Breaking news and analysis of politics, the economy and activism.
If President Obama uses his State of the Union address to launch a major push for “fast-track” authority to bypass congressional input and oversight on a sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, he will need new allies to generate support around the country.
The president won’t be able to look to progressive farm groups. The National Farmers Union is explicitly opposed to using a fast-track approach that would allow trade agreements to move through Congress with limited debate and without amendments.
In fact, if Obama decides to ramp up his advocacy for a free-trade strategy that progressive Americans tend to see as a threat to workers, farmers, the environment, human rights and democracy, he won’t be able to count on many traditional allies to stir up grassroots support in the states. That’s one of the reasons there remains considerable uncertainty about whether the president really will—in a speech that is expected to focus on income equality—spend substantial time talking up a trade agenda that has drawn broad opposition from House and Senate Democrats and so much of his base.
If the president does go all in for the TPP, he will find himself in strange company—with groups that promote policies that critics argue are responsible for the growing gap between a wealthy few and an increasingly impoverished many.
There is, for instance, one group that maintains an extensive network of political connections in states across the country and is enthusiastically on board for “the expedited conclusions and approval of the TPP.”
That group is the American Legislative Exchange Council.
ALEC, the corporate-funded organization that stirred considerable controversy several years ago with its advocacy on behalf of so-called Stand Your Ground gun laws and restrictive Voter ID rules, produces so-called “model legislation” for introduction by conservative state legislators. Last fall, the ALEC board of directors approved and circulated a “Model Policy” that celebrates the TPP and declares that it “will be an impetus for further bilateral and multilateral trade agreements…”
Expanding trade along lines established by the North American Free Trade Agreement and the permanent normalization of trade relations with China has always been on ALEC’s agenda. The multinational corporations that cover the group’s expenses, and help to define every aspect of its agenda, have long embraced an approach that allows them to move factories and jobs from country-to-country in order to lower wages and avoid labor, environmental and human rights regulations.
ALEC’s model policy on the TPP even makes respectful reference to President Obama and his administration. That’s ironic, as ALEC members have been among the most ardent critics of the president’s policies.
Not long ago, the group published a “State Legislators Guide to Repealing Obamacare.” Yet, ALEC now highlights the Obama administration’s support of the TPP “as one-part of its strategy to increase competitiveness and employment in the United States…”
So ALEC is urging state legislators who have been busy trying to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act to get their states to formally endorse the TPP. The model policy concludes:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the legislature of [INSERT STATE] call(s) on Congress to support negotiations for a comprehensive, high-standard and ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that will provide a platform for regional trade and economic integration…
ALEC’s International Relations Task Force, which is co-chaired by a representative from Philip Morris International, declares on its webpage that it “promotes both bilateral and multilateral free trade frameworks, initiatives and partnerships.” ALEC has a long history of being at the forefront of fights to sell the trade agenda outlined in the North American Free Trade Agreement and other deals backed by Democratic and Republican presidents.
Indeed, the task force that’s promoting the TPP says, ALEC’s international policy work is persuasive “precisely because our policy directives are backed by our public and private sector members—American state legislators from all 50 states and some of the world’s largest corporations.”
Read Next: Lee Fang on ALEC’s opposition to apartheid divestment.
President Obama’s second inaugural address touched on the reality that the United States has a dysfunctional election system. Describing the nation’s progress, as well as the ways in which the nation needs to progress, the president declared, “Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”
Obama drew knowing applause when he spoke that truth in January 2013, as he did in November 2012, when just hours after his re-election the president noted that millions of Americans had “waited in line for a very long time” to vote. Then, in an ad lib that got more attention than his prepared remark, the president added: “By the way we have to fix that.”
On Wednesday, the process of fixing the problem—and of moving America a few more steps toward democracy—accelerated. A little.
The bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration that Obama appointed last year released a report that recommends:
1. Modernization of the registration process through continued expansion of online voter registration and expanded state collaboration in improving the accuracy of voter lists.
2. Measures to improve access to the polls through multiple opportunities to vote before the traditional Election Day and the selection of suitable, well-equipped polling place facilities, such as schools.
3. State-of-the-art techniques to assure efficient management of polling places, including tools the Commission is publicizing and recommending for the efficient allocation of polling place resources.
4. Reforms of the standard-setting and certification process for new voting technology to address soon-to-be antiquated voting machines and to encourage innovation and the adoption of widely available off-the-shelf technologies.
These are relatively tepid proposals. But they move in the right direction on several fronts. Making it easier to register and vote is important; modernizing registration procedures and expanding early and absentee voting programs, can help with this. So, too, can the improved allocation of resources and technology to assure that every voter in every state has a roughly equal chance to cast a ballot in a timely, respectful and efficient manner.
So the president was pleased with the report. He received it with much fanfare and described the recommendations as “outstanding.”
Obama says that he and his aides will “reach out to stakeholders all across the country to make sure that we can implement” the commission’s report.” The president brings to this work a sense of urgency that is appropriate, reminding Americans that “one of the troubling aspects of the work that they did was hearing from local officials indicating that we could have even more problems in the future if we don’t act now.”
But no one, including the president, should imagine that what the commission has produced is a cure for what ails American democracy.
The commission’s report focuses on technical repairs, and places a great deal of faith in new technologies. That’s not a fresh approach. After the 2000 fiasco in Florida, and the resulting intervention of the United States Supreme Court to prevent a thorough recount—and a thorough review of the failures and abuses of voting systems in the state—there were reports, recommendations and allocations of resources for new technologies.
But there was not a shift in mindset. Indeed, those who would restrict and restrain the franchise stepped up their activism. After the 2010 elections Republicans were put in charge of statehouses across the country. We then saw a wave of new initiatives—many, though not all, of them crafted by the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council—to impose restrictive Voter ID requirements, limit early voting and eliminate same-day registration.
