Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditCo-written by Sam Graham-Felsen.
In the 1990s conservative strategists began to reshape the political landscape with an onslaught of ballot initiatives. State by state, Republicans employed this tactic to slash social programs and roll back rights--most notoriously, with the anti-gay marriage initiatives of 2004--while progressives remained largely on the defensive.
Now, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, progressive organizations are learning how to use ballot propositions to promote bold, innovative policy around the country. Launched five years ago, BISC provides state and national advocacy groups with key research and training in effective referendum strategies.
Although ballot initiatives may not be as sexy as high-profile candidate races, they are an important part of this year's mid-term elections. In addition to paving the way for progressive policy strides, referendums can galvanize voters and increase turnout. According to University of Florida professor Daniel Smith, in the past twenty years of midterm elections, each ballot initiative increased turnout, on average, by 2 percentage points.
Here are our top four progressive ballot initiatives for 2006.
**Minimum-wage increases in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio. Using progressives' first-ever multi-state ballot-initiative strategy, the drive for an increased minimum wage has the potential to win, even in so-called red states. Raising the minimum wage is a highly popular idea; in an April Pew survey, 83 percent of the public said they favored raising the federal minimum wage to $7.15 (only ten states have enacted a minimum wage at this rate or higher). If there's an issue that unites Americans across ideological and demographic lines, it's this one.
**Renewable energy in Washington and California. In 2004 progressives in Colorado voted for a precedent-setting renewable energy policy (Ken Salazar credited the ballot initiative with turning out the young voters who helped him secure his Senate victory). Now Washington and California are following suit. These initiatives would require the states' largest electric companies to increase their use of renewable resources like wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and small hydro from less than 2 percent today to 15 to 25 percent in the coming years.
**Fusion voting in Massachusetts. In New York fusion voting--which allows voters to choose the same candidate on any of several party lines--helped candidates from the progressive Working Families Party secure key posts in the state. Its passage could help bring about broader progressive leadership in the Bay State.
**Stem cell research in Missouri. Both Republican biotech bosses and progressive grassroots activists are pushing hard to allow stem cell research to be conducted in Missouri. If successful, this life-saving proposition could set the precedent for the next progressive multi-state ballot initiative campaign.
Sam Graham-Felsen, a freelance journalist and documentary filmmaker, contributes to The Nation's new blog, The Notion, and co-writes Sweet Victories with Katrina vanden Heuvel.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Hey VanDumbEvil
Address the fact you had your Anti-American asses handed to you in Calif-50 when it was supposed to be the beginning of the end for republicans???
Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 10:06pm
I think this is great!
Power of the states to effect "socially progressive" change....absolutely wonderful.
And a key indicator that liberals are wrong about the "need" for the Federal Government doing all this.
Plus, when they fail, no blaming "Big Moneied special interests Inside the Beltway"...just the fact they weren't popular with the voters!
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 10:29pm
Hey Fuk,
In one short paragraph, you illustrate perfectly the real threat to our country.
It's not the "Un-American liberals", or the "right-wing menace"; rather, it's that growing majority of people that have already made up their mind about EVERYTHING. "MY side" is always right, and "your side" is un-American.
Can we not read or listen to someone else's opinion without feeling so THREATENED?
It just seems to me that the more insecure our own position, the greater the need to attack others.
Posted by MiddleWay at 06/08/2006 @ 11:15pm
YES! Let's take the initiative and take the "mock" out of democracy! Next Jan. 26, CU Law School will hold a conference at the State Capitol on ballot initiatives and how to improve them. We intend to put the best improvements on the 2008 Colorado ballot; it's high time the process was easier, more deliberative and transparent.
As Molly Ivins and Noam Chomsky among others repeatedly point out, the majority of Americans want -and if given the chance, vote for- progressive laws. Here in Colorado in the last 10 years citizens have voted for Amendment 37 for renewable electricity, :"Fast-tracks" for more transit, higher tobacco taxes, the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, campaign finance reform, Amendment 23 for more K-12 funding, background checks for gun show purchases, medical marijuana, term limits, cleaning up hog farms, etc.
Former US Senator Mike Gravel, famed for reading the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record and filibustering until the Vietnam draft was phased out, calls representative democracy "mendicant democracy," where all you can do is beg your "representative" to do the right thing, while the corrupt are buying their vote.
For more on ballot initiatives, and Sen. Gravel's proposal for national initiatives, like those that have made Switzerland so successful for centuries, see The National Initiative for Democracy [Vote.org] The Swiss call it "co-determination": Parliament makes laws, so do The People. It works for couples, too!
Posted by EvanRavitz at 06/09/2006 @ 12:47am
Posted by EVANRAVITZ 06/09/2006 @ 12:47am | ignore this person
Molly Ivins and Noam Chomsky?....no, let's not go TOO nutty. After all, LVLIB pointed out, in CALIFORNIA, a pretty "progressive" bill flopped!
