The Conversation

Last summer was the first time I, as with many others, had heard the name Elizabeth Warren. She had been gaining honorable mentions for quite a few weeks in The Huffington Post and Politico respectively. Her ideas were brave in the political realm where it was a same-shit-different-day mentality to the American taxpayers and its critics.

For young, progressive, college-aged students, Warren rallied against the student loan crisis and the trillion dollar debt owed. She discussed how Main Street USA was being robbed by politicians and bankers alike, getting the attention of more centrist and conservative Democrats. It seemed, as momentum was building behind her, she knew exactly what Americans were feeling. Politics had been badly portrayed, and since 2008 it only got worse. Warren was someone from Washington who seemed to actually be in tune with reality, working against the tide of “everyday Washington.”

Flash forward a year later and the Harvard Law professor-turned-senator is in the media almost daily. And if you are not seeing her, you’re hearing ideas originally proposed by her from the likes of Hillary Clinton or even Mike Huckabee. Warren had simultaneously waged a war on Wall Street and Washington itself…from the inside out. It looked like she even had sympathizers, no one was really even arguing against her beliefs. Then, starting with grassroots efforts, there was a steady push to get her into the Oval Office. Adamantly, Ms. Warren had refused to even consider running. Presently, it seems her mind has not changed.

Hillary Clinton comes along and all the democrats dreams are coming true. She’s popular and even adopting populist ideals rather than compromising in the center. Everything was perfect…well…except for that Clinton Foundation thing. And her super-lawyer/lobbyist friends on Wall Street and inside the Beltway. Also considering whenever she does mentions things along the lines of income inequality, the minimum wage, and Wall Street, it sounds like a broken record originating from Warren herself. No, it seems as if no one can deny her deep pockets and ties to the inner workings of our institution. It seems then, there is no hope. We might as well elect our third Bush.

Then, Bernie Sanders announced his presidency. There had been talks earlier in the year, people throwing his name out and such. However, being someone not as recognizable in the national spotlight compared to his running mates, his name oftentimes disappeared for a couple weeks. And in politics, a couple weeks is a couple years…and a lot can happen in a couple years. Besides, whenever we did hear about Bernie it was jokingly, and he was almost always referred to as a pot smoking socialist.

In reality, Bernie Sanders is a Democrat. Well, he’s independent. But also a socialist. Okay…Bernie Sanders is technically an Independent politician (one of the longest serving in Congressional history), running on the Democratic ticket for president, but self-described as a democratic socialist. Make sense? Oh, and for the record, he smoked pot once “thirty or forty years ago.”

As stated on the Democratic Socialists of America’s website, “Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect… We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.” In essence, democratic socialists want the economy to run the same way as our government. They want you to have a say in it, as long as it directly effects you. Makes sense. Now, getting to Bernie Sanders, he’s a little more…well, realistic. Sanders compromises between two radically evolving thoughts: democratic capitalism and democratic socialism. However, he’s still fighting for the latter. For example, according to Gawker having posting a headline coincidentally titled, “Like Elizabeth Warren? Vote for Bernie Sanders,” Sanders “… favors an expanded social safety net to protect the poor… favors a single-payer public health care system for all… breaking up the ‘Too Big to Fail’ Wall Street banks…  [and] a $15 per hour minimum wage.” A democratic socialist seems a lot like a progressive liberal we know.

On top of it, Americans are actually pretty receptive. In the first twenty four hours after Sanders announcement, he raised a total of $1.5 million; outnumbering all of his Republican rivals. What’s more, it seems it is fully funded by average Americans. The median contribution was $45. Sanders is touching on issues, along with his progressive friends and Clinton, Americans are yearning to hear and eventually solve. A democratic socialist, as self-described, is getting the attention of a lot of people outside of Washington. And it’s getting pretty serious.

These ideas are popular both on the left and right. From social conservatives like Mike Huckabee to Rand Paul, at the least they’re mentioning the issues. Which means a lot. It means, because of these grassroots efforts and conversations, politicians are catching on to the trend.  This leads into my next point. The conversation is starting to fundamentally shift to everyday American problems and concerns. The politicians are listening. Yes, campaign financing is also at the forefront of this new conversation. With Clinton mentioning the issue and even disagreeing with the act, it’s hard to take her seriously when she in fact is forecasted to raise the most money. With Sanders, it seems he can actually walk the walk and talk the talk.