The problems that inspired the president’s “we need to fix that” line were not necessarily technical or technological. They were often man-made. And the men who made them are still at work; in 2013, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than eighty bills restricting the right to vote were introduced in more than thirty states.
That figure serves as a reminder that core challenges facing voting in America are not necessarily technological. Americans could vote on paper ballots quickly and efficiently, as do voters in many other countries. And if they did they might well be more confident in the count.
There is an insufficient level of commitment on the part of local, state and federal agencies to creating the infrastructure and the mindset that fosters high-turnout elections.
The United States has an exceptionally low level of voter participation as compared with most developed democracies. In the parliamentary elections of European countries, it is not uncommon to see turnout levels surpass 70 percent, even 80 percent, of the voting-age population. In America, off-year congressional elections attract under 40 percent of the voting age population, and high-stakes presidential elections don’t reach 55 percent.
Why? Because the United States makes it hard to vote.
Unlike other countries that actually try to achieve maximum voter participation, the United States retains a separate-and-unequal electoral infrastructure that rests authority over voting and elections with individual states and their 8,000 local jurisdictions. Instead of making reasoned choices with the purpose of expanding turnout and assuring equal protection, our system leaves democracy to chance.
1. This country schedules elections on Tuesdays, rather than weekends.
2. This country does not make Election Day a holiday.
3. This country does not have a universal system for registering every citizen before his or her eighteenth birthday.
4. This country does not have a universal system for alerting all eligible voters that an election is coming, or for letting them know where and how to vote.
5. This country does not have universal standards for whether those convicted of crimes can vote, or for when and how those who have served their sentences will have their voting rights restored.
6. This country does not have universal standards for who can vote in a primary election, or for whether a run-off election will be held, or for how recounts will be conducted, or for how inconclusive results are to be addressed.
7. This country does not have universal standards for ballot design, or for how to deal with mismarked ballots, or for how to assure that ballots that have been cast are protected against tampering.
8. This country does not have universal standards for the distance one must travel to vote, or for the hours polls are to remain open, or for the set-up and operation of polling places, or for the availability of voting machines and other equipment, or for verifying that votes have been accurately cast and counted.
The list of gaps in the structures of American democracy is long.
The authors of the report by the president’s commission recognize the disjointed nature of election oversigfht, and they seek to address some of those gaps. But they do not begin to address all of them.
That does not mean that the commission’s report should be neglected. The recommendations challenge many of the assumptions made by Republican governors and legislators in recent years, and they should be used to encourage a process of improving the voting systems of the United States.
Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center is right when she says, “The Commission’s recommendations are a significant step forward. They make clear that nationwide our voting systems have common problems, which can be fixed with common, national solutions. Especially important is the consensus that we need to modernize voter registration, make early voting available to all Americans, and put systems in place so no one waits longer than 30 minutes to vote. These will be the new benchmarks against which future elections will be judged.”
The recommendations of the commission ought not, however, to be seen as an “end of the journey” to democracy.
If we are realistic about the challenge of remaking America as a nation with high-turnout elections and truly representative democracy, what the commission has produced is barely a beginning.
A report is not enough. Recommendations are not enough.
What’s required is a teaching moment, led by the president and serious members of Congress, by reformers, academics, media and citizens of good will. And it ought to have as its goal a reshaping of how the United States understands voting and voting rights.
The truth is that, on too many levels, the United States does not respect the right to vote. Nor does it adequately recognize the need to have votes counted and to genuinely reflect voting results in the governance of communities, states and the nation.
Too much is left to chance. That has been made obvious in recent years, not just by the myriad state-based battles over restrictive Voter ID laws but by the US Supreme Court’s mangling of the Voting Rights Act.
More than a report is needed, more even than a new version of the Voting Rights Act—although the proposal made recently by Congressmen John Conyers, D-Michigan and James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, and Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, is a reasonable and needed step in the right direction.
What is ultimately required is an absolute guarantee of the right to vote and the right to have that vote counted. That affirmation should be added to the United States Constitution, in an amendment along the lines of the one proposed last year by Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, and Congressman Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin.
SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.
SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.
These are proper benchmarks. When the right to vote is guaranteed, when it is constitutionally established as fundamental, that is a strong place of beginning for establishing the infrastructure of genuinely functional and genuinely representative democracy.
“The right to vote is too important to be left unprotected,” explains Pocan. “At a time when there are far too many efforts to disenfranchise Americans, a voting rights amendment would positively affirm our founding principle that our country is at its strongest when everyone participates.”
Read Next: The Nation's Ari Berman on The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014.
Four years after an activist majority on the United States Supreme Court struck down barriers to the buying of elections by multinational corporations—with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that signaled an intention to dismantle remaining restraints on money in politics—a broad-based movement has emerged to undo the damage done by the Court.
This is a coalition that refuses to tinker around the edges of the crisis.
It is boldly demanding that the US Constitution be amended—a reform sufficient to prevent the High Court from transforming American democracy into a dollarocracy.
“I’ll grant that it’s not easy. Amending the Constitution should not be easy,” says Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, which has been a key player in the movement. “But in just four years, we’ve brought what many deemed a pipe dream into the mainstream.”
People for the American Way president Michael Keegan agrees.
While there is no question that “the deeply misguided Citizens United ruling four years ago brought immeasurable harm to our democracy,” Keegan says, “it also inspired a re-energized national movement to get big money out of politics.”
That movement has accomplished more than all but the most optimistic reformers could have imagined on January 21, 2010.
Sixteen American states have formally demanded that Congress recognize that the Constitution must be amended in order to re-establish the basic American premise that “money is property and not speech, and [that] the Congress of the United States, state legislatures and local legislative bodies should have the authority to regulate political contributions and expenditures…”
Six states made the call for corporate accountability in a three-month period last year, making 2013 a banner year for a movement that began with little attention and little in the way of institutional support following the US Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling.
