Blog of Brian Boyko, founder of Blogphilo.com, author of "Importing Democracy," and author of the upcoming "American Politics Observed from the Mandatory Minimum Safe Distance."
For the second time in 3 months, my debit card was used somewhere where I wasn't. What's worse is that I *never* gave my debit card to anyone for an extended period of time. I always used my *credit card* for purchases where someone other than myself might have had it. (Restaraunts, mostly.) Â NEVER the debit card.
The only thing I can think of is that thieves are just using a random number generator. Â
Now my debit card is blocked, again, till I can get to the bank, again, and get a new card, again. Â
And of course, we can't get good card security in the U.S. because the banks are opposing the system we *know* works - chip-and-pin, and we have a Congress that won't do anything to harm the funders of their campaigns - the banks.
John Forbes Nash Jr., the famed mathematician and inspiration for the film "A Beautiful Mind," and wife Alicia died in a car crash Saturday in New Jersey.
Matthew DeHart, a veteran from a multi-generational military/intelligence family, ran a Tor hidden service server for his Wow guildies, members of his old army unit, and whistleblowers.
As a general rule of thumb, acts of civil disobedience are most effective when they are disobeying unjust laws. Rosa Parks used "civil disobedience" to protest against segregation on buses; Mahatma Gandhi produced salt without paying tax as a protest against the British salt monopoly in Colonial India. Â
I admire Doug Hughes courage and chutzpah, but think he isn't as effective a protester as he could be.
According to the LA Times, Floridian Doug Hughes was arrested this past Wednesday after landing a small, one-person "Gyrocopter" on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol as part of a protest - an act of "civil disobedience" - he had planned for years on the issue of money in politics.
He said to local Florida media: "What's unique and newsworthy is the delivery. I'm going to land my gyro on the front lawn of the Capitol Building at the top end of the National Mall. The issue is important enough to defy the no-fly zone and risk life and limb, and my freedom in pursuit of an honest government that represents the people."
Okay enough. I sympathize - after all, when you talk about good ol' fashioned American well-intentioned protest insanity, it sounds awfully similar to walking across New Hampshire for over 180 miles in the dead cold of January (I've never done it because I'm not that crazy, but I help the people who do), or try to kick-start an $11M Super PAC (which I was crazy enough to do - once.)
But Doug Hughes effectively made the story not about the need to reform the way we fund elections, but about "the crazy guy in the one-man helicopter." Or as the Today Show put it:
"The pilot had hoped to spark a conversation about the state of big money in politics, but instead he began a different conversation about the state of homeland security."
This would have made more sense if he was protesting a lack of security from low flying planes, or felt a no-fly zone was unconstitutional, or something along those lines. Because those are the laws he's being charged with breaking in his civil disobedience.
And lo and behold, most news coverage has focused not on the message - the need for reform - but the medium - flying in unrestricted airspace. Â
Specifically, Hughes has been charged with violating aircraft registration requirements and violating national defense airspace. These charges can carry up to four years in prison, combined.Â
According to court documents, Hughes did not have a valid pilot's certificate, did not register the gyrocopter, and did not have a transponder or radio communications. The FAA has made a statement saying that Hughes did not have authorization to fly in the area and did not contact air traffic controllers to inform them of his flight. Â
Don't get me wrong: Walking across New Hampshire is also crazy and dangerous - which is why the NHR always notifies (and usually recieves assistance from) police departments across New Hampshire. They take every reasonable precaution.
There are other issues at play here, of course. Â Hughes was mourning the loss of his son, and lord knows grief drives us to act first and think later sometimes. And we are all feeling frustrated and powerless to work within the system for change. Â
Noble, but I think it could have been handled better.Â
Iâm not ready to call Clinton the âlesser of two evilsâ
An article going around the intertubes from Allen Clifton argues that Hillary Clinton may have faults but that if Democrats are to be âpractical,â we need to rally around her.
