According to a number of respectable polls, 57% of Americans
favor some form of gun control. Ninety-plus percent of NRA members favor
background checks for gun ownership. The fact that Congress has failed to take
any meaningful action on any form of gun regulation illustrates, in my view, a
situation that is both unfortunate and dangerous.
We elect our Senators and Representatives, yet once they are
elected a large majority of them are unresponsive to what the electorate thinks
and wants. Instead, they become the servants of those who pour large amounts of
money into their campaigns and continue to find ways through their lobbyists to
keep those in Congress in their debt. I am referring, naturally, to groups like
the NRA, major businesses and business organizations such as the Chamber of
Commerce, and, yes, even more liberal-leaning groups like labor unions.
In a poll taken last June, 61 % of
respondents favored allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance
plans until age 26, 72 % of
respondents wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50
workers provide health insurance for their employees, and 82 % of respondents favored
banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing
conditions – all components of the Affordable Health Care Act.. Notwithstanding
that, 34 bills have been introduced in Congress for the wholesale repeal of the
AHCA, the latest just this week by the redoubtable Michelle Bachman (R-MN).
We cherish the myth of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” when a
grass-roots campaign by a determined lay person could send them to Congress
where their passion and the rightness of their cause could change the course of
political events, and it’s possible that before about 1940 that could work.
Now, however, the cost of running for national office makes politics beyond the
most local level the province of the well-financed, whether through personal
wealth or outside support. When that outside support comes in large infusions
of cash, it would be naïve to think it comes without some expectation of quid
pro quo, no matter if the infuser is Sheldon Adelson, the NRA, the UAW, or the
Sierra Club.
I’ve always been fond of the Chinese proverb that says if we
don’t change our direction, we are likely to get where we’re headed. In this
case a change of direction means a radical reform of how our government is
elected. That starts with genuine campaign finance reform, and meaningful
finance reform requires that we reassess the legal fiction that a corporation
is a person. This doctrine originated in the Dartmouth College case of 1819, in
which the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the
same way as “natural persons.” This doctrine in turn formed the basis for legal
recognition that corporations may hold and exercise
certain rights under the law The ruling was never intended to mean that
corporations are "people" as that word is normally understood, nor did
it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. Given that there is no
bar to restricting or even barring corporations’ donating to candidates and campaigns,
and to eliminate PACs and Super-PACs which are connected to corporate entities.
There should be a limit to donations by individuals as well,
both to candidates and PaCs and Super-PACs, so that millionaires and
billionaires have no greater ability to influence elections than do the 98 or
99% of Americans who fall below that level of wealth.
Finally, and this would require a Constitutional amendment,
the terms of Representatives should be four years rather than two. The two-year
term means that a Member of Congress start running for his or her next term
almost immediately after the current term begins. This was not the case when
the Constitution was written, and to extend the term would simply be to
acknowledge the realities of governing and running for office in the modern
era.
None of this can happen unless the American people demand it,
loudly and persistently, until the stranglehold of special interests and the
very wealthy on the electoral process is broken. This is not an issue that
fractures along the Right-Left fault line. Whichever way you lean politically,
your interests are being represented only to the degree that they coincide with
the interests of those in control, and that is clearly not what the Founders
had in mind.
-->
1 comment:
I agree with your comments Ed. Additionally, I support a single 6 year term for a president for the same reasons you site regarding the 2 year term of house seats. The president needs to start campaigning about a year after he figures out where the bathroom is. It is ridiculous. In the end, each president would get the equivalent of two four year terms if you account for the wasted time of campaigning for a second term. Also, from day one he cannot be held hostage by the opposition to ensure a single term.
Post a Comment