Support for an amendment now stretches from coast to coast, with backing (in the form of legislative resolutions or statewide referendum results) from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia. The District of Columbia is also supportive of the move to amend, as are roughly 500 municipalities, from Liberty, Maine, to Los Angeles, California—where 77 percent of voters backed a May 2013, referendum instructing elected representatives to seek an amendment establishing that “there should be limits on political campaign spending and that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of human beings.”
The numbers will expand in 2014, as grassroots activists make organized demands for action in hundreds of communities and more than a dozen states. In Wisconsin, to mark the four-year anniversary, legislators and activist groups such as United Wisconsin, ramped up their campaign for a statewide referendum on the amendment issue. In Washington state, WAmend activists have launched a massive statewide campaign to get the issue on the November 2014, ballot.
“Why does it matter how many states call for an amendment? Ultimately, an amendment will have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. That’s thirty-eight. Four more, and we’re halfway there,” says Public Citizen’s Weissman, who is working with a burgeoning Corporate Reform Coalition of more than seventy groups nationwide. “But before that, an amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the US Congress. And one of the most effective ways to show a state’s representatives and senators in Washington, DC, that there is popular demand for an amendment is to pass a resolution back home.”
The work of national groups such as Public Citizen, Common Cause, Free Speech for People and Move to Amend is groundbreaking. Done in conjunction with grassroots coalitions that are now active from northern Alaska to the tip of the Florida Keys, the work is far more dramatic than most of the initiatives you’ll see from the Democratic or Republican parties—which don’t do much but fund-raise—and various and sundry groupings on the right and left. Yet, for the most part, news of reform victories are afforded scant attention even from supposedly sympathetic media.
As such, the fantasy that says reform is impossible persists.
Just imagine if the movement to amend big money out of politics got as much attention, say, as the wrangling over IRS “targeting”—a classic money-in-politics controversy—or Chris Christie’s latest scandal.
Just imagine if all Americans knew that calls for an amendment are coming not just from traditional progressive reformers but from Republican legislators and honest conservatives at the state and national levels.
Free Speech for People highlights the fact that dozens of Republican legislators have backed calls for an amendment to overturn not just the Citizens United ruling but other barriers to the regulation of money in politics. With backing from third-party and independent legislators, as well, the passage of the state resolutions highlights what the group refers to as “a growing trans-partisan movement…calling for the US Supreme Court’s misguided decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) to be overturned, through one or more amendments to the US Constitution.”
North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones Jr., who maintains one of the most conservative voting records in the House, has signed on as a co-sponsor of one of several proposed amendments. Why did Jones join roughly 150 other members of Congress in calling for constitutional change? “If we want to change Washington and return power to the citizens of this nation, we have to change the way campaigns are financed,” says the congressman. “The status quo is dominated by deep-pocketed special interests, and that’s simply unacceptable to the American people.”
Congressman Jones is noting something that too many DC insiders, be they members of Congress or pundits commenting on Congress, fail to recognize: millions of Americans are already engaged on this issue. They are organizing for, marching for, writing letters for, sending e-mails for, testifying for and voting for the fundamental reform that is an essential building block in any movement to restore faith in the political process and renew American democracy: a constitutional amendment declaring, as the Oregon legislature proposed last summer, that “based on the American value of fair play, leveling the playing field and ensuring that all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their political views heard, there is a valid rationale for regulating political spending.”
John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney are the authors of Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America (Nation Books). Author Thomas Frank says, “This is the black book of politics-as-industry, an encyclopedic account of money’s crimes against democracy. The billionaires have hijacked our government, and anyone feeling complacent after the 2012 election should take sober note of Nichols’s and McChesney’s astonishing finding: It’s only going to get worse. Dollarocracy is an impressive achievement.”
Read Next: The Progressive Honor Roll of 2013.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. left many legacies: as a crusader for civil rights, voting rights, religious harmony, peace and economic justice.
As America honors the eighty-fifth anniversary of King’s birth, it is right to remember all of those legacies.
But at a moment when the national debate has finally begun to refocus on the issue of income inequality that so motivated Dr. King, it is his commitment to economic justice that merits particular attention.
Fifty years ago, when Dr. King marched on Washington for jobs and freedom, the federal minimum wage was $1.25 an hour. In today’s dollars, that guaranteed base wage would be $9.54 an hour.
But the federal minimum wage today is just $7.25 an hour.
Low-wage workers are more than $2 behind where they were when Dr. King declared: “We refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we’ve come to cash this check—a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”
Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn., well noted last year at a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington that “workers are falling behind.”
“Income inequality threatens our democracy as Jim Crow segregation did in 1963,” explained Ellison, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “Families are working harder than ever and are still struggling to put food on the table. A full day’s work doesn’t mean a full day’s pay.”
King recognized that wage issues were civil rights issues. “Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality,” he told a rally of AFSCME sanitation workers in Memphis on March 18, 1968, barely two weeks before his death. “For we know now that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t have enough money to buy a hamburger?”
And what is the worker who prepares and serves that hamburger being paid?
That’s a question that has been asked frequently over the past year, as thousands of fast-food workers and their supporters have struck, marched and rallied to demand better pay, benefits and workplace protections.
Most Americans are aware that, especially in a weak economy, fast-food restaurant jobs are no longer “entry-level” positions. In chain restaurants across the country, most workers are adults. And substantial numbers of them are trying to support families.
But if they are paid the minimum wage, or even a bit more, they live in poverty.
