumably to a secure hard drive. Computer scientist Avi Rubin told National Public Radio, “I think that just as much that I'm worried about it being rigged, I'm also worried about an unintentional software error causing the wrong outcome to come out. And the biggest problem is that, regardless of whether anything goes wrong with the machines, we don't know that it didn't. And there are voting systems that are possible, you know, paper-based systems where if you suspect that something went wrong, there's a way to check. You can perform a recount, so you can perform an audit. The problem with these electronic systems is that if you suspect that something went wrong, and show me an election where someone didn't suspect that something went wrong, there's nothing that you can do about it.”

As former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura put it, “I can get a receipt from an ATM, but I can't get one from a voting machine?” While the Democrats are in power, they had better use the opportunity to ensure the process is honest and transparent; otherwise don't be surprised in our next election to discover that Hamid Karzai has won.

Many Americans have already concluded that their vote really doesn't count, and what we have witnessed in Washington in recent years certainly adds credibility to their view, but if the day ever comes that we lose the trust of the overwhelming majority of voters, we will lose this democracy.

A CASE FOR TERM LIMITS

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) chided me one day on
The Ed Show:
“Ed, you're just being too hard on the Democrats!” I like her a lot and I think she likes me, so it came across as a motherly scolding. Maybe sometimes I am too hard on the Democrats, but I don't mind being told that. I'll take it as a badge of honor and a testament to my independent thinking.

I believe you have to hold their feet to the fire.

Sending good people off to Washington without someone peeking over their shoulder is like sending drunk college boys to the whorehouse with a pocket full of money and no curfew. Somebody's bound to get screwed. And when you consider that in recent years there has been an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, check your pants. They're probably down around your knees. A compromised media is the date-rape drug of choice.

I used to question term limits, believing that if we turned over lawmakers too quickly, bureaucracies would become the real power. It is now evident that everyone eventually ends up in the same bed anyway. I think the country is ready for term limits and a real citizen government—people who have to return to the trenches after two terms—and
not professional politicians. There is certain clarity of thought and a courage that comes from a man or woman with nothing to lose.

And if we're really serious, let's send them home
without
lifetime benefits. Not to punish but to motivate. If politicians actually had to go back after a few years and live in the messes they have made, we would have national health care, a four-day workweek, no wars, and free beer.

Rare is the individual who does not develop a sense of entitlement after being in Washington for a while. Politicians start to believe that the rules don't apply to them. The president had a hard time finding appointees that didn't have something embarrassing in their backgrounds. Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner had tax issues. They were followed by a string of appointees who stepped aside for one embarrassing reason or another. I think the president must have felt a little like Diogenes, wandering the streets of ancient Athens with a lantern, searching for an honest man.

I applaud the Obama administration's effort to try to appoint only “squeaky clean” politicians, but seemingly there is no such thing. Even the best of individuals have potential conflicts of interest. Few would be able to escape the perception of impropriety even where there is none.

MORE PARTIES, MORE DEMOCRACY

So far, I have offered two basic solutions for improving government and the electoral process: get money out of the equation and enact term limits.