This month, members of Congress have introduced an amendment to the Constitution to reverse a recent ruling by the Supreme Court to allow Congress to regulate corporation engaged in political speech. Constitutional reform is no simple task. However, if we are finally ready to amend the Constitution to achieve political reform, why not make some real changes to our system? The proposed amendment would do little but return us to the status quo before the decision in Citizens United which (in case you have a short memory) was hardly a period of celebrated good government. To paraphrase the Beatles’ song, if “you say you want a revolution,” this is not it but there is a way.
Before we can change the system, we have to change our attitude passivity and collectively declare “enough.” While our leaders control the political branches, they do not control the political process itself. That is controlled by the Constitution, which remains in control of the people, in our control. It is not too much speech or too much money that is draining the life from this Republic. It is a lack of faith in ourselves to force change without the approval or support of our leaders. If we are going to go through the constitutional amendment process, then let’s make it worth our while and achieve real political change in this country.
Below is today’s column on fundamental reforms that could change not just Congress but our political system. I discussed the column on this segment on National Public Radio.
Real political reform should go beyond campaign finance
For decades, political reform in the United States has largely meant campaign finance reform. It is a focus the political mainstream prefers, despite the fact that it is akin to addressing an engine with a design defect by regulating the fuel.
Many of our current problems are either caused or magnified by the stranglehold the two parties have on our political system. Democrats and Republicans, despite their uniformly low popularity with voters, continue to exercise a virtual monopoly, and they have no intention of relinquishing control. The result is that “change” is often limited to one party handing power over to the other party. Like Henry Ford’s customers, who were promised any color car so long as it was black, voters are effectively allowed to pick any candidate they want, so long as he or she is a Democrat or Republican.
Both parties (and the media) reinforce this pathetic notion by continually emphasizing the blue state/red state divide. The fact is that the placement of members on the blue or red team is often arbitrary, with neither side showing consistent principles or values.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down restrictions on corporate campaign giving has prompted some members of Congress to call for a constitutional amendment to reinstate the restrictions. But that would merely return us to the same status (and corrupted process) of a month ago.
We can reform our flawed system, but we have to think more broadly about the current political failure. Here are a few ideas for change that would matter:
Remove barriers to third parties. Independent and third-party candidates currently face an array of barriers, including registration rules and petition requirements, that should be removed. Moreover, we should require a federally funded electronic forum for qualified federal candidates to post their positions and material for voters. And in races for national office, all candidates on the ballot in the general election should submit to a minimum of three (for Congress) or five (for the presidency) debates that would be funded and made publicly available by the government.
End the practice of gerrymandering. We need a constitutional amendment requiring uniformity in districts to end gerrymandering, in which politicians distort the shape of districts to link pockets of Democratic or Republican voters. Districts should have geographic continuity, and should be established by a standard formula applied by an independent federal agency.
Change the primary system. The principal reason incumbents are returned to power is that voters have little choice in the general election. Incumbents tend to control their primaries, and in many districts electing the candidate of the opposing party is not an option. Under one alternative system that could be mandated in a constitutional amendment for all states, the two top vote-getters would go into the general election regardless of their party. If both of the top candidates are Republican or Democratic, so be it. All primaries would be open to allow voters to cast their ballots for any candidate appearing in the primary.
Abolish the electoral college. The college’s current role in our system is uniformly negative and dysfunctional. It allows someone to be elected president even if his or her opponent gets more popular votes, as happened with George W. Bush in the 2000 election. This leads to serious questions of legitimacy. More important, it helps the two parties control entire states, because in states that are solidly red or blue, the opposing parties and candidates rarely invest much time or money campaigning given that they are clearly not going to get the electoral votes in the end. If there were direct voting for presidents, candidates would have good reason to campaign hard to grab pockets of, say, Democrats in Salt Lake City or Republicans in downstate New York.
Require a majority for presidents to be elected. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there should be a runoff of the two top vote-getters — as is the custom in most other nations. This would tend to force candidates to reach out to third parties and break up monopoly control of the two parties.
