Thoughts from the Circulator

Hannah Finnie is a student at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, where she is pursuing a joint degree in Math and Political Science. In addition to interning at Common Cause’s national office this summer, she is also the Southeast Regional Organizer for STAND, a student led anti-genocide organization.

[hfinnie-blog]

Tony Stark/IRONMAN, Andover Alumnus

Thanks to adventuresinkhaos for showing this to me! http://adventuresinkhaos.tumblr.com/

[randomness-from-thisoldguy-deac]

[hfinnie-blog]

Say Yes to DISCLOSE

Note: This is a post I originally wrote as a Letter to the Editor for Massachusetts newspapers, urging citizens to support the DISCLOSE Act. 

            In a matter of days, the DISCLOSE Act, also known as the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, will face a cloture vote.  Should the cloture vote pass, the Senate would be required to overcome a filibuster, thereby ensuring that the DISCLOSE Act is given its fair chance in congress. 

            In the wake of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent rise of superPACs, it is vital that the DISCLOSE Act pass in order to increase transparency in political spending by third party groups.  This past January, Republican Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic opponent Elizabeth Warren came agreed to the People’s Pledge, which imposed a penalty on candidates for third party spending.  

            Americans are frustrated with the gridlock in congress, much of which stems from an unprecedented use, or threatened use of the filibuster.  We must ensure that DISCLOSE does not meet the same fate as the plethora of bills before it that have been thwarted by the filibuster.  As such, it is up to the citizens of Massachusetts to do what is right by urging Senator Brown to vote in favor of the upcoming cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act. 

[hfinnie-blog]

Deceptive Election Practices Dangerous to Democracy

Cries of voter fraud from across the country attempting to justify increased voter identification laws have begun to resemble the boy who cried wolf. Except in this case, the wolf never appears.  Actual cases of voter fraud are few and far between, with miniscule effect on elections.  The real danger to our democracy lies in the form of deceptive election practices, which aim to prevent vulnerable groups from exercising their constitutional right to vote.  

This is not simply a national issue.  Common Cause recently released a report entitled “Deceptive Election Practices and Intimidation” that details multiple instances in which various groups have attempted to inhibit Arizonans’ right to vote.  In Pima County in 2004, flyers telling Republicans to vote on one day and Democrats to vote on another were distributed.  In both 2006 and 2008, voters received phone calls giving intentionally false polling locations. 

The point is, deceptive practices are all too often employed in misguided attempts to sway elections.  As noted in the Common Cause report, Arizona’s current laws outlaw a person from using “force, threats, menaces, bribery or ‘any corrupt means’”.  This law does not provide a clear enough description of what constitutes “corrupt means” to attempt to influence elections, thereby leaving open the possibility for chicanery.  However, the responsibility of making sure no one can get away with deceptive election practices does not simply fall on the hands of Arizona lawmakers.  Arizonans should take matters into their own hands by learning their rights and volunteering to be a poll worker or poll monitor, thus preserving the integrity of our elections.  Arizona voters must take action to ensure that each and every citizen can cast their vote, thereby protecting our democracy. 

[hfinnie-blog]

A Tale of Two Dinners

Note: I wrote a joint post with a friend, Kristy Minielly, on a recent conference I attended called Women 2020 hosted by the National Journal. 

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

By: Hannah Finnie

Every six weeks, the female Senators gather for dinner to catch up on each other’s lives and simply have a good time.  In a time of increased polarization and partisanship, something as simple as a regular dinner across party lines is somewhat of a miracle.

A conference put on yesterday entitled “Women 2020,” organized by the National Journal featured many prominent female figures in government, business, and more.  Although all of the women provided insightful advice, I found Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to be particularly inspiring.  When asked whether the relationship of women senators across party lines differs from that of men, Senator Hutchison shared anecdotes to show how interpersonal connections can trump political differences.  Sen. Hutchison talked about how the women in the Senate came together and bought Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) a wedding gift.  Hutchison then went on to tell the audience how then-Senator Hillary Clinton threw  her baby shower.  And of course, every six weeks, the women gather for dinner.

With the approval rating of Congress at its lowest level in forty years, perhaps it’s time to find more Senators who are better able to cross party lines and see value in working with their peers—which may require greater gender equity in the Senate beyond a mere 17 out of 100.

