Rebuild the Dream (26 page)

For decades, lobbyists played defense, protesting proposed legislation that would restrict or cost their corporations. But since the end of the 1990s, they've become increasingly engaged in offensive maneuvers as well, actively pushing corporate-friendly tax breaks and looser regulations.

Access to lawmakers is critical; therefore, former federal employees with connections inside Washington are indispensible
to lobbying firms. Through the “revolving door,” these former public servants lobby the very individuals who were once their coworkers and supervisors. For this work they are richly rewarded. In September 2010, as the outcomes of the approaching elections leaned toward the Republicans, the going rate for well-connected Republicans started at salaries of $300,000, up to $1 million for positions in the private sector.

Proposed solutions to limiting lobbyists are the following:

• Extend the current one-year moratorium on former Congress members lobbying other members of Congress to a full five years. Apply the same rule to federal appointees.

• Prohibit congressional staffers from lobbying Congress for two years after they leave the service of a congressional office.

• Ban the acceptance of all gifts, services, money, or things of value to any elected or appointed official from any entity that the official is charged with regulating.

More than 90 percent of the time, the candidate who spent the most money on her or his campaign winds up the winner. Without significant funding, even a good candidate has no chance. As a consequence, she or he spends a great deal of time fund-raising, leaving less time for the business of governance, legislation, and hearing from constituents. Nate Thames of ActBlue notes that incumbents in the House need to raise roughly $10,000 each week, beginning on the day they are elected, which translates to more than ten hours of time per week on the phone, calling donors. An even bigger problem is that the majority of our elected officials have morphed into the mouthpieces of their largest donors—corporations as well as unions and wealthy individuals.

And for every restriction that's been placed on campaign financing, loopholes let the worst practices sneak back in. State governments have been experimenting with various ways to reform campaign financing, which provide some models worth considering at the national level, including requiring disclosure of contributors, caps on spending and contributions, and, most important, public financing.

In its simplest form, public financing of political campaigns consists of providing “qualified” candidates with public funds to conduct their campaigns. To qualify, a candidate must show broad public support by collecting a certain number of small donations from individuals. The idea is to provide candidates with the means necessary to pay for campaign activity while easing their fund-raising frenzy and lessening the perception that politicians are granting private favors in exchange for their campaign funds. Public dollars give candidates a base of financial support, without forcing them to attract support from corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

The leading bill in Congress, in early 2012, to advance public financing of elections is the Fair Elections Now Act, which would permit participating candidates to raise a large number of small contributions ($100 or less) from their communities to qualify for Fair Elections funding (fifteen hundred contributions, totaling $50,000 for the House of Representatives). Qualified candidates for the House would receive $900,000 in public funds, 60 percent of which would be for the general election. Additionally, donations of $100 or less from in-state contributors would be matched by $5 from the Fair Elections Fund for every dollar raised. The Fair Elections Now Act made substantial advances in the last Congress. It was voted out of the House Administration Committee, obtaining 165 cosponsors in the House and fourteen cosponsors in the Senate.

Getting big money out of politics is the closest thing to a silver bullet for changing the Inside Game and getting it to work for the 99%. But it isn't the only type of reform that we can make to ensure a more democratic government.

On January 21, 2009, newly elected President Obama signed the “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Transparency and Open Government.” In the memo, President Obama called for an unprecedented level of openness in government, asking agencies to “ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.” He entrusted the newly created position of Chief Technology Officer with coordinating with the heads of executive departments and agencies in order to achieve these goals.

It was a good faith effort. E-government and e-democracy are just getting going, but the use of information technology and social networks offers great promise, in the interests of citizens and politicians alike. It allows citizens to become more knowledgeable about government and political issues, and to communicate directly with elected officials. It also helps voters to decide who gets their vote in the next elections. Interactive surveys allow politicians to see—almost instantaneously—how the people they represent
feel about a given issue. The posting of agendas, contact information, proposed legislation, and policies makes government more transparent, which enables more informed participation both online and offline. As just one example, Rhode Island's former treasurer Frank Caprio tweets the state's cash flow daily.

The nonprofit Code for America connects Web and tech geeks with civic leaders and city experts. The aim is to help governments become more connected, lean, and participatory. As two examples of CfA's work, the Brigade helps local, community groups reuse civic software, while Open211 is an application that provides a crowd-sourced directory of social service providers. This enterprise is helping regular people get and use information about the public sector—to improve their own lives and strengthen democracy.

Increased transparency and accountability have become more important as investigative journalism disappears, which is another casualty of media consolidation and falling advertising revenue.

The filibuster was originally conceived of as a tool to be used in extraordinary circumstances; it would allow debate to continue and a vote to be delayed. In 2011, according to Common Cause president Bob Edgar, the use of or threat of the filibuster, in which Senate Republicans delayed voting, affected 70 percent of legislation. Under Obama, the Republicans have taken obstructionism to record levels. The modern filibuster ensures that any piece of meaningful legislation requires a sixty-vote supermajority in the Senate, and with sixty Senate votes required to pass any piece of legislation, it is a wonder we pass any laws at all. There have been numerous attempts to reform the filibuster since 1917, and there is a general consensus among many lawmakers that the technique is
being abused. One of the obstacles to reform is that many Americans simply don't know what the filibuster is, don't understand its history, and thus don't advocate on behalf of reform. A large public outcry for filibuster reform might go a long way toward seeing it across the finish line.