Americans, in hindsight, need to start thinking about what they actually want and what is truly realistic. We are at a historical time in American history. Economists agree about the rapid rise of income inequality, money in politics continuing to skyrocket, and politics becoming a stagnating game played by billionaires. At this rate, things are not looking like they will get better. This will, of course, bring up tough questions needing answered. What is the price for continuing to be complacent politically? Secondly, the problems with capitalism seem never-ending in our society. Is this new form of democratic socialism something we can, at the least, hear a little about? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have started a very important conversation. The former doesn’t seem interested in the presidency anytime in the near future and the latter isn’t exactly on the downhill slide of victory. It doesn’t matter however if they win, lose, or even run. What truly matters is the fact that these issues are being taken seriously, discussed, and may actually produce positive results.

SOURCES

Seitz-Wald, Alex. “Bernie Sanders out-raises Republicans in first day of campaign.” MSNBC.COM. Web.

Nolan, Hamilton. “Like Elizabeth Warren? Vote Bernie Sanders.” GAWKER.COM. Web.

Democratic Socialists of America. DSAUS.ORG. Web.

Lullaby of Lobbyland

A little under two weeks ago, Rod Blum (R-Iowa) introduced a bill in the House that would ban any current or former member of Congress to accept a job as a lobbyist after leaving office. Essentially, it would stop the revolving door used so often in Washington. Needless to say, Blum’s legislation isn’t getting far and it doesn’t seem like we’ll be hearing about it anytime soon. Lobbying has become the voice of corporations and special interest groups in Washington. Since the formation of the United States, the act of lobbying has always existed, originally in Ohio. However within the past two to three decades, lobbying has skyrocketed and the line between ethical legality and freedom of speech has been all but erased. Time and again, we see legislation being swayed one way or the other for the benefit and profit of corporations rather than the well-being of the public.

The history of lobbyists-for-pay begins in 1792, according to Open Secrets, with William Hull and the Virginia Veterans of the Continental Army. With the expansion of American politics and more money at hand, it didn’t take long for corruption to set in. Let’s jump then to Jack Abramoff; dubbed “The Man Who Bought Washington” by Time. Celebrated in the Beltway as a super-lobbyist, 2006 led to his demise due to bribery charges. This shake-up in the capital led to strict lobbying legislation and a rare moment in D.C. transparency, revealing the inner-workings of the White City. Now, much like the rest of Washington bureaucracy, things have gotten a lot more expensive. New technology, new money, and new companies have catapulted lobbying into the twenty-first century.

Reported by Vox.com on April 20^th, private corporations now spend more money on lobbying Congress than the American taxpayers spend on running it. This new form of policy-shaping has become prevalent in almost every decision made by state or federal governments in recent memory.

I recall one article sticking in my mind since reading it two years ago. “The so-called “one pot” method of meth production relies on pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient in medicines like Sudafed and Claritin D. So two states—Oregon and Mississippi—made pseudoephedrine a harder-to-obtain prescription drug, and saw meth-lab numbers fall by 96% and 74%, respectively. But other states that tried passing a similar law ran into Big Pharma’s lobbying juggernaut.” As reported by newser.com continuing in the next paragraph, pharmaceutical companies outspent and intimidated any legislator who opposed their position. You see, even meth production won’t stand in the way of corporate profit. As extreme as this point may be, it shows that lobbying reaches into every corner of policy. On a lesser extreme scale, lobbyists may argue for tax incentives set to expire lost within legal jargon, or net neutrality and how significant of a grip Comcast may have. No politician or piece of legislation is immune to the world of K Street.

The revolving door brings a new spin (no pun intended) on things done around Washington. Lobbyists play a bigger part than the public realizes on the formation of legislation and actions taken by our Congress. Now, a new job opportunity and more money for the politician is at play. With a new employer possibly watching your every move, the legislator only wants to make them happy. If it smells like bribery and if it look like bribery…well… they actually call it persuasion or “becoming informed” on an issue. The act of persuasion is mastered by a lobbyist and crutches on the blindness of the politician for more money and power. Estimated by the Center for Responsive Politics, “…more than half of members of Congress who left the body after 2010 are now lobbying, or have lobbying-related jobs.” It seems that paid lobbying is now comparable to a retirement community in Florida after a long, hard career in Congress. This is a match made in Lobby Heaven in regards to the private sector. Not only do these companies have a former insider working for them, these insiders still have buddies in the chambers. Those are the people they’re talking to. Chatter can be heard between friends in the halls around Congress usually pertaining to more tax breaks, incentives, or even amendments of key Dodd-Frank language. Speaking of former Chris Dodd, it seems he isn’t immune to the revolving door either. Mr. Dodd is now the head lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association. No, not a single politician is safe.