Nancy Pelosi

By: Kristy Minielly

Yesterday, the National Journal hosted a conference called Women 2020 featuring keynote speaker, Nancy Pelosi, among other successful women from politics, entrepreneurship, science and other fields. I went to the conference knowing that Nancy Pelosi was a speaker, expecting her speech to be political in nature. I certainly didn’t anticipate that she would instead use this opportunity to speak about dinners she shared with her fellow members of Congress.

Eating a meal with other people seems extremely simple. You exchange food, conversation and listen to those you eat with; however, what if others did not listen to you? For Nancy Pelosi, many of her early dinners with Congressmen involved the men talking and the women never being asked for their opinions. This continued during many dinners about topics ranging from politics to childbirth, a topic that the women at the table would have clearly known more about; however, they were still never asked to speak.

Instead of being mad about these dinners, Pelosi’s humor showed that lessons can be learned from negative experiences. Her best advice to “know your power,” taught those in the audience the importance of listening to others, but also speaking up for what you believe in. If you don’t speak up, who will?

Kristy Minielly is a rising junior at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, double majoring in English Language and Literature and Political Science. She comes to Common Cause as part of Georgetown University’s Law, Legislation & Politics Program.

Originally posted here. 

[hfinnie-blog]

Increased Transparency for Rhode Island

Rhode Island recently ushered two transformative new bills into law that will increase the amount of information available to the public, thereby augmenting the possibility for citizens to make informed decisions. 

The first of these bills is the Transparency in Political Spending Act (TIPS, or H 7859), which effectively counteracts the 2010 United States Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC ruling.  Citizens United represented a grave turning point in the state of disclosure in our nation’s elections by allowing outside groups to spend essentially unlimited amounts of money on campaigns under the guise of independent expenditures.  As such, the Transparency in Political Spending Act requires organizations like SuperPACs that participate in so-called “electioneering communications” and independent expenditures to disclose the source of their donations and just where said money is traveling.  The text of the bill notes that increased disclosure is paramount in order to “protect and enhance core democratic values and maintain the integrity of elections” (H 7859 Section 1, part 3). 

Governor Chafee of Rhode Island also signed a bill that will expand the existing Access to Public Records Act.  The bill is multifaceted in its attempt to increase transparency; it both makes more information available to the public and also raises the fines for public agencies that attempt to skirt regulation.  Furthermore, the bill takes steps to ensure that public information requests will be fulfilled in a timely manner.

Thus, the passage of these two significant bills can certainly be labeled as a victory for Common Cause Rhode Island, which tirelessly worked to ensure the success of the bills.  However, first and foremost, these bills represent a marked success for the people of Rhode Island. 

[hfinnie-blog]

Part of History

Today I had the unique and awe-inspiring opportunity of being present at the Supreme Court when the historic ruling on the Affordable Care Act was released.  Perhaps part of the reason I was so enthralled to be at the Supreme Court during such a momentous occasion stems from the unlikelihood of it all.

I was not planning on being at the Supreme Court.  In fact, a mere half-hour before the ruling came down, I was in the Common Cause headquarters in Washington, D.C. in our “huddle”—a daily meeting to keep everyone up-to-date on all of our campaigns and relevant news developments.  We were discussing the imminent health care ruling and its possible outcomes, when one staff member suggested offhandedly that it would have been a great experience for us, the interns, to be at the Supreme Court when the news broke.  Needing no other cue, I, along with seven other interns, rushed out of the meeting and to the nearest metro station.

When we arrived at the Supreme Court, there were scores and scores of people, all anxiously awaiting the decision.  No more than five minutes after we had zigged and zagged through the crowd to get to an open spot, cheering erupted from the front of the crowd.  From our position, it was impossible to hear any part of the actual decision.  Instead, we began to see “Healthcare for All” and other pro-universal health care signs being thrust into the air.  Soon after, many members of the Tea Party began dissenting on megaphones and microphones, encouraging the American people to take their anger out at the ballot boxes this November in the Presidential election. Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas declared that he forgave “those who expressed their ignorance” by supporting the health care law.  On the other hand, there were many shouts and cries of joy from those elated by the decision.