It is unlikely that members of Congress would implement such sweeping changes. But Article V of the Constitution allows citizens to circumvent Congress and call for their own convention “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states.” To be successful, a convention would have to be limited to addressing political reforms and not get sidetracked by divisive issues such as same-sex marriage or abortion. Individual states could also lead the way in enacting some of these reforms, such as requiring electoral votes to be divided among candidates according to the popular vote.
The current anger and outcry will mean nothing unless we can harness and channel it toward serious reform. Simply seeking a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform would do little to truly reform the system. Though it may require a third party to seek such changes, it can be done. We have to accept that the leaders of both parties are unlikely to solve this problem. They are much of the problem. The framers gave us the tools to achieve real change in our system.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University.
L.A. Times: February 11, 2010
Great article, Mr. Turley. I would also add “end corporate personhood.”
The tea party has decided to stay with the republican party so that third party is not happening. The democrats had a fairly wide field of candidates in the 2004 and 2008 caucuses and primaries. It is just that the candidates on the left are not able to garner much support.
“Allowing for a third party makes it easier to have a fourth, fifth and thirtieth party each concerned with their own parochial issues making legislation harder to pass rather than easier due to ever shifting coalitions.”
RCampbell,
Would you think about the problem the two party system causes by making parties into unwieldy coalitions of people whose beliefs are often antithetical and in doing so the voters ultimately become even more confused about what they’re voting for?
Vince,
That “better people” by necessity must include better people to choose from at election time, not just the spoon fed corporatist criminals we have to choose from now. Bad actors have subverted the selection system, Vince. Garbage in, garbage out. You cannot have better choices without a better candidate selection system. That means disabling the two party grip to start.
“And we can’t get better representation without better representatives.”
We can’t get better representatives without better people.
“Well, here is something to think about. THE LEADERS OF THE PARTIES ARE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. The people have elected the leaders that they want. If they wanted other leaders, they would elect them, but they it appears that they haven’t. Incumbency is no protection – the incumbents have been dropping like flies for years. The problem is that their replacements go right on representing the views of the people.”
Vince,
I agree with much of what you’ve said, however, I have only one issue with this statement. When your choices are limited to “criminal” and “spineless”, an election is a question that is answered by the maxim a distinction without difference is no difference. I submit there is a chicken and egg issue with your statement. We can’t elect better officials if our hands are tied by the current lot, locking us into a choice between dumb and dumber. And we can’t get better representation without better representatives.
Vicious? Meet Circle.
The trouble is getting those politicians with the power to give it up — that is, convene this convention. Don’t expect them to do this without massive popular outcry.
It is a pretty empty list of reforms, Professor, since it ignores two of the real, immediate problems of lack of democratic representation in our government — denial of representation in the national government to the territories and to the District of Columbia.
The Declaration of Independence set the founding principle that a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
Long after the rest of the world has abandoned colonialism, the US operates the last and largest remaining colonial empire, with millions — not thousands, but millions — of persons in Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and the Pacific possessions completely unrepresented in the governing national legislature. Yet there is not one word in the column about representation for the unrepresented, even though the republic was founded on the principle of representative government.
The other listed reforms might be nice, but I doubt if they will solve any major problems. I have seen too many nice ideas, like term limits, sunshine laws, sunset laws, zero-based budgeting, and a million others, that were supposed to “solve” the problems of democracy. One hundred years ago, the Progressives thought that referendums, initiatives, recalls, and primary elections would solve all the problems. They have all come and gone. The column actually blames our problems in part on primary elections.
And are third parties going to solve all our problems? Ha! Does anyone remember Ross Perot or Ralph Nader?
Once again, the column seems to blame this all on the so-called “leaders”: “It is unlikely that members of Congress would implement such sweeping changes. But Article V of the Constitution allows citizens to circumvent Congress and call for their own convention “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states.”