Full disclosure: I do paid consulting work for DraftBiden2016.com, but right now it's just HTML/CSS work. I'm not on the payroll for policy. Â
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that Allen Clifton is making regarding Clinton. Â
"Liberals might not like hearing this, but itâs going to be Hillary Clinton or a Republican in 2016. It really breaks down to these two options: Either get on board with Hillary Clinton, even if sheâs not everything youâve dreamed of. - or â ...become apathetic, let Republicans win the White House in 2016; likely replace four Supreme Court Justices over the following 8 years; start a war with Iran; ruin the planet; destroy our economy again; and undo all the good thatâs been done these last 6 years."
I'm not sure I like either option. That's one of the reasons I took the Draft Biden gig. But - let's say that Biden doesn't run. Â
"The question is, would you rather have a candidate who supports 60-70 percent of what you support, or almost none of it?"
This is a false dilemma. The lesser of two evils argument only works if Clinton actually is the lesser of two evils. Â If Ted Cruz or Rick Perry got the Republican nomination... sure. Â Clinton would be the lesser of two evils. But the "lesser of two evils" standard is such a low bar that I could see a Republican clearing it. Â
And besides, the amount of issues I actually agree with Clinton on is about 42% (or an âFâ), not anywhere near the 60-70%. (a âDâ)
Here's a list of what I feel are the most important issues, ranked from most important, to least important.
(DISAGREE) Campaign Finance Reform
(DISAGREE) Technology and Privacy
(DISAGREE) Civil Liberties
(DISAGREE) Government Transparency
(AGREE) Healthcare
(AGREE) Climate Change
(AGREE) LGBT/Civil Rights
(DISAGREE) Economic Foreign Policy
(AGREE) Abortion
(DISAGREE) Budget and Economy
(DISAGREE) Defense Foreign Policy
(DISAGREE) Drugs
(AGREE) Immigration
(DISAGREE) Crime
(AGREE) Gun Control
So, 6 out of 14. And the issues that I care the most about, she does the worst on. (This list is different for everyone of course, but this is mine.)
I get that this is an important election, with up to 4 Supreme Court slots up for grabs, and I get that the Republican Party has gone off the rails. And nobody (and my Republicans parents can confirm this) has more contempt for the fact that the Republican party has gone, in the past two decades, from "center-right" to "crazy-town."
But if any candidate - Republican, Democrat, third party, whatever, were to speak to my top issues? If they said that they wanted to see a better way to fund elections (as Lindsey Graham and George Pataki have said in stump speeches in New Hampshire), even if it meant "taking a hit" on issues that are moderately important to me, wouldn't I at least have to consider them as viable alternatives to Clinton?
This is really not even a fair way to look at it. Â Campaign finance reform is so important that I don't believe we'll get good technology policy, good civil liberties policy, government transparency, healthcare, meaningful climate change legislation... or any of the other things on the list until we address campaign finance. Â Which means that even if I were to "bite the bullet" and vote for Clinton, I still don't think we'd actually get better healthcare, or significant climate change action, or any of the other things she says she wants to do. Â Without reforming the way we fund elections first, nothing else can follow.
A friend of mine was surprised that I took the gig with Draft Biden. Well - Warren isn't running, Sanders isn't viable, that leaves Biden. I'm not saying Biden is the perfect candidate. I like him, but he's not the perfect candidate.
I'm saying that Biden (unlike Clinton) has as the very least acknowledged that there is a significant problem - a system of corruption that he and his fellow politicians have fallen into. I'm not even saying that Clinton is personally corrupt. The problem is not corrupt people, but institutional corruption.
Right now, in order to run for office, you have to raise an incredibly large amount of money from an incredibly small amount of people. With the rise of SuperPACs, that number shrinks.
Today members of Congress spend anywhere from 30-80% of their workday time raising money to get back into office. That doesn't give them time to listen to constituents, vote on the finer points of policy, or draft legislation. But don't worry though - lobbyists will draft legislation for you. And they'll help you raise money, too, by throwing a fundraiser where you charge $2600 for a plate of dry waffles.