“Almost one-quarter of all jobs in the United States pay wages below the poverty line for a family of four. CEO compensation, meanwhile, continues to climb. It would take a full-time, minimum-wage worker more than 930 years to earn as much as the chief executive officer of Yum! Brands, which operates Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC, made in 2012,” explains Christine Owens, the executive director of the National Employment Law Project. “Fast-food workers are in the lowest paid occupational category. The median hourly wage for front-line fast-food workers is $8.94 nationally. Many don’t even earn that. A shortage of hours further limits income. Fast-food workers work only 24 hours a week on average—at $8.94 an hour, this adds up to barely $11,000 a year.”
But organizing for better pay for fast-food and retail workers does not just benefit those workers and their families. “We can’t build a strong economy on jobs that pay so little that families can’t live on them,” notes Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry. “Raising the wage floor will make the economy stronger for all of us.”
Indeed, argues Congressman George Miller, the senior Democratic member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, “Low pay…holds back our recovery from the Great Recession.”
With Iowa’s Tom Harkin in the Senate, Miller is the House author of the Fair Minimum Wage Act (HR 1010), which would increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. The rate would then be indexed to inflation, so that pay increases come when prices rise. Additionally, Miller’s bill would increase the required cash wage for tipped workers.
Ultimately, increases must go higher to achieve a living-wage standard. That’s the point made by Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, who was elected on a pledge to fight for a $15-an-hour minimum wage and who has gotten officials in that city to begin to explore such a move. Seattle could vote on the issue this year, and Los Angeles and other cities are beginning to talk about going big in the fight against income inequality.
Local and state initiatives are vital, as is the federal fight.
At every level, the struggle for meaningful increases in the minimum wage respects a basic premise that extends from Martin Luther King Jr.’s time to ours: helping those who are disenfranchised, politically and economically, helps all of society.
As Congressman Miller, who carries forward the King legacy of linking jobs and freedom, explains it: “Better pay will put more money into local businesses and spur economic growth. That’s why a living wage is not about asking for a handout. Rather, it’s about valuing work. And it’s about growing the economy from the bottom up by increasing working families’ purchasing power. Americans on today’s picket lines aren’t just standing up for themselves—they are standing up for a stronger America.”
Of all the celebrations of Dr. King’s legacy, few are more appropriate than the struggle—expanding every day, going from strength to strength at the local, state and federal levels—to address income inequality by raising the basic wage for working Americans.
Dr. King put it best, just weeks before his death, when he declared: “Now the problem isn’t only unemployment. Do you know that most of the poor people in our country are working everyday? They are making wages so low that they can not begin to function in the mainstream of the economic life of our nation. These are facts which must be seen. And it is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis and a full-time job getting part-time income.”
Read Next: Sasha Abramsky on the War on Poverty.
Taking steps to end, or at the very least to constrain, the federal government’s practice of storing information on the personal communications of Americans is a good thing. There is every reason to respect initiatives that seek to prevent the National Security Agency’s metadata programs from making a mockery of the right to privacy outlined in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
But the moves that President Obama announced Friday to impose more judicial oversight on federal authorities who might “listen to your private phone calls, or read your emails” and the steps that may be taken by Attorney General Eric Holder and intelligence officials to check and balance the NSA following the submission of proposals on March 28 ought not be seen mistaken for a restoration of privacy rights in America.
What the president and his aides are talking about—in response to revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, congressional objections and public protests – are plans to place some controls on the NSA and perhaps to keep most data in “private hands.”
But what controls will there be on those private hands?
As long as we’re opening a discussion about data mining, might we consider the fact that it’s not just the government that’s paying attention to our communications—and to what they can reveal about our personalities, lifestyles, values, spending habits and political choices.
There’s a reason the NSA has been interested in accessing the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. When you’re mining, you go where the precious resources are, and technology companies have got the gold.
Data is digital gold. Corporations know that. They’re big into data mining.
This data mining, and the commercial and political applications that extend from it, gets far less attention than the machinations of the NSA or other governmental intelligence agencies. Tech publications and savvy writers such as Jaron Lanier recognize these concerns. The Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Senate Commerce Committee have taken some tentative steps to address a few of the worst abuses. But that’s not enough, especially when, as Fordham University’s Alice E. Marwick noted in a smart recent piece for The New York Review of Books,
there are equally troubling and equally opaque systems run by advertising, marketing, and data-mining firms that are far less known. Using techniques ranging from supermarket loyalty cards to targeted advertising on Facebook, private companies systematically collect very personal information, from who you are, to what you do, to what you buy. Data about your online and offline behavior are combined, analyzed, and sold to marketers, corporations, governments, and even criminals. The scope of this collection, aggregation, and brokering of information is similar to, if not larger than, that of the NSA, yet it is almost entirely unregulated and many of the activities of data-mining and digital marketing firms are not publicly known at all.
Significantly, it is not just financial profit that data can yield.
As Robert W. McChesney and I note in Dollarocracy: How the Money-and-Media Election Complex is Destroying America (Nation Books), data is also mined by those who seek power.
Political candidates, political parties, Super PACs and dark-money groups are among the most ambitious data miners around. They use data to supercharge their fund-raising, to target multimillion-dollar ad buys and to stir passions and fears at election time.
Both parties do it. All major candidates do it. Obama did it better than Romney in 2012, and that played a critical role in providing the president with the resources and the strategies that allowed him to easily defeat a well-funded and aggressive challenger. The Grand Old Party’s response was to begin hiring the best and the brightest technical talent. A recent headline announced: “Republican National Committee to Build Platform to Share Voter Data.” Another reported: “RNC Pledges $20 Million to Build Data-Sharing Operation.”
So campaigns are going to do more mining. And so are the billionaires who fund so-called “independent” political operations. Last spring, Politico announced: “Karl Rove, Koch Brothers Lead Charge to Control Republican Data.”
Data already drives the money-and-media election complex that is rapidly remaking American democracy into an American dollarocracy, where election campaigns are long on technical savvy but short, very short, on vision.