Again, this dream of the “citizens” taking over from the members is a very pleasant fantasy, but it ignores reality. Any and all proposals in a new Constitutional Convention STILL HAVE TO BE RATIFIED BY THREE-QUARTERS OF THE STATES. So the 13 smallest states, with maybe a tenth of the population, would have a veto power on any proposed reforms. Anything – and I mean anything – that they dislike for any reason would go down the drain. For example, the tiniest states will never consent to additional representation in Congress for DC or the territories because they think it would reduce their power.
For the same reason, there will NEVER be meaningful reform of the Electoral College as long as it triples the electoral power of the 13 smallest states. They have a stranglehold, and they like it. The largest states have always fought back against this imbalance with their winner-take-all rules. The people of the largest states are unlikely to make any change to their own detriment as long as the smallest states cling to their power. Put the blame on the failure of EC change where it belongs
Finally, the column concludes that “the leaders of both parties are unlikely to solve this problem. They are much of the problem.”
Well, here is something to think about. THE LEADERS OF THE PARTIES ARE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. The people have elected the leaders that they want. If they wanted other leaders, they would elect them, but they it appears that they haven’t. Incumbency is no protection – the incumbents have been dropping like flies for years. The problem is that their replacements go right on representing the views of the people.
So stop blaming nameless leaders, politicians, Members of Congress and other powers that be.
We have met the problem, and it is us.
We could start with a free press that does not cower to the scaremongering of the elite military rulers.
Get rid of the centralization and monopoly of the fee press which has replaced the free press.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/02/free-press-is-very-far-from-here.html
“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said.
Therein lies the problem. One cannot be cozy with the criminals, Barry. And everyone knows the difference between “savvy” and “criminal”. Except you apparently. Holding Wall Street’s venal hand and protecting them, just like you have done with the Bush Administration’s treasonous war criminals, isn’t just the appearance of impropriety, sport. Pardon me, President Sport.
It’s collusion and aiding and abetting after the fact.
I’m perfectly content to let you stand trial next to them, you unconstitutional jackass.
Stick that in your signing statement and smoke it.
Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.
The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”
“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKGZkktzkAlA
but steal directly from tax payers and get a new job and a $17 million bonus?
AY,
Other than that sounding like any speech by any current R or D pol (Mr. Kucinich excluded), I’m not sure how this works in the context of this column.
Buddha,
This is for you to use as you please.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jklTFhnf7ts&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Oh yeah.
That’s what I’m taking about!
And may I add a “Woo hoo!”?
There is one small item I would add to this list: Criminal Law Reform. I know, I know, first things first but this little bit I feel is an important follow through.
We need prison sentences for white collar and political criminals at least as severe as the sentences for any other kind of crime. Kill one with a gun and go to prison, kill thousands with a pen and go free? I. Don’t. Think so. Steal a loaf of bread and it’s jail for you, but steal directly from tax payers and get a new job and a $17 million bonus? That should happen when pigs fly . . . the space shuttle. If I bribe a judge, I go to jail, but if a lobbyist bribes a politician, it’s not graft – it’s a “campaign contribution”? Yeah. Pull the other one.
Keep on keeping on that path and the clowns in Washington still eventually end up getting the “Antoinette” treatment for their greed and myopic stupidity. A two-tiered legal system and a disconnect between the governed and the governors was the direct cause of the French Revolution.
And history repeats.
What we need is justice. No justice, no peace. Know justice, know peace. It’s cheesy but it’s true.
People like Cheney and Thain should be sharing a cell with an arsonist and a rapist for a long, long time and their assets seized as reparations. A child knows this is fair.
It’s not enough to simply reform at this point. We need reformation with teeth as to discourage this kind of sociopathic and psychopathic behavior from happening again.
We need checks and balances. We need punishments that fit the crimes.
While we are at it, there does not need to be any kind of private prisons in this country. Period. Prisons for profit are how you get assholes like “Judge” Ciavarella and “Judge” Conahan sending kids to prison without a fair trial all so they could take $2.8 million in bribes from the prison’s “owners” i.e. officers acting on shareholder’s behalf to inflate their numbers for “The Street”.