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 07:08am
Well, that was a first from me. After my very first reading of a post from "FUKLIBZ" I placed him/her/it on the ignore list. Usually it takes a long time to get on there...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/09/2006 @ 11:38am
Here are some more ideas that need to be translated into ballot initiatives:
The Fair Tax (JOHN MAASCH will get a hardon for that one);
Mass media being required to air unpaid political advertising;
Public finance of political campaigns;
An end to first ammendment rights for corporations (the first ammendment should be for human beings ONLY)
Anyone else want to weigh in with comments on these, or ideas for other initiatives?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/09/2006 @ 11:43am
An end to first ammendment rights for corporations (the first ammendment should be for human beings ONLY)
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/09/2006 @ 11:43am | ignore this person
You DO realize that that would end free speech rights for...Amnesty International and the Nature Conservancy, among other NON-profit corporations, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 1:10pm
Amnesty Intl and Nature Conservancy are not people. I would support that ballot initiative. It would also apply to the Chamber of Commerce, Free Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution, Greenpeace, NRDC, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, maybe even NAMBLA for all the hell I know.
How about ballot initiatives to...
Close the tax loopholes of Cayman and Marianna islands and their ilk?
Nationalize the aerospace/defense industry so that we quit giving our tax $ to private corporations for R&D resulting in products that we then have to purchase from the same company who owns the patent?
Nationalize the pharmaceutical industry for the same reasons.
Wage a new War on Crime by deputizing thousands of new federal marshals to patrol Washington DC and K Street for violations of campaign finance laws and ethics violations.
Make it a crime when anyone commits any action that would be considered a "sin" according to that individual's religion (you might see a jump in atheism with this one)
Tap the President's and Vice president's phone calls as part of the terrorist surveillance network.
This is fun! I can think of plenty more...
Posted by bjkron at 06/09/2006 @ 2:42pm
Molly Ivins and Noam Chomsky?....no, let's not go TOO nutty. After all, LVLIB pointed out, in CALIFORNIA, a pretty "progressive" bill flopped!
Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 07:08am | ignore this person
Your comments do not offer much credibility beyond mentioning the painfully obvious institutional corruption which inhibits meaningful change. Molly Ivins is a successful columnist whether you agree with her views or not...and Noam Chomsky, well, beyond revolutionizing the field of Linguistics, is respected throughout the world for his political courage. Last year he was voted the world's number one public intellectual through an international BBC survey, and just recently was selected in a world-wide survey as 4th on the list of world leaders participants would like to see in a postion of government power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4298568.stm
By the way, non-profit organizations are hardly the problem in the railroading of our democratic process (Amnesty or Sierra Club vs. Exxon, please). I will look into the dollar amounts used to defeat the CA progressive tax initiative; I would guess the funds used to campaign against its passage were substantial.
Posted by Oustbush at 06/09/2006 @ 2:49pm
Posted by BJKRON 06/09/2006 @ 2:42pm |
Hey BJKRON,
You better stop this...you're pointing out the numerous violations of the so-called free market. How corporations use the government to help them evade competition and market pressures by allowing the government or taxpayers to socialize much of the risk while the monopolistic coporate entities privatize the profits. Will anyone really claim the oil industry functions as a free market?
Posted by Oustbush at 06/09/2006 @ 2:59pm
You better stop this...you're pointing out the numerous violations of the so-called free market. Posted by OUSTBUSH 06/09/2006 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person
Long live capitalism, comrade!
Posted by bjkron at 06/09/2006 @ 3:09pm
ILP:
I am assuming you support these suggested initiatives. I cannot remember your opinions on the Fair Tax that came out of the thread on the Dynasty Tax, but I am surprised you support it if you do.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 3:47pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 06/09/2006 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person
Two points...on Ivins and Chomsky. Google "Molly Ivins" and "plagarism" or "Iraq civilian deaths 2005". For Chomsky, try "Faurisson Affair" or "Khmer Rouge apologism". (that alone should be good for 50-55 posts here!)
On "hushing corporations", remember if you apply that FAIRLY (by which I mean in some way that would hold up in court)....the Sierra Club, etc. would be shut out of the political discourse as well as Exxon and Halliburton.
BUT...Exxon and Halliburton would still have the MONEY that could be funnelled into individuals. If "free speech is for humans, not corporations"...then the CEO of Exxon would have the right to buy (with his own money) as many political ads as he likes.
Of course so would the Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council....but who's got more money?
Like most grandiose plans for curtailing free speech....uh...I mean...campaign finance reform....it's not thought out all the way!
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 4:32pm
I am beyond excited to be part of the ballot initiative campaign to reinstate fusion voting in Massachusetts with the Mass Ballot Freedom Campaign [massballotfreedom.com]. I went to school in New York for the last four years, and seeing the power of fusion, especially as used strategically by the New York Working Families Party [workingfamiliesparty.org] gave me new hope of building an organization in my home state (and nationwide!) to fight for working people's issues, hold Democrats accountable to be more then just Republicans-lite, and develop a real progressive strategy to win. Thanks for the mention. Those of you in Massachusetts, start talking to your friends about this one, and those of you in the rest of the country (outside of New York and Connecticut) be on the lookout for fusion in your own state sometime soon!
