Guest Op-Eds

Pioneering Corruption, from TomPaine.com, February 6, 2006.
I suppose it comes as no surprise that in his State of the Union address, George W. Bush somehow managed to avoid talking about the two biggest scandals rocking the union: Enron's fraud and Jack Abramoff's greed. Both came to a crescendo the same week as his speech, and both involve men who have been important to George W. Bush the politician. Read the rest here.

Most Elections Offer No Suspense -- Ohio Constitutional Amendment Could Change That, from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 18, 2005.
Suppose the National Football League allowed the winner of the Super Bowl to rewrite the official rulebook each year. Teams with great quarterbacks could change the rules to favor the passing game; those with talented place kickers might decide to give five points for a field goal. Any Super Bowl victor would likely change the draft rules so that the best teams got the first-round picks instead of the other way around. Read the rest here.

PACs for the People, from TomPaine.com, April 11, 2005.
After witnessing a barrage of money flowing through outside electioneering groups in the last election, Congress may soon extend the rules governing political action committees (PACs) to political groups that act just like PACs but currently can accept unlimited contributions. While it makes sense to apply the same rules to all groups that participate in political campaigns, we should revise the regulations that apply to PACs before extending those rules to cover other entities. Read the rest here.

Myths and Realities in Campaign Finance, from the Oregonian, February 8, 2005
Former Rep. Dan Doyle recently resigned his Oregon House seat amid a cloud of campaign finance questions. Some of the campaign expenses that Doyle, a Salem Republican, reported were apparently more myth than reality. But a closer inspection of his fund-raising reveals an even larger myth in Oregon campaigns and cries out for changes in the Oregon Constitution. Read the rest here.

Will Chiles Revive Movement for $100 Campaign Limits? from the Orlando Sentinel, Jan 27, 2005
Lawton "Bud" Chiles III recently announced his intention to run for governor of Florida. He sounds like an echo of his father, former Gov. Lawton Chiles, decrying that the "people's access to government is limited by money, power and politics." The latest Chiles campaign comes at a time when it could re-ignite the reform movement that his father inspired. Read the rest here.

How to Vanquish the Electoral College, from ProgressiveTrail.com, December 10, 2004.
On December 13, the Electoral College will elect the next president of the United States, ratifying what amounts only to an advisory vote taken by the public on November 4th. This is nothing short of an embarrassing blight on American democracy. But given the long odds of passing a constitutional amendment, nobody has much appetite to take on the challenge of abolishing the Electoral College. Voters, however, could render it obsolete by nominating presidential primary candidates who mutually agreed to abide by the results of the popular vote in the general election. Read the rest here.

Shelley Should Face Recall, but not yet Resignation, from Mondaq, December 9, 2004.
California’s Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is in hot water. The California Republican Assembly and at least one major newspaper have called on him to resign over several scandals that involve the use of government funds to promote Shelley’s career. But calls for resignation are premature. Read the rest here.

McCain-Feingold Failed -- Fund Campaigns Publicly, from The Hill, September 7, 2004.
With the Federal Election Commission’s recent non-decision on the legality of political groups’ use of soft money, attention has shifted back to the merits of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

Reform opponents point to the act’s inability to stanch the flow of soft money as evidence that any and all reform is destined to fail, while its supporters point fingers at the commission or even claim BCRA is a success. These points of view are all wrong. Read the rest here.

Free speech vs. paid speech, from the Christian Science Monitor, August 26, 2004.
With the presidential campaign in full swing, so, too, is negative campaigning.

Two of the most prominent examples are the anti-Bush movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore, and the anti-Kerry TV ads put out by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), funded in large part by Texan Bob Perry. The objectivity of both attacks is subject to question. Read the rest here.

A voice at the polls--When money dictates who can truly speak in an election, then a fundamental American value is lost, from the Albuquerque Tribune, August 17, 2004.
Cynics say that you can't fight City Hall, but Albuquerque residents now have City Hall fighting for them.