Lobbying the American government can be a good thing on paper, and certainly was intended so. It is essential to the proper workings of democracy. Groups such as AARP take the lead in lobbying spending. Any citizen has the right to lobby any cause they seem deemed to be heard. Lobbying, in essence, is necessary and should work to the advantage of the average American citizen.

Everyone does it too, from your corner grocery store like Kroger to the world’s largest financial institutions of JP Morgan Chase. Every politician is involved whether they be Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, or other. How the policy is shaped or how a politician reacts is where the problem lies. Argued by Vox columnist Ezra Klein, the solution is simple: pay Congress more, give them the incentive to listen to us rather than the corporation. Fight fire with fire. I, however, could not disagree more. We need to start the conversation. If it’s populistic and catches the countries ear or rather their vote, politicians will adopt it as we are seeing. If Americans realize the true problems facing American politics and the players involved, real change can occur.

SOURCES:

Center for Responsive Politics. “Lobbying History: Timeline.” Open Secrets. 2014. Web.

Colgrass, Neal. “How Big Pharma Keeps Meth Labs Cooking.” Newser.com. 13 August, 2013. Web.

Klein, Ezra. “Corporations Now Spend More Lobbying Congress than Taxpayers Spend Funding Congress.” Vox.com. 20 April, 2015. Web

Nice Work If You Can Buy It

Officially, there are now four individuals with presidential aspirations for 2016. On the GOP ticket, we have Ted Cruz (T), Rand Paul (Ky), and Marco Rubio (Fla). Of course, as everyone in the entire world has known, Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and Secretary of State among other things, is the one-woman-show on the Democratic side. The race is officially on and from now until November a lot of time, money, effort, money, blood, sweat, tears, and oh…money, will be spent.

In 2012, Americans saw the costliest presidential election since the formation of our republic over two hundred years ago. The starring roles were given to incumbent Barack Obama and millionaire Mormon Republican, Mitt Romney. This year, even my co-workers unborn child knows that the money spent in 2012 will be embarrassingly overshadowed by 2016’s candidates. So…why? What has changed so dramatically in only a decade or so, and certainly within the past five years, that so much money must be spent on the possibility of winning a Presidential election? Not just the presidency however, but almost every elected seat in the United States government both federally and state-level are spending more money than ever before in regards to either staying in office or  hopefuls with a chance.

There are several reasons for this dramatic surge in campaign financing, however the true question is: how does it affect the American people and what is the cost for our democracy? Or quite possibly, what is the new price tag?

Campaign finance laws are nothing new and during the winding history of American politics, campaign financing has always been ever constant. Due to the modern surge in technology, wealth, and new ways these two things combined form how to spend money on politicians and their campaigns, new problems have obviously arisen. The controversial Citizens United vs. FEC brought these issues into the spotlight and struck a definitive decision on the ways elections are financed and by whom. Essentially, the law stated corporations had the same rights as an individual. And a corporations rights in regards to freedom of speech was, *gasp*, how they spent their money.

This decisions, opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike, paved the way for more powerful PACs and Super PACs. A PAC (political action committee) is an organization that has the ability to raise funds for a politician or party of their choosing. The amount of money to be given to the individual from the PAC has a strict limit ($5,000) and must disclose all donors to the Federal Election Commission. A Super PAC on the other hand is much different. Super PACs can raise an unlimited amount of money from individuals or corporations. That being said, the Super PAC cannot contribute directly or have communication with an elected official or one running for office. Although Super PACs have to disclose their donors as well, it is much easier to hide the name of the true contributor.

I’m stressing the point and the definition of PACs because this is where a big chunk of the money spent on elections is funneled into. It also is where people like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson have the most influence, however because of the Supreme Court decision and the nature of Super PACs, the public doesn’t (and most of the time cannot) see who is giving to who and how much.