So, give the president credit for wading into the debate about how the government uses and abuses phone data. Give key members of Congress, like Jerry Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, credit for pointing out that what the president has proposed is “not enough” to “safeguard against indiscriminate, bulk surveillance of everyday Americans.”
But then go the next step. Recognize that addressing governmental actions and abuses does not begin to restore privacy rights. For that to happen, there must be recognition that Marwick is right to argue: “While closer scrutiny of the NSA is necessary and needed, we must apply equal pressure to private corporations to ensure that seemingly harmless targeted mail campaigns and advertisements do not give way to insidious and dangerous violations of personal privacy.”
And that recognition must extend beyond concern regarding abusive commercial applications to include an examination of and responses to new approaches to fund-raising and campaigning that have the potential to warp our politics—and democracy itself.
Read Next: John Nichols on what the Federal Communications Commission can (and must) do to save Internet neutrality.
When the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order Tuesday—dealing what is being broadly interpreted as a fatal blow to net neutrality— it highlighted the urgent need for the FCC to develop a smarter and more assertive approach to protecting citizens and consumers in the digital age.
The court rejected a 2010 move by the FCC that was intended to prevent phone and cable conglomerates from subdividing the Internet in ways that block or interfere with communications. The commission’s attempt to reassert its authority—after a FCC dominated by appointees of former President George W. Bush had weakened it—was rejected on the grounds that the approach chosen by the FCC in 2010 was legally unsound.
The FCC classified broadband providers as information service providers rather than as telecommunications service providers. The move, widely criticized by consumer groups, created openings for legal challenges to regulations. And the conglomerates that control access to broadband Internet have taken them.
The DC Circuit has rejected the commission’s approach, and struck down key regulations that were designed to preserve net neutrality. In so doing, they have, as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, says: "(dealt) a blow to consumers and small businesses alike." Without regulatory safeguards, adds Sanders, "corporations are able to prioritize the information available to users, it stifles ideas and expression, as well as commerce and innovation.”
But the court has not said the FCC lacks authority to protect broadband Internet users.
In fact, if the FCC responds to the court ruling with a bold move to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service that can be regulated in the public interest, it has the ability to do just that.
This is the challenge that has been presented to Tom Wheeler, the new chairman of the commission, who recently said that “it is essential that the FCC continue to maintain an open Internet and maintain the legal ability to intervene promptly and effectively in the event of aggravated circumstances.”
Following the DC Circuit’s ruling Tuesday, Wheeler indicated the commission would “consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”
That’s a sound immediate response. It is significant that Wheeler is sending positive signals about protecting net neutrality, the principle that all Americans should have equal access to all of the information and opportunities that are presented by the Internet. Media conglomerates have for years sought to diminish net-neutrality protections so that they can prioritize some traffic—and profit by putting paying customers’s communications on an information superhighway, while consigning those who cannot write the big checks to a digital dirt road.
Under such a structure, US Senator Al Franken has argued, “the Internet can be transformed from a free, open, and competitive playing field into a ‘pay-for-play’ arena in which citizen bloggers, nonprofits, and small businesses are simply outgunned by major media conglomerates.”
“That,” Franken has warned, “would transform the World Wide Web into a system of separate and unequal networks.”
With the DC Circuit ruling in a case brought by Verizon, the protections that were outlined by the FCC’s flawed 2010 Open Internet Order have been gutted—and the prospect of that “separate-but-unequal” transformation becomes very real.
“Now, just as Verizon promised it would in court, the biggest broadband providers will race to turn the open and vibrant Web into something that looks like cable TV,” says Craig Aaron, the president of the media reform group Free Press, which has been a key player in the “Save the Internet” campaign to maintain net neutrality. “They’ll establish fast lanes for the few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve the slow lanes for everyone else.”
Washington is about to experience a period of rapid and intense political jockeying on media issues. The media conglomerates will look for every opening to use their considerable influence to narrow the options that are available to citizens and consumers, to artists and innovators, to small businesses and nonprofits.
But Wheeler really does have the authority to expand the debate—and to do so in the strategic and legally sound way that can prevent abuses of the public interest.
“The bright side is that the FCC, under the direction of newly appointed chairman Tom Wheeler, now has the opportunity to fix a problem of its own making,” says Casey Rae, interim executive director of the Future of Music Coalition (FMC), a national nonprofit research, education and advocacy organization for musicians. “It has never been more important to have basic rules of the road preventing ISPs from blocking content delivered over the Internet, regardless of how users connect.”
Aaron agrees. “The FCC—under the leadership of former Chairman Julius Genachowski—made a grave mistake when it failed to ground its open Internet rules on solid legal footing. Internet users will pay dearly for the previous chairman’s lack of political will. That’s why we need to fix the problems the agency could have avoided in the first place.”
“Save the Internet” campaigners say they have been encouraged by Wheeler’s talk about how the FCC must have the ability to protect broadband users and preserve the Internet’s fundamental open architecture.
To make real that promise, however, Aaron says that Wheeler “must act quickly to restore and reassert the FCC’s clear authority over our nation’s communications infrastructure. The agency must follow its statutory mandate to make broadband communications networks open, accessible, reliable and affordable for everyone.”
John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press, the nation’s media reform network, and the co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of five books on media and democracy issues, including Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America (Nation Books).
Read Next: John Nichols on the constitutionality of fast-tracking the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Like his friend and frequent legislative partner in the US Senate, Ted Kennedy, George Miller made himself an essential Democrat in the House of Representatives on the issues that mattered most to his party’s historic base. For decades, as a senior member of California’s influential House delegation, Miller has led the fight for living wages, strong unions, public education, national healthcare, environmental protection, civil liberties and civil rights.
A quarter century ago he helped a newly elected congresswoman from a neighboring district, Nancy Pelosi, learn the intricacies of the Capitol, and he remained her steadiest ally as she rose to become the Speaker of the House. And Pelosi was not alone. The congressman continues to serve as a definitional figure on the issues of consequence for progressives, and as a mentor to the members of House who identify as their champions.