The opponent is none other than the U.S. Supreme Court, and the future conduct and outcome of Albuquerque's elections hangs in the balance. At stake are the city's mandatory limits on how much candidates can spend to get elected to the Mayor's Office and City Council. Read the rest here.

Did Cheney Know About Grandma Millie? from the San Francisco Chronicle, June 17, 2004.
Recently released tape recordings reveal not only that Enron traders knew they were engaging in ethically bankrupt practices to rig the California energy crisis, but so did higher-ups in Enron. So it's fair to ask whether CEO Ken Lay knew of the faked shortage and if he discussed it with Vice President Dick Cheney during their meetings on energy policy. Read the rest here. 

The Hardening of Soft Money, from TomPaine.com, May 25, 2004.
Sometimes Congress has a way of twisting the best of intentions into the worst of realities.  As The Washington Post's David Broder pointed out in a May 20 column, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) is beginning to look like a case in point. After failing to pass comprehensive campaign finance reforms in the early '90s, many inside-the-beltway reformers decided upon the more pragmatic approach of winning small incremental victories and then building from there.  Step one was to ban the unlimited soft-money contributions going to political parties. At the time, soft money only comprised about 20 percent of funds raised by federal candidates and parties, but it came in eye-popping amounts.  For instance, at the 2000 Republican National Committee black-tie fundraising gala, nearly 1,600 of the wealthiest donors in the country gave a total of $21.5 million. That's an average contribution of about $13,400—far more than most of us could ever fathom.  Since the money was technically not to be used to influence federal elections, there were absolutely no limits on the size of these contributions. In 2001—not even an election year—the RNC broke its own record by raising $24 million in one night. Read the rest here. 

Big Donors have Hijacked Process, from the Portland Tribune, May 21, 2004.
As the first part of the 2004 election cycle dies down, big money has once again reared its ugly head in our political process. Recent news accounts indicate that developers, political consultants and other corporations with business before the city government are spending more money than most of us could afford to boost their favored candidates for office.    The candidates who raise this money assure us that they aren’t in fact influenced by the contributions and that sometimes they even rule against the wishes of their donors. That may be so, but it misses the point. If government is to truly represent the people, then each of us must have an equal say in who gets elected to that government. Letting some donors dramatically outspend ordinary citizens distorts the process of representative democracy.  Read the rest here.

Democracy's Muckraker

Leadership PACs, Lobbyists, and Loose Ethics in the Post-DeLay Era, January 23, 2006
In the race to replace disgraced Majority Leader Tom DeLay, aspiring House leaders are demonstrating that they haven't learned the lesson from the scandals that brought him down. By using campaign contributions from so-called leadership PACs to curry favor with their colleagues, Roy Blunt and John Boehner are perpetuating the culture of corruption that DeLay built upon during his career in Congress. Read the rest here.

Taking Spending Limits to Court, October 12, 2005
The U.S Supreme Court’s September 27 announcement that it will review the constitutionality of mandatory campaign spending limits has some reformers wringing their hands fearing we might lose. It’s a fair concern, but progress is never won by avoiding conflicts when the public’s on our side. Read the rest here.

Ohio Voters Revolt, August 10, 2005
Americans are generally pretty forgiving, willing to live and let live unless somebody is really screwing them over. But when public frustration reaches a boiling point, look out. As old King George learned a long time ago, the colonists will revolt if you push them too far. Read the rest here.

O'Connor's Replacement May Determine Fate of Campaign Finance Reform, July 6, 2005
While much of the coming debate over President Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor will focus on divisive social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action, the new justice may well play a pivotal role in determining whether the Supreme Court will allow meaningful limits on the role of big money in political campaigns. Read the rest here.

Hypocrisy 101, June 1, 2005
Florida Governor Jeb Bush has mastered the art of political hypocrisy. His positions on campaign financing, the citizens initiative process, and ending partisan redistricting are so at odds with each other that it makes even the most jaded observers’ heads spin. Read the rest here.