As candidates realize that they need this money just in order to be competitive, candidates will increasingly do what they believe will get them that money. Which means that it takes a (relatively) small number of people or organizations to block any real reform on any issue. This is why Congress does nothing except political stunts primarily designed to raise money - like the Udall Amendment on the left and the Obamacare repeals on the right... And yes, this affects both the left and the right of this country.
Take a "lefty" issue: Marijuana decriminalization. Why has the federal government been so reluctant to move forward even though Washington state and Colorado have shown that the world won't fall to reefer madness? Is it because, say, police unions, private prison industry, trial lawyers, alcohol breweries, tobacco farmers, paper farmers -- all with organized lobbies would withdraw funds from any party or politician that made marijuana legalization a part of their platforms? Even if you don't actually believe that's the case - it doesn't matter because the politicians believe it. And so they do what they can. Washington DC is full of an above-average number of scumbags, but most people elected to Congress really do want to do a good job.
Or - take a "righty" issue: Simplified taxes. Why has the federal government made the tax code so amazingly complex, making it hard for small businesses and individuals to comply while providing a ton of tax loopholes for the rich? Again - you think that accounting lobbies, the chamber of commerce... even the guys who make tax preparation software would not fight tooth and nail to avoid having to change their business model?
As it is, the chances of a piece of legislation getting passed has no correlation to whether or not the people wanted it. There is, however, a very high correlation to that of economic elites and organized special interest groups. We have a government that works only for those who can afford to write big checks to congressional campaigns and SuperPACs.
So, until we somehow reform the way that we fund elections in the United States, we will continue to have this problem.
This corruption blocks reform on every issue -- even issues where you think it wouldn't matter. LGBT rights, for example. Do you want to know why the Republicans want to block LGBT rights at every step? Or why Democrats are almost universally in favor? Money. Whenever a Republican says something stupid about gay people, two sets of direct mailers get printed up. The first by the Democrats, going out to all the gay people they know who (statistically) have more disposable income -- because they (statistically) have less kids. The second? By the Republicans, to the mega-churches and their parishioners.
What this means is that nobody is willing to be genuine with how they feel. Nobody is willing to actually change their mind - it's just too lucrative to be obstinate. We're not going to get equality for gay people through legislation - we need to be able to get the other half of the country to realize the people who tell them to fear gay people don't have their best interests at hears.
Hillary Clinton did not create this system. It was not a system that was created at all - just one that evolved over time and got worse with some bad SCOTUS decisions. It was, however, the system that both she and President Bill Clinton have used masterfully to get where they are.
It was the Clintons' fundraising that brought them from a dark horse to the Presidency in 1992, it was the Clintons' fundraising that got Hillary Clinton a senate seat in 2000, it was the Clinton's fundraising that got the Clinton Foundation off the ground... whatever you can say about Clinton... and Clinton is a very capable, very smart person who might otherwise be a good candidate... she has given no indication that she believes that the status quo is a problem.
She is going to be hammered on this by the Republicans, if they are smart, in the general election. They already are - you're telling me that the donations from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton Foundation weren't unseemly? I am not saying she broke any laws, but a foreign government lavishes an organization run by someone who then announces a run for President -- does that not seem off? Doesn't that seem like a problem? I'm saying that everything she did was perfectly legal. But that didn't make it right. And if she doesn't see a problem with that... she has problems.
Indeed, back in her 2008 run, when Edwards and Obama brought the issue up (though Obama abandoned it to focus on healthcare) Clinton was downright dismissive.
I would love to see her do a 180 on that. I would love it. I don't know if I could believe her, but we absolutely need to at least have this conversation about how to solve this problem. It is the big problem in American politics and ultimately the only issue that truly matters. We can disagree on how to solve it, of course. And we will. But first we must acknowledge it, and that's the one thing I have never seen Hillary Clinton do.
Mandatory Voting doesn't address the problem of corruption, Mr. President.