But Miller says he “was never in awe of the ‘indispensable man’ theory.”
So, at the end of his current term, the 68-year-old congressman will end his forty-year tenure in a House of Representatives that he entered as a 29-year-old “Watergate Baby”—part of the remarkable class of young, liberal Democrats who were elected after Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974 and made the ideals of the antiwar, civil rights and political reform movements a part of the governing process in the 1970s and beyond.
Ever the fighter, Miller did not merely look backward in his retirement announcement.
“I’m proud of what I have been able to accomplish on behalf of children, working people and the environment, in my district and for our country, especially passage of national health care reform,” he declared. "Now, I look forward to one last year in Congress fighting the good fight and then working in new venues on the issues that have inspired me.”
At the top of the list for the coming year is the fight for a meaningful increase in the minimum wage, an issue where Miller staked out the high ground when too many others were content with small steps. It was Miller who proposed—with another retiring Democrat, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin—to break the double-digit barrier and raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. Showing the sophistication he has developed as the senior Democrat on the powerful House Committee on Education and Labor, Miller’s bill includes provisions to index future increases to keep up with inflation, and to expand protections for workers who rely on tips. In advocating for the legislation, the congressman has embraced the struggles of striking fast-food workers and others who argue that there is something wrong with an economic arrangement where Americans who work a 40-hour week are still stuck in poverty.
In his last year as a congressman, Miller will continue to serve as the environmental watchdog that he has been since even before his stint as chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources as a congressman of conscience on international human rights issues; as a savvy advocate for early-childhood education who focused on the reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and college affordability; and as a challenger of Democrats and Republicans who seek to extend failed trade policies. Above all, Miller will keep advocating on a host of issues relating to income inequality that have suddenly become “hot” topics in Washington but that have been at the heart of his agenda since coming to Congress. As Miller says, “Wealthy and powerful special interests have always had friends in Washington. I came to Congress to stand up for the rest of us.”
Late last year, The Nation’s annual “Progressive Honor Roll” identified Miller as the most-valuable member of the House. We said at the time that, after four decades in the House, he was as energetic and effective as ever. We also noted that, though he was an essential Democrat, "Miller did not simply toe the Democratic line; he opposed President Obama’s proposal to fast-track the corporate-friendly Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. And he was superb on an issue most members of Congress rarely recognize: after a Bangladeshi garment factory collapse killed more than 1,100 workers, Miller denounced US retailers that have ‘led this race to the bottom over many years,’ telling corporations like Walmart that they “have to make a decision now whether you want to have blood on your labels.”
Miller would be the first to point out that there are other members of Congress who are willing to call out corporations—and presidents of both parties. In his retirement remarks, he celebrated the energy of freshman Democrats, and he went out of the way recently to find a place for one of the progressive of their number, Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan, on the Education and Labor Committee.
But the truth is that there can be indispensable men and women.
And George Miller has been one of them.
The Senate has survived without Ted Kennedy. But we ought not underestimate the significance of that loss.
The House will survive without George Miller. But we ought not underestimate the significance of this loss.
It is simply true that, as United Food and Commercial Workers union president Joe Hansen said: “Many will seek to carry on Congressman Miller’s good work, but no one can ever replace him.”
Read Next: why are certain members of Congress wreaking havoc on the Iran accord?
The framers of the Constitution were wise to include Congress in the process of framing and approving trade agreements made by presidents. That authority to provide advice and consent should, the wisest legislators have always argued, be zealously guarded.
Unfortunately, in recent decades, Congress has frequently surrendered its authority when it comes to the shaping of trade agreements. By granting so-called “fast-track authority” to the White House, Congress opts itself out of the process at the critical stage when an agreement is being struck and retains only the ability to say “yes” or “no” to a done deal.
The result has been a framing of US trade agreements that is great for multinational corporations but lousy for workers, communities and the environment. Instead of benefitting the great mass of people in the United States and countries with which it trades, deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the permanent normalization of trade relations agreement with China de-emphasize worker rights, human rights, environmental and democracy concerns and clear the way for a race to the bottom.
Candidate Barack Obama recognized this. In 2008, he told Pennsylvania labor activists, “The current Fast Track process does not mandate that agreements include binding labor and environmental protections nor does it give an adequate role to Congress in the selection and design of agreements. I will work with Congressional leaders to ensure that any new TPA authority fix these basic failings and open up the process to the American people for their participation and scrutiny.”
That reference to opening up the process to the American people is key. When members of the House and Senate are engaged with the negotiation process, they can bring the concerns of citizens—not just those of corporations with powerful lobbyists and connections—to the fore. That’s how representative democracy is supposed to work, and this is especially vital when it comes to debates about economic policy.
Now, however, President Obama is seeking “fast-track” authority that activists and trade specialists say does not guarantee the sort of congressional oversight and citizen involvement that candidate Obama recognized as essential. And on Thursday, Obama’s choice to become the US ambassador to China, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, joined with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to introduced legislation to clear the way for the president and his aides to negotiate sweeping new trade deals, such as the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, with limited congressional oversight.
Baucus and Camp are claiming that they have addressed past concerns and improved the fast-track model. They haven’t, and savvy members of Congress recognize the problem.
“Blindly approving or disapproving agreements that have largely been negotiated in secret would represent a derelict [sic] of duty for Congress,” says Congressman Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin. “If there is nothing to hide in these agreements, we should be allowed to debate and amend these deals in the open. I am committed to doing all that I can to prevent the inappropriate use of fast track in Congress.”
Even members of Congress who have backed trade deals in the past, such as Michigan Democrat Sander Levin, say this fast-track proposal “falls far short” when it comes to outlining an appropriate level of congressional involvement in the process.