It's Time to Cap Runaway Campaign Spending, May 18, 2005
Ask Americans how we should improve political campaigns and the most common answer you'll get is that candidates should spend an equal amount of money. For the first time since it struck down mandatory spending limits for federal campaigns in 1976, the Supreme Court now has a chance to consider spending limits for state level campaigns. Read the rest here.

A Majoritarian Filibuster, May 4, 2005
The Senate showdown over filibusters to block judicial nominations is bringing out the worst features of American partisanship. Republicans claim that President Bush's historically thin re-election margin gives him a mandate to appoint right-wing ideologues to lifelong positions in federal courts. Democrats argue that Senate "tradition" means that any 41 Senators should be able to block the clear majority by preventing nominations from even coming to a vote. The rest of us can only shake our heads in dismay. Read the rest here.

Who's Worse -- Lobbyists or Those They Lobby?, April 20, 2005.
The crass behavior of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who funded swank "fact-finding" trips for House Majority Leader Tom Delay, has renewed cries for more openness about lobbyists' activities. That's fine, but we should worry more about the morality of the politicians on the receiving end of the lobby. (read the rest)

Regulate us, Please!, April 6, 2005.
A lot of small website operators who post on-line political journals are up in arms over the possibility that the Federal Election Commission or localities like San Francisco may apply campaign finance rules to the Internet. But, as the publisher of a blog myself, I say "bring on the regulations!" (read the rest)

DeLay's Ends Don't Justify His Means, March 23, 2005.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a man with strong convictions. It's refreshing to see a politician who actually believes in something. But when a man's convictions become an arrogant determination to win at any price, then democracy itself is in peril. (read the rest)

Let's Deep Six the 527 Campaign Finance Scheme, March 9, 2005.
Senators McCain and Feingold are at it again. They're trying to convince Congress to cut off the mother's milk of politics -- big money. Although they may get more support from politicians this time around, they will likely face more opposition from outside interest groups who have taken in the millions in unlimited donations that used to go to the political parties before Congress cracked down on that in 2002.(read the rest)

Redistricting Mania, February 23, 2005.
From California to Florida, the move is on to redraw congressional districts that were created just two election cycles ago. Voters sense that politicians drew districts to unfairly rig election results and reduce competition. But the latest reform fad of non-partisan redistricting commissions may not accomplish anything. Read the rest here.

Elections Officials Should Be Non-partisan, February 9,2005.
Suppose you were watching your favorite college basketball team and the referee announced that he endorsed your team's opponents. Worse yet, say you learned that he was an alumnus of that team and was raising money to help build them a new arena. This is exactly the situation voters face when they learn that the referee in charge of elections, usually the Secretary of State, is backing one or more candidates. Read the rest here.

Meet the House of Unrepresentatives,January 26, 2005.
Congress convenes this week for its first official day of business. It's a fitting time to take a look at the men and women whose job to represent the rest of us in the day-to-day process of government. Most members of Congress are well-meaning people, who hold true to their personal beliefs about what is good for the country. But that doesn't mean that they accurately represent America or that they can effectively govern in the name of the people. Read the rest here.

Pull the Plug on the Electoral College With No Constitutional Amendment, January 12, 2005.
By December 22, each state will submit its votes in the real presidential election at the Electoral College, ratifying what amounts only to an advisory vote taken by the public on November 4th. Many states do not even require their electors to follow the will of their voters. A Minnesota elector has already cast a vote for John Edwards instead of John Kerry. Congress will count these votes, the real votes for President, on January 6th. Read the rest here.

California's Democracy

Campaign Finance Rules for the 21st Century, January 3, 2005.
As Californians look toward an election year that promises to have even more campaign spending than we just saw in the record-shattering special election, it's time to take a fresh look at how we conduct both candidate and ballot measure campaigns. With California's size, we face unique challenges in making democracy work when campaigns need to communicate to so many voters. But given our track record for developing new communication technology, we also have unique opportunities to forge a new political system that can make us the envy of the rest of the country. Read the rest here.