If there is so much money being collected by these organizations, along with billionaires involved in the outcome of elections, where exactly is this money going? After all, no matter how much money in invested into a campaign, the politician still needs the most votes by an individual. A good chunk of this money is going to the PACs supporting politicians. PACs usually give money to 527’s, which is the technical term for political attack ads we all suffer through. However they are not limited to this one thing, the PAC or Super PAC can use any means necessary to either boost up the candidate they support or break down the candidate running against them.

You’re probably asking, as I and many others have, “No one listens to those ads except for my eighty year old grandma anyway, so how does this really affect me?” This is where my hypothesis comes in. Campaign financing has gotten so out of control, so quickly, it’s created an elite group of individuals who can afford to run and stay in office. Politics has now officially been for the ones with the deepest pockets and closest ties rather than an average American aspiration. That’s the first problem. The second problems lies within the technicalities of a Super PAC. If anyone can donate and the money becomes dark money and hard to trace, foreign influence can easily have a loophole around the law of the land. In contrast, American billionaires and millionaires alike finally have a “legal” way to bluntly contribute and influence politicians and their policies to favor the wealthy. All in all, as elite as Washington has become in the past few decades, the amount of money flowing in certainly isn’t helping and is contributing to the swaying of American politics further and further away from the people to the privileged. As sacred as the act of voting politicians into office is for American democracy and its people, campaign financing in the twenty first century has threatened the very core of why we vote, who we vote for, and who can essentially run.

SOURCES

Prokop, Andrew. “What Are Super PACs?” Vox. Vox.com. Web. Feb 9, 2015.

Center For Responsive Politics. “Super PACs.” OpenSecrets.org. Web. 2014.

System Overload

It’s my day off, a little after 3 pm, and I still haven’t left my bed. Okay, I’ve left my bed a couple of times for logistical purposes, however no more than five minutes so technically those don’t count. I’m drinking coffee, reading the news, texting some friends, occasionally looking at Facebook, and now writing my first blog post on the World Wide Web. All from the comfort on my bedroom. Occasionally, I’m also switching over to my current book ‘The World is Flat’. Published in 2007, by Thomas L. Friedman, I picked it up at Barnes & Noble….I had a gift card, for that I did actually drive to a store and buy it..

For the most part, the book was attractive. the cover was catching and summed up the narrative, the topic was something that could keep my attention, however most importantly were the reviews listed in the back. One review caught my eye especially, one that I keep going back to in my thoughts. In bold, red letters at the very top of the back of the book reads, “one mark of a great book is that it makes you see things in a new way, and Mr. Friedman certainly succeeds in that goal.”

From page one to one hundred, which I just stopped on, it has completely altered my outlook on this new age of globalization and constant connect. Its shown, unbiased, the evolution of this new phenomena including the good and bad. So, naturally, I have toyed with the idea in my head about starting a blog. Contributing to the conversation of just about anything in the world. In this new age of twenty four hour news, opinion blogs crowding every infinite corner of the internet, and Facebook keeping up with everyone’s everyday lives at every moment; I thought to myself..why not? There is that tiny thought in the back of my head however that constantly questions whether or not there is enough room in this vast world of the internet for my thoughts. Is this too much information? Am I contributing to a problem rather than a solution? We’ve gone from no information sharing to information sharing at a snails pace and now it’s all the information you could ever dream of faster than your parents thought possible and most of which is free, no strings attached. At least none you can see. Have we gone into system overload without our knowing? Will this new information revolution change our psyche of thinking and opinion? I struggle with whether or not I’m doing good spreading my opinion and thoughts. In contrast, if everyone in the world is contributing to this conversation or at least has the opportunity to, what do I exactly have to lose?

In my blog, I hope to accomplish the steering of people towards the right question. I never mean to answer anything nor do I want to say I am right about any one subject. I want others to step back, evaluate, assess, and at the very least know the situation. I have no answers to provide, and the ones that I do are my mere opinion.

For the most part, I will be focusing on current political, social, or cultural subjects I’ve been reading up on, researching, or even experiencing myself. I hope to give others a fresh perspective into these subjects and merely pose questions rather than give a finite answer. And hopefully, after all this talk (type?), you will leave with something tangible rather than the sense of overcrowded information.