Congressman Mike Michaud, the Maine Democrat who chairs the House Trade Working Group, argues: “This bill misses an opportunity to raise the standards established by Congress that our trade negotiators must meet, and it neglects to include real enforcement of these standards. It also fails to improve transparency and enhance congressional consultations by the Administration, both of which are critical for Congress to maintain its constitutional authority over trade policy.”
Michaud says: “The Baucus-Camp bill is a disappointing repeat of failed trade policy from 2002 that will continue the trends of growing trade deficits, a declining manufacturing sector, and the offshoring of American jobs. This bill may represent the ideas of the two committee chairmen, but it does not reflect Americans’ views on trade and falls far short of being a truly bipartisan bill. That’s why I will oppose it.”
In fact, there will be significant opposition, from Democrats and Republicans. Last year, more than 150 House Democrats signed a letter arguing that “a new trade agreement negotiation and approval process that restores a robust role for Congress is essential to achieving US trade agreements that can secure prosperity for the greatest number of Americans, while preserving the vital tenets of American democracy in the era of globalization.”
Dozens of House Republicans have also expressed reservations about the traditional fast-track model. This is an appropriate bipartisanship.
There are deep partisan and ideological divisions in US House and the US Senate. But there should be broad acceptance of the necessity of congressional involvement in negotiations have the potential to define the economy of the United States in the twenty-first century.
As Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, notes: “It’s rare these days that across the aisle, Congress agrees on anything, so it’s notable that a large bipartisan bloc insists on maintaining the exclusive constitutional authority over trade that the Founding Fathers wisely granted to Congress.”
Maintaining the role of Congress in trade negotiations is not just a matter of respecting the system of checks and balances.
It is about fundamental economic issues, issues that will—in particular—define the futures of manufacturing communities.
“Given how previous trade agreements have devastated local manufacturing sectors and shipped American jobs overseas, it would be unwise for Congress to ram through new trade deals without offering proper oversight,” says Pocan. “Massive trade deals—such as the Trans Pacific Partnership—now affect everything from America’s economy, to consumer and food safety, to labor standards and our environment.”
Read Next: George Zornick on congressional efforts to make federal settlements more transparent.
Despite the fantasies of the pundits and political operatives who imagine Chris Christie as some kind of moderate, he is more than sufficiently conservative to secure the Republican presidential nomination. By most reasonable measures, Christie is a strikingly consistent social and economic conservative. So it is not ideology that is most likely to trip up Christie in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
It is his style. The New Jersey governor’s take-no-prisoners approach to politics has always been his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
Christie’s style helped him get traction in New Jersey. His brash pronouncements and bold gestures made him a national media darling. That’s a big deal in a state that is sandwiched between the New York and Philadelphia media markets. A politician who can make himself heard, even if he might be edgier than many voters prefer, has an advantage. The governor’s style has also had appeal in the upper echelons of a Republican Party that hungers for standard-bearers with a little more dynamism than Mitch McConnell.
But in order to bid for the presidency, Christie must connect with Republicans in small-town Iowa and suburban New Hampshire. And what got Christie to Trenton won’t necessarily get him through Des Moines and Concord.
Even when they criticize public education unions, conservatives in Iowa don’t usually yell at teachers. And New Hampshire politicians are not often linked to schemes to punish political foes that create massive headaches for people who just want to get to work.
So it is that Chris Christie’s “traffic problem” extends well beyond North Jersey.
What started as a bizarre story of access lanes, gridlock and alleged political retribution has grown into a very serious political concern for the governor. The tale began to unfold in September, when access lanes to the heavily trafficked George Washington Bridge were closed—supposedly for a traffic study. The closures created massive gridlock in Fort Lee, New Jersey, a community where the Democratic mayor had refused to join a number of other Democrats in backing Christie’s 2013 re-election bid.
Christie was well ahead in that bid, so it was hard to believe that he or his aides and allies would have even considered punishing the mayor—and by extension New Jersey commuters—to make a crude political point.
But now the Bergen Record is reporting:
Private messages between Governor’s Christie’s deputy chief of staff and two of his top executives at the Port Authority reveal a vindictive effort to create “traffic problems in Fort Lee” by shutting lanes to the George Washington Bridge and apparent pleasure at the resulting gridlock.
The messages are replete with references and insults to Fort Lee’s mayor—who had failed to endorse Christie for re-election—and they chronicle how he tried to reach Port Authority officials in a vain effort to eliminate the paralyzing gridlock that overwhelmed his town of 35,000, which sits in the shadow of the world’s busiest bridge.
The messages also include references to supporters of Christie’s Democratic challenger in 2013, state Senator Barbara Buono, that seem to suggest it is okay to play rough not just with rival candidates but with anyone who might vote for them.
After Wednesday’s revelations, Buono said: “The Governor has created a culture where cavalierly endangering citizens’ lives to exact political retribution is an acceptable form of governance. It’s beneath the dignity of his office and a breach of New Jerseyans’ trust.”
The New York Daily News was even blunter: "In the best possible light, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie built a top staff of lying thugs who threatened lives and safety to serve his political ends," editorialized the paper, which circulates in New Jersey. "If not, Christie is a lying thug himself."
It remains to be seen whether The Daily News is right when it argues that: "Christie’s presidential ambitions are all but kaput, as he will be lambasted and lampooned as a man of low character and horrible judgment—again viewing him in the most favorable way."
But Wednesday's revelations about the emails circulated by the governor's aides and allies won't just hurt Christie in New Jersey. They are quite likely to hurt him in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
The usually unapologetic Christie recognizes the threat—in his home state and nationally—that is posed by the suggestion that his office engaged in the politics of retribution.