After a while, I went back to the Common Cause office, for there was still much work to be done.  However, as I walked back to the office, I thought about the unpredictability of working at Common Cause and just how lucky I was to be working at an office where one moment I may be working on overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, and a moment later, at the Supreme Court itself.

Originally posted here. 

[hfinnie-blog]

Forever Young: A Youthful Perspective on "Grown-Up" Human Rights Organizations

From standnow.org As I  read my Introduction to International Politics assignment on human rights, I suddenly stumbled across this thought-provoking paragraph: 

But campaigning NGOs, as distinct from those with real development programs in the field, almost have to be radical. If they stop denouncing big organizations, nobody will send them cash or quote them in the newspapers. Partly for this reason, and partly out of a likeable conviction that the status quo is never good enough, most NGOs do not have an off switch. You can do everything possible to meet them halfway, but they will still demonstrate outside your building. Of course, there will be grown-up groups like Oxfam, World Vision, or the World Wildlife Fund that may accept your olive branch. But they will be the exceptions, and they may cooperate only cautiously (Sebastian Mallaby, NGO's: Fighting Poverty, Hurting the Poor).

 The rationale behind this conclusion was further developed as the article went on to note that although human rights activists have the best intentions in mind, oftentimes their attempts are misguided and are actually detrimental to the cause for which they are fighting.  For example, many human rights activists strongly supported the Conflict Free Minerals Campaign before examining all of the possible consequences of the campaign.  Many original supporters of the campaign have now turned their backs, proclaiming that conflict-free minerals are simply leading to Congo-Free minerals, which in turn further slows development in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  This may harm the very people that advocates of the Conflict Free Minerals Campaign were trying to help.  Although a provision on conflict free minerals has already been included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, the majority of debate regarding the merits of the campaign only began after the bill was passed. Clearly, this is an important discussion which should have begun in earnest before the bill was passed.  As I continued grappling with the content of the sentence in the article, I wondered why I was initially surprised upon reading it.  Off the top of my head, I thought of countless more examples of instances where human rights activists and transnational advocacy networks had committed this unfortunate yet egregious error.  Why was I thrown off guard at the mention of a fairly common phenomenon in the world of transnational advocacy networks?

From standnow.org

After a few more minutes of contemplation, I realized that although this phenomenon of misguided activism may be prevalent in the human rights advocacy world as a whole, I have not encountered such an issue at STAND.  As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, I am the Advocacy Training Coordinator of STAND, a student anti-genocide constituency.  Although no organization is perfect, I believe STAND has taken great strides towards forming and supporting nuanced policy that purposely avoids the pitfalls of uninformed advocacy.  Perhaps it is because we are comprised solely of students and thus automatically perceived as an outsider of the “grown-up” class of human rights organizations that we are hyper aware of every action we take.  Although as a member of STAND I am most certainly biased in my opinion, I am not the only person who has noticed STAND’s high level of credibility.  Just this past week, STAND Student Director Daniel Solomon was invited to the White House to speak on a panel discussing the new Atrocities Prevention Board, which speaks highly of the credibility of STAND.  As I have become more involved with STAND and learned more about its inner workings, I have seen the high level of thoughtfulness and intention that is put into each and every action we take.  Thus, while STAND may be assumed to pursue misguided and uninformed activism because of our student-based composition, I believe that, perhaps as a result of these presumptions, we strive toward informed, nuanced activism.

Originally posted here.

[hfinnie-blog]

One Week Later: SOPA and PIPA

Web-based companies such as Google, Wikimedia, Mozilla Firefox and more recently heralded the abrupt end of SOPA and PIPA as a victory.  However, as I touched upon last week in a blog post about the importance of my generation in internet-related issues, this victory should also be attributed to the hundreds of thousands of high school and college students who voiced their opposition to SOPA and PIPA.  Over the course of one day, where thousands of calls were placed and just as many emails were sent to representatives urging their opposition to SOPA and PIPA, the number of Senators and members of the House of Representatives in support of SOPA and PIPA quickly faltered.   After the destruction of SOPA and PIPA, I witnessed many members of my generation celebrating their victory and realizing, for the first time, the power of their voices.  Regardless of the merits of SOPA and PIPA, I am thankful to see the spark that these bills created within many high school and college students.  I am hopeful that this triumph will inspire more activism and cooperative action within my generation.  I am hopeful that we will no longer be considered apathetic.  Overall, I believe that the issues raised by SOPA and PIPA were catalysts that motivated us because they dealt with issues that are important to us.  I am excited to see what we do next. 