Posted by joedinkin at 06/09/2006 @ 4:43pm
Mask - A few things. There are contribution limits for individuals already. And I think it is a leap to think that the CEO of Exxon would be willing to shell out as much of his own cash (even if allowed under contribution laws) as the company itself.
And it is the application of the First Amendment to corporations through the improper doctrine of corporate personhood that allows corporations to make campaign contributions at all. So, if you take way that right, you could pass laws against funneling money to individuals with no problem.
As far as the Sierra Club conundrum. It's a good point. I suppose exceptions could be made for non-profits and some may argue for that, but it would probably just be best to treat the Sierra Clubs as you would any corporate organization. That way you have less opportunity for loopholes and illusory non-profits pimping for others. If the goal is removing the money from politics (which it should be), then fine treat every organization the same. Interest groups and corporations could still lobby the public on their own, and meet with politicians under transparent and public eyes. You'd be left with all sides getting their points out and advocating sides of the issue. Free speech all around. Politicians then cast their votes. You would remove the influence of campaign cash and debts needing to be repaid come voting time.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 5:25pm
"The Fair Tax (JOHN MAASCH will get a hardon for that one);"
Indeed.
Posted by john maasch at 06/10/2006 @ 09:26am
You DO realize that that would end free speech rights for...Amnesty International and the Nature Conservancy, among other NON-profit corporations, right?
Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 1:10pm
Thanks for stating the obvious, MASK! My reply is, so what? It wouldn't stop them (or GE and other for-profit corps) from issuing press releases and buying air time. What it would do is give the people the power to ban political contributions from corps, which we cannot do now because it violates their first ammendment rights.
The point is to relax the grip that mega corps have on our political process.
It would also take away one of the legal tools that the media uses to resist providing free air time for candidates.
Perhaps you don't mind sliding towards corporate slavery. I do mind.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/10/2006 @ 4:10pm
ILP:
I cannot remember your opinions on the Fair Tax that came out of the thread on the Dynasty Tax, but I am surprised you support it if you do.
Posted by HMAN23 06/09/2006 @ 3:47pm
I am surprised too, HMAN. I bought the book with quite a bit of skepticism, expecting to laugh my ass off at the idiot Boortz and his stupid, regressive taxation ideas.
I was wrong.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that conservatives support the Fair Tax, as part of the plan includes perpetual monthly welfare checks for all americans. Boortz calls it a tax "prebate" on the necessities of life, but a poor person who is carefull with his/her spending could actually end up getting a subsidy from the Feds every month.
Bottom line is, it is a GREAT plan. However, we should keep the Dynasty Tax even if we eliminate income tax.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/10/2006 @ 4:14pm
BUT...Exxon and Halliburton would still have the MONEY that could be funnelled into individuals. If "free speech is for humans, not corporations"...then the CEO of Exxon would have the right to buy (with his own money) as many political ads as he likes.
Of course so would the Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council....but who's got more money?
Like most grandiose plans for curtailing free speech....uh...I mean...campaign finance reform....it's not thought out all the way!
Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 4:32pm
Then maybe you should do more thinking.
Bush raised hundreds of millions of dollars for his presidential campaigns, for example. You think Exxon Mobil shareholders will approve of another $200 million for their CEO to buy ads? He would be under no obligation to spend the money on ads, you know.. He could just take the cash and retire, and probably wouldn't spend it.
Couple that with free air time for candidates, and guess what? The political playing field would suddenly be slanted in favor of humans and against corporate entities.
MASK, don't be afraid to ask for help with the more difficult concepts. ;-)
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/10/2006 @ 4:20pm
This timely report is one more reason -- as if more were needed -- why progressive Democrats should heed former Senator, and current presidential candidate, Mike Gravel... and support Gravel's call for a sweeping reform of the culture of representative corruption with National Initiative.
A silver bullet? Of course not. But making all Americans lawmakers would unleash a torrent of civic creativity and energy, much as the internet has done as a technological tool. Democracy itself needs an upgrade... a mechanism for giving the people the sovereignty we think we gain every 4 years -- but which, in fact, we alienate.
I'm biased -- I support Gravel and work on his campaign. I hope to hear from other Nation readers in the months to come. Send us your help, your ideas, and, most important, your criticism.
Appreciatively, Gravelista a.k.a. Gregory Fossedal foss@gravel08.us (yes, the Gregory Fossedal profiled in the Nation's pages circa 1985 -- mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.)
Posted by Gravelista at 06/11/2006 @ 12:53am
ILP:
In KVH's column on the Dynasty Tax (Paris Hilton ...), I provided a link to Maasch on A Fair Tax. here. The page may change by the time you link, but scroll down (or move pages) to the review by Bruce McCoy on January 3, 2006. Granted it's a review I saw on Amazon, but I have read plenty of articles debating A Fair Tax, and thought this was one of the better critiques I have read. Check it out - it makes a good case against it and the author does not come across a lefty with an axe to grind.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/11/2006 @ 10:57pm