The governor has always dismissed suggestions that he was involved in the targeting of a local official who did not do his bidding. And he now says he is “outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge.“
Until now, Christie has been cut a remarkable level of slack, despite detailed reports of multiple incidents in which the governor and his aides allegedly engaged in the bullying of political foes.
But the barrage of headlines on Wednesday went to the heart of the questions about how Christie and those around him operate.
Politico declared: “Scandal imperils Chris Christie’s no-nonsense image.”
“Road Rage,” shouted The Wall Street Journal.
And Businessweek nailed it: “Bridge Scandal Destroys Christie’s ‘Nice Jerk’ Image.”
This is not playing well in New Jersey.
This is not playing well nationally.
And it has the potential to make it a lot harder for Christie to appeal to the Republicans who vet presidential candidates.
Republican caucus participants and primary voters in states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are not naïve. They know that politicians have egos, and that election campaigns can turn ugly. They don’t reject toughness. They don’t expect presidential candidates to arrive on their doorsteps as pristine political figures who have never been touched by controversy. They can handle the sharp wit of a Bob Dole or the tart tongue of a John McCain.
But there is a reason former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who works hard to present himself as an amiable figure, continues after all these years to poll well in so many states where the Republican nomination fights of 2016 will play out. Even as Christie led many national surveys late last year, a December PPP survey found that while 47 percent of Republicans viewed Christie favorably, Huckabee’s favorable number was 65 percent. That’s significant. The sort of activists who take the lead in choosing nominees want to pick a viable candidate. But they also like to like the candidate they nominate. They have expectations rooted in the experience of the politics and politicians they know—standards that have been established over time. And, yes, they do draw lines that candidates ought not cross if they want to be contenders.
Christie has always straddled those lines. Yelling at teachers is not considered good form. But what’s playing out now is far more serious.
If the “road rage” scandal entangles Christie personally, it is reasonable to suggest that he would be done irreparable political damage.
But even if he can explain away the e-mails of his closest aides and allies, the latest developments reinforce concerns about Christie, and that’s going to make it a good deal harder for him to connect with the Republicans he must appeal to in order to remain a serious presidential prospect.
Across the United States this week, new mayors and city council members are being sworn in as the leaders of the cities that elected them in November. The inaugurations of mayors draw local attention—and, in cases like that of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, a good measure of national attention—but there is generally less focus on the city council members.
Except in Seattle.
Monday afternoon’s inauguration of City Council member Kshama Sawant, arguably the most prominent socialist elected to local office since Bernie Sanders became mayor of Burlington, Vermont, thirty-three years ago, has inspired a striking level of excitement. Officials moved the swearing in for Sawant and Mayor Ed Murray—Seattle’s first openly gay mayor—from the city council chambers to the much larger lobby of the city hall, and local media described “the largest turnout ever for a Seattle inauguration ceremony.”
Reporters from around the country and around the world were interviewing Sawant, who in November upset a veteran council member with a campaign that promise to fight for a $15-an-hour minimum wage. They also interviewed other socialists, including Irish parliamentarian Joe Higgins, who was in Seattle to celebrate the event and to tell reporters, “Kshama’s election has been a major event internationally. This has been a huge encouragement because the United States is the citadel of world capitalism.”
"Here in Seattle, political pundits are asking about me: will she compromise? Can she work with others? Of course, I will meet and discuss with representatives of the establishment. But when I do, I will bring the needs and aspirations of working-class people to every table I sit at, no matter who is seated across from me," she said in her inaugural address. "And let me make one thing absolutely clear: There will be no backroom deals with corporations or their political servants. There will be no rotten sell-out of the people I represent."
The crowd roared its approval.
Yet, for all the intensity of the moment, the community college economics instructor and Occupy Seattle activist who turned to electoral politics as part of a broader commitment to movement building, kept her victory in perspective. She recognizes the need to respond to immediate demands and the possibility of a broader "teaching moment," and she is confident that the balance can be struck.
“We’re going to be focusing on Seattle politics, obviously, because that’s going to be our job for the next two years,” Sawant explained in an interview before taking her oath. “We will be focusing on city politics: we will be in many ways initiating, in many ways participating in the struggle for $15-an-hour; and other issues like housing and transit. But the media attention gives us the opportunity to show the people that there’s nothing unique about Seattle.”
Sawant argues that “the social conditions that have meant that people are living in a circumstance of enormous inequality in the wealthiest country in the world” are not distinct to Seattle. At a time when “poverty is skyrocketing, housing is basically unaffordable” and unemployment and under-employment are serious issues in communities across the country, Sawant says it should not be surprising that “nearly 100,000 people voted for a socialist in Seattle.”
Because of the strength of the vote she received, and the excitement about her election, Sawant was able to influence Seattle politics even before she took office. Last week, Mayor Murray ordered city administrators to develop plans to pay all municipal employees at least $15 per hour—a move that will lead to wage hikes for at least 600 Seattle workers. And Sawant will be working, on the council and if necessary via a referendum push, to establish a city-wide $15-an-hour base for workers.
She has no doubt the momentum will spread.
“I would say that this is simply the first wave in a storm that is about to be coming to the United States in [the form] of a demand for social change,” argues the new council member. “When salon.com named me one of the five political heroes of 2013, my first reaction was: ‘Why am I there…?’ Why aren’t the fast-food workers who went out courageously on one-day strikes all over the nation? They are the real political heroes as far as I am concerned. And it is important to mention them because they are signs that we are heading into a period of political change.”
That period of political change has roots, Sawant suggests.
“This didn’t come out of nowhere. The conditions have been building up for decades. They have been much worsened because of the recession,” she says. “We saw Occupy happening, which broke the silence on inequality. And I don’t think we should lose sight of [mass mobilizations of workers in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states]…. It shows you that there have been a series of events that tell us people are getting fed up with accepting the status quo and want something different.”
Read Next: John Nichols on the inauguration of Tish James as New York City public advocate