Originally posted here. 

[hfinnie-blog]

Rallying For a Cause: My Generation’s Response to SOPA and PIPA

Recently, there has been a frenzy relating to SOPA and PIPA.  Although they have two different names, SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (the Protect IP Act) are in fact two versions of the same bill.  As the two bills began their respective travels through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, they received two different names.  Both are targeted at ending online piracy, which currently enables widespread illegal downloading in the United States.  The cause of the uproar, however, lies in the potential violation of free speech that this bill, should it pass, could cause.  Any company that is angered over illegal downloading of say, a song by a musician they represent, would be able to legally have the web site completely shut down.  In contrast, the current laws simply require that the illegal material be removed.  If the new bill were to pass, the potential for abuse of power by media conglomerates would be enormous. 

Picture from buzzbox.com

The frenzy, however, has not been solely confined to the corporate world.  Many members of my generation, a mix of college and high school students, have started taking action.  Although many of my friends support various causes, there is no one cause that my entire generation has rallied behind.  However, when I logged onto facebook yesterday, I was astounded to see that around half of my facebook “friends” had posted something relating to SOPA and PIPA.  Many participated in energetic debate evaluating the possible merits and disadvantages of the bill.  Others posted links which enabled you to contact your Representative voicing your opinion on SOPA and PIPA.  I had not seen so much unified enthusiasm within my generation for any particular issue since my high school had an unexpected snow day the previous winter.  

Many members of older generations complain that my generation is complacent.  The 1960’s was dominated by the civil rights movement, the 1970’s hosted anti-war protests, and the 1980’s was the rise of the gay rights movement.  Of course, many of these causes are still being fought today, as they should be.  Still, there are other causes that students around the nation have tirelessly supported, such as protecting the environment and human rights.  However, there has been no one movement that has caused us to come together and rally behind—until now.  Perhaps it is because we are the technology generation, and part of our identity lies within our connection to the internet.  For better or for worse, we are defined by our interdependent relationship with the web.  Our recent outcry in response to SOPA and PIPA has shown that we are not complacent or apathetic, as many members of other generations seem to believe.  Instead, we had not yet found the issue that had the ability to energize and unite us for a cause.  In SOPA and PIPA, we, the technology generation, have found our issue.

Originally posted January, 2012 here. 

[hfinnie-blog]

Lessons We Can Learn from the Tragic Execution of Troy Davis

Why did the Troy Davis case spark such vehement outrage among Americans when death row prisoners have been executed continuously for centuries in the United States?  Did Americans drastically shift ideologies or was there another underlying cause?  How can we use what we learned from the Troy Davis case to propel our efforts to abolish capital punishment?

                  Unfortunately, I do not believe Americans suddenly changed their opinions on capital punishment.  Instead, the amount of doubt surrounding the Troy Davis case, in which 9 of the original witnesses recanted their statements, caused Americans to take a closer look at the United States justice system.  Although many originally held the United States’ justice system in high esteem, possibly even as infallible, history has proved otherwise.  Countless innocent people have been executed by the state because of our justice system’s flaws, including the racism present throughout the system.  As the Troy Davis case tragically demonstrated, our justice system, specifically in relation to the death penalty, is flawed.   The unprecedented amount of media attention provided new insight for previously oblivious Americans on the injustices embedded in the death penalty.  This is what sparked outrage within the American public.  Many Americans that had supported capital punishment opposed the execution of Troy Davis.  This is not because they had an epiphany that the death penalty in and of itself was morally wrong; but rather, because they could no longer support a system that perpetuated so many injustices. 