President Obama, speaking at the City Club of Cleveland Wednesday, was asked what he thought he could do about the issue of money in politics. And his answer - for the short term, at least - is to suggest that America make voting mandatory, as they do in Australia.
He's wrong. Dead wrong.
I admit, there are advantages to mandatory voting when it comes to civil rights; it's not a bad idea. However, mandatory voting wouldn't do anything to stop the flow of money in politics. Indeed, it may worsen the problem, as the most apathetic towards voting would be most likely to be affected by the expensive advertising campaigns that require politicians to sell out to the highest bidder.
What makes this doubly frustrating is that I've studied the link between electoral systems and corruption. There is one, but it has nothing to do with whether voting is mandatory. Corruption, at it's core, is an incentive problem, and mandatory voting just doesn't alter the incentives that affect candidates' decision making. Â
In short: Raising money to get elected is a strong incentive to do what makes the funders happy. Securing votes is a weak incentive to make the voters happy.
Why is raising money a strong incentive? Well, if a candidate does not raise sufficient amounts of money, they not only will not be able to afford to run an effective advertising campaign, they will also be ignored by party leaders and by the media. There is a "green primary" and candidates must win this primary first by keeping the funders happy before they can begin to compete in the "voting election."
On the other side of the equation, our system of voting, single-member district [SMD], is a weak incentive. SMD produces large amounts of "vote wastage" - votes cast that had no statistical bearing on the outcome of the election. It results in no viable alternatives to the two major parties candidates - who must have played the "green primary" game to get where they are. In most cases, it results in non-competitive districts, where one party will always win, making votes - and the voters - effectively meaningless from an incentive standpoint.
Now, there are ways we can change the voting system to help address the money in politics problem - to effectively, make the voting incentive stronger. If we switched to a voting system that eliminates or minimizes vote wastage - such as the Single Transferable Vote [STV] system (also used in Australia, I might add), it would make sure that every voters vote statistically mattered and put pressure on major party candidates to keep their voters happy, lest their core voters defect to a (now viable) third party. Â
But moving to STV has nothing to do with mandatory voting. What mandatory voting might do is elect more Democrats - but Democrats that still have to compete in the "green primary," Democrats that still have to keep their funders happy first, Democrats that can still take their voters for granted.
What would be a better short-term way to start addressing the problem with a single statute would be to make the voters the effective funders, and have "citizen-funded elections." Politicians would still be "bought," and run in the "green primary" but they would be bought by the people they are elected to serve in office. Both Democrats and Republicans have put forward plans for doing just that. (Democrats prefer matching funds, Republicans prefer vouchers, I don't give a damn either way, so long as it gets done.)
What frustrates me is that in 2008, President Obama ran on this issue - and suggested that he would do something about it. Â This is not the case of a President who doesn't get it. Â It's the case of a President who, quite frankly, understands exactly how corrupt he is - a President so worn down by vicious attack after attack that he simply doesn't want to be President anymore and has given up on trying to help the people he was tasked with serving, and is now just thinking about how he will make a living once he is out of office.
And if that's the case, I say to President Obama that he should  resign and give Vice President Biden a chance at pushing for reform. At least Biden gets it.
From Daniel Weeks:Â
When the Vice President of the United States says the following in a major policy address, you know there's something seriously wrong in America: "The simple truth is we can't have a government that fights for the middle class if it's owned by the big money⊠Going forward we need a different way. We need leaders with the courage to stand up to this mountain of money, and we need voters who will stand with these leaders [to] take it on." One question remains: will those leaders and voters emerge to take democracy back from the special interests?Â
Lobbyists and trade groups have pumped huge sums into the coffers of super PACs and nonprofits connected to Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ever since the Citizens United decision. (P...
There is a broad understanding among the American people that there's too much money in American politics and that the dependence on their donors to provide that money leaves elected officials without the autonomy to properly represent their constitu...
Blogphilo/Brian Boyko @boykotx - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
discoholicmusic
andulkaphoto
stormborns
theartofmadeline
kianamaiart