Possible solutions abound. Former vice president Walter Mondale made the case for reform in a January 1, 2012,
New York Times
essay that was entitled “Resolved: Fix The Filibuster.” He wrote: “Reducing the number of votes to end a filibuster, perhaps to 55, is one option. Requiring a filibustering senator to actually speak on the Senate floor for the duration of a filibuster would also help. So, too, would reforms that bring greater transparency—like eliminating the secret ‘holds' that allow senators to block debate anonymously.”

If we want democracy done right, these above five steps are important starting points.

Let's face it. None of the previously mentioned reforms will pass without a massive sea change in the mindset of elected officials. The establishment started taking the Tea Partiers seriously when Tea Partiers developed the capacity to successfully challenge Republicans whom they considered weak on key issues. The 99% will be taken more seriously when it does the same thing, by developing the capacity to successfully challenge office holders and elect those who share the movement's agenda.

The 99% movement need not limit itself to supporting Obama's reelection, or focusing only on Congressional races, nor should it confine itself to the Democratic Party. There are tens of thousands of elected offices that are available every election season
at the state, tribal, and local levels. Many of these are nonpartisan races, so those in the 99% who equally dislike the Democrats or Republicans can run easily.

My group, Rebuild the Dream, is working with organizations such as Progressive Majority, New Organizing Institute, the Working Families Party, and the Campaign for America's Future to recruit thousands of such candidates for races up and down the ballot in 2012. We will find even more for 2014 and 2016.

The key is that the candidates be seen as running to advance signature issues, for example: taxing the wealthy, getting money out of politics, or fighting the banks in the name of their economic casualties (for example, Millennials stuck with big student loans or homeowners who have underwater mortgages). At the same time, leading activist Deepak Bhargava's organization, the Campaign for Community Change, will be promoting local ballot measures that support good jobs and fair taxes.

This is not to say that national elections are not important. But given the state of disillusionment with national politics and politicians, good candidates running for national office will benefit most if there are grassroots candidates and ballot measures that are pulling people to the polls. Besides, it is easier for the movement to help and hold accountable, elected officials who come from within its ranks and who are serving close to home.

Today, the major political parties function like Coca-Cola and Pepsi—two corporate brands that are owned and controlled by moneyed interests. A regular person might have a consumer preference for one or the other, but few have any influence over the
decision-making process of either corporation, let alone a real ownership stake in those companies.

The Tea Party movement has achieved something remarkable in its relationship with the Republican Party. Right-wing populists have essentially created a third party that functions inside and outside of the GOP.

The people we now call Tea Partiers learned the hard lessons from the Ross Perot days in the 1990s. Back then they bolted from the Republicans to give their votes to Perot's Reform Party. They succeeded only in hurting George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, thereby helping to elect Bill Clinton twice. Then they went back inside the GOP, to grumble, grouse, and chafe during the tenure of Bush-Cheney; small-government libertarians consider neoconservatives like Cheney to be “big government” conservatives. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too, voting for their principles, without helping Democrats. The Tea Party movement has allowed them do so. Tea Partiers have all of the benefits of having their own quasi-party; they are able to develop their own policy programs, and campaign for like-minded people during the primaries. But during the general election, they don't have to play the role of spoiler.

This innovation has thrown the entire political process out of kilter, since the Democrats have no such offspring group anchoring them to a set of ideas, values, and principles. Both political parties—Republicans and Democrats—have been pulled sharply to the right by the presence and savvy of the Tea Party movement.

Those close to the Democratic Party have yet to create anything similar to a Tea Party. Progressives are still reeling from 2000, when disillusioned liberals voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore. Though there were multiple factors that resulted in George W. Bush being selected by the Supreme Court to become president,
many on the left came to the conclusion that third-party politics can lead only to heartbreak.

Perhaps they are right. But the 99% can steal a page from the Tea Party movement. By mounting primary election challenges to officeholders who are beholden to the worst of the 1%, the new movement can provide a counterbalance to corporate domination. The key is to find authentic candidates who want to run based on issues, not build an apparatus around personalities or party loyalties.

The 99% need not pursue this strategy inside the Democratic Party only; there could be circumstances under which it might make sense to mount primary challenges in the Republican Party, the Green Party, or other parties. The Working Families Party, in particular, has developed an intriguing model that lets it act as a principled third party, without becoming a spoiler. The WFP might become a logical electoral home for much of the 99% energy. The challenge will be to see whether some part of the 99% can capture a beachhead within an established party—without being captured itself. If it can succeed, the 99% movement will have the standing and the power to force the U.S. political system to be more responsive to the needs of everyday Americans.