We also need to make sure the right crimes are being punished.
A monster walking free like Cheney is an affront to both justice and common sense when snow ball throwers are given felony treatment. We don’t need a war on drugs (which is a miserable failure by treating a health care issue as a crime). We don’t need a “war on terror” as it’s impossible to declare war on a noun. A war against those who actually attacked us like “Our Ally/Bush’s Buddies” Saudi Arabia? Well that’s another topic (file under “Just War”). But as to the “wars” our government declares on citizens like the idiotic drug war (prohibition taught Washington one lesson: illegal means excessive profits – greedy bastards), that’s just bad focus on the problems facing society. And it’s bad focus on purpose to allow for that most wonderful of human traits to screw up the planet for all of us: simple stupid greed.
We need a war on corruption if we need a “war” at all.
This is an excellent list and an excellent place to start. But make no mistake – it is a start, not the end of the journey.
I woke up this morning and now this?
I think that the office holder should not be able to have the distinction on the ballot as an incumbent. This gives a distinct advantage.
*End the practice of gerrymandering: Great idea
*Remove barriers to third parties: I am not an enthusiastic supporter of making it easier to have a third party. Allowing for a third party makes it easier to have a fourth, fifth and thirtieth party each concerned with their own parochial issues making legislation harder to pass rather than easier due to ever shifting coalitions.
People start talking about third parties when they feel their representatives don’t hear them. I maintain its a too-much-money-in-politics issue. I believe the problem of tone deaf legislators is that they’re far more responsive to who gives them the most money than to their actual constituents. Money is at the heart of the problem and the SCOTUS’s Citizens United finding made it worse.
*Change the primary system: I see this going directly back again to the too-much-money-in-politics issue. Incumbents have more money available from parties and special interest contributors. The solution here is tax-funded campaigns. Politicians, particularly House members, only spend about their first twenty minutes in office doing their job before they hit the campaign financing trail again.
* Abolish the electoral college: Though I hated the outcome of the 2000 election, I see the Supreme Court as the culprit rather than the Electoral College. Doesn’t the College give weight to the votes in say, Wyoming, that would otherwise be overwhelmed by the results in Chicago or LA or NYC? The large population areas would control elections and although that might seem to favor us liberals, it doesn’t seem fair. The thought process of the Founders in setting up the Electoral College seems consistant with the establishment of the Senate, with equal representaion for each state versus population-related House seats.
* Require a majority for presidents to be elected: This is expensive and cumbersome. It is only an issue if there are more than two parties and illustrates another reason to not go down that road. The simpler solution is to ban all contributions and use exclusively federal funds. This forces candidates to respond to issues rather than to special interests. For every $1 dollar per citizen set aside (taxed?) for campaigns equal $350 million. Shouldn’t a candidate be able to run a campaign for less than $350 million? From that starting point we can decide which offices get how much funding.
Of the five elections changes proposed above, I believe going to tax funded federal campaigns could positvely impact three of them.
“Making no secret of thier views, the corporate folk admitted their anxieties identified their enemies, and revealed their aims. In 1975 the Trilateral Commission-which included prominent members of the political elite, both Republican and Democratic, along with similar figures from Western Europe and Japan-released a report on the “governability” of the Western nations titled The Crisis of Democracy. Observing that “the 1960s witnessed a dramamtic renewal of the democratic spirit in America,” Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington contended that the heightened activism of public interest groups, minorities, women, students and “value-oriented intellectuals,” together with the “marked expansion of white-collar unionism,” had produced a “democratic distemper.” And postulating that a “democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement, on the part of some individuals and groups,” he warned that “some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from and excess of democracy.”
From Thomas Paine and the Promise of America-Harvey Kaye
“End the practice of gerrymandering. We need a constitutional amendment requiring uniformity in districts to end gerrymandering, in which politicians distort the shape of districts to link pockets of Democratic or Republican voters. Districts should have geographic continuity, and should be established by a standard formula applied by an independent federal agency.”
That would be one tremendous step.