Let the Lieutenant Deal with Conflicts of Interest, August 18, 2005.
The controversy surrounding Arnold Schwarzenegger's recently terminated employment with two bodybuilding magazines has raised new questions about California's ethics rules. While the laws aimed at minimizing conflicts of interest among elected officials could use an update, both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor could take their own steps to help strengthen the government's integrity under existing law. Read the rest here.

Duke's Still a Hazard, July 13, 2005.
Good ol' boys Bo and Luke Duke are coming back this summer, this time on the silver screen. If the movie flops, it could be yet another embarrassment to California's filmmaking industry amid a summer of not-so-blockbuster ticket sales. But the greater hazard to California's reputation may come from another Duke. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the congressman from San Diego, is up to his ears in scandal. Read the rest here.

Westly's Low Ball Bid to Buy the Governorship June 8, 2005.
Steve Westly recently poured ten million bucks into his own campaign to become California's next governor. If he thinks he can buy his way into the statehouse by throwing around that kind of money, he's dead wrong - the going rate is a lot higher than that. Read the rest here.

Who's More Special, Business or Labor? May 25, 2005.
The current battle between Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California legislature in many ways mirrors the on-going battle between labor interests and business interests for the heart and soul of California government. While Arnold portrays himself and his business allies as the underdogs in this fight, campaign finance data tells a different story. Read the rest here.

A New People's Initiative Process, May 11, 2005.
California needs to adopt a new citizens initiative process to accomplish the objectives that our existing process was created for a century ago. Our current system is too difficult for volunteer-based groups to use, but it is all too easy for well-heeled interests to buy their way onto the ballot by using paid signature gatherers. (read the rest)

Cleaning Up California's Politics, April 13,2005.
Next week, California legislator Loni Hancock will courageously tell the Assemblyman Lloyd Levine of Van Nuys and other members of the Assembly Elections Committee that the legislature needs to aggressively overhaul the campaign finance system that put each and every one of them in office. Hancock serves as a needed reminder that not all politicians act like greedy little pigs, but that some of them are out there fighting to make things better for the rest of us. (read the rest)

Targeting Big Money In Ballot Initiatives,March 30,2005.
Whether or not Governor Schwarzenegger follows through on his threat to call a special election for voters to consider a series of ballot measures, he has brought to light a serious problem for California's democracy. The citizen initiative process is dying a slow death. (read the rest)

Arnold's Big Money Ballot Scheme,March 16, 2005.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced his intentions to raise $50 million to push his agenda through a series of ballot questions this fall. His prolific fundraising has already drawn comparisons to his predecessor Gray Davis, whose downfall was at least partially related to his insatiable appetite for campaign cash. But a better comparison may be to Bill Clinton, whose fundraising prowess and willingness to blur legal and ethical lines seems to have set the standard that Schwarzenegger is following. Read the rest here.

California Democrats Just Saying No to Reform, March 2, 2005. Arnold Schwarzenegger talks about blowing up boxes and reforming California politics. While some of the Governor's ideas are flawed, the Democrats should do more than just stand in his way. They should be offering their own agenda to make government more accountable to ordinary citizens instead of wealthy special interests. Read the rest here.

Arnold's Choice for Secretary of State, February 16, 2005.
Governor Schwarzenegger announced over the weekend that he will nominate moderate Republican Bruce McPherson to be California's next Secretary of State. The choice is a good one, but the real question of whether California's elections will be administered in a non-partisan way remains to be answered. Read the rest here.

Are Shelley's Watchdogs Barking up the Wrong Tree? February 2, 2005.
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is scheduled to testify about some of the charges against him before the Joint Legislative Audit Committee under oath this Thursday. But a recent backroom deal suggests that legislators are going after the weakest of Shelley's wrongdoings, perhaps because they want to avoid bringing attention to campaign that many legislators may also be guilty of. Read the rest here.