                  This section of the American public, which became much more apparent in the aftermath of Troy Davis’s execution, is critical to abolishing the death penalty in the United States.  Changing Americans’ opinions on whether the death penalty is innately just would constitute an enormous obstacle.  A Gallup Poll conducted in 2007 found that 69% of Americans supported capital punishment.  Furthermore, the percentage of Americans that oppose the death penalty has actually declined since the Gallup Organization first measured public opinion on this issue in 1936.  (http://www.gallup.com/poll/101863/sixtynine-percent-americans-support-death-penalty.aspx)  Except for a short time in the 1960’s when the US abolished capital punishment (only to reinstate it shortly thereafter), no significant headway has been made in changing public opinion on the death penalty.  However, the Troy Davis case demonstrates an important lesson that people and organizations fighting the death penalty must learn and incorporate into their strategies in order to strengthen their efforts.  That is, while it may be a nearly impossible task to sway public opinion against capital punishment itself, it may be easier to change public opinion by highlighting the injustices the death penalty has created.  Thus, by tapping into the newly emerging portion of the United States who do not necessarily oppose capital punishment for the moral reasons behind the death penalty, but oppose it because of its injustices, we have a better chance of abolishing the death penalty permanently.

                  Therefore, I believe that the Troy Davis case sparked many supporters of capital punishment to change their minds because the case made evident the injustices within the death penalty.  Thus, a new segment of the American public emerged, one that opposes the death penalty because of the injustices the system has propagated, but not the morality of the punishment itself.  Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that anti-capital punishment activists take note of this population and use it to their advantage in their valiant efforts to abolish the death penalty.

Originally posted October, 2011 here. 

[hfinnie-blog]

Attending the End Genocide Action Summit in Washington, D.C.

Earlier this month, I was honored to attend the End Genocide Action Summit in Washington, D.C. as the Advocacy Training Coordinator for STAND, a student-led anti-genocide organization. The End Genocide Action Summit was the inaugural conference of United to End Genocide, and judging by its success, the conference will be the first of many to come. United to End Genocide is a new and flourishing organization that came to fruition upon the merger of the Save Darfur Coalition and Genocide-Intervention Network. STAND, which is the student-led division of United to End Genocide and boasts over 600 chapters worldwide, focuses not only on the wide array of current genocides, but also on genocide prevention. My involvement with STAND formally began in 2008, when I learnt of the chapter at my high school and joined. However, the mission and importance of STAND has been ingrained within me ever since seventh grade, when I decided to interview my Grandma for a history project. While I was aware that the many of my extended maternal relatives were holocaust survivors, I never really knew their stories and struggles. Interviewing my own Grandmother on such a sensitive subject matter was difficult, to say the least. Then, in my very last question, I asked my Grandma if she forgave the Nazis, the perpetrators of the atrocities she had suffered through for years on end and that continued to haunt her for years to come. Expecting her to immediately dismiss my question, I was astounded when my Grandma answered with a strong and definitive “yes.” My Grandmother’s innate strength to forgive the perpetrators of such heinous crimes serves as daily inspiration and is enough to convince me that, as a human race, we can come together to permanently end genocide. With that one interview, the spark within me had been ignited. Thus, when I stumbled across STAND a few years later, joining the organization was an easy and natural step. In high school, I dedicated much of my time and energy to STAND, bringing speakers to campus, organizing various fundraisers, and raising awareness of genocide on campus. Furthermore, when the opportunity to become more involved in STAND arose near the end of my high school career, I eagerly jumped at the chance. Today, as Advocacy Training Coordinator for the national STAND organization, I help coordinate and execute STAND’s many advocacy efforts. So, what about this conference? In short, it was inspiring. Meeting with activists around the world that share my passion for genocide prevention only built upon my own passion for the cause. Instead of my typical college weekend catching up on sleep, I stayed up until the wee hours of the morning discussing the current situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burma. Instead of learning about advocacy in my political science class, I witnessed the true meaning of advocacy when STAND constituents met with over one third of the Senate on a single day to make their voices heard. Instead of learning about past genocides and the words of “Never again,” I learned about what anti-genocide activists are doing right now to make those words a reality.

Thus, I am forever grateful for the enduring and inspiring efforts of STAND in the crucial, and often frustrating, fight against genocide. Furthermore, I am indebted to the members of STAND, students from across the globe, who continually reignite the spark within me to carry on my own anti-genocide efforts as a student at Emory University. In the upcoming weeks and months, I hope to revitalize Emory University’s commitment to building a better world by introducing the Conflict Free Campus Initiative.

Originally posted November, 2011 here and here.