From the Executive Director
By Michael Waldman – 06/20/08
An edited version of this posting appeared as a guest post on the Anderson Cooper 360 blog June 20.
Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public funding for the general election is not a surprise. It was so well telegraphed, he should take out a patent.
The presidential public funding system worked well for three decades after it was enacted in the early 1970s. It leveled the playing field, boosted competition and reduced corruption. Think of it this way: in the first five elections under presidential public funding, a challenger beat an incumbent president three times. There's no congressional district in America with that much competition!
But the presidential system needs repair, for reasons among those prompting Obama to turn away the federal funds. Principally, candidates simply don't get enough money to mount a fully strong race in a modern election. The amount, when it was set, was about two thirds of the amount spent by the McGovern campaign of 1972—in other words, two thirds of the least successful presidential campaign in modern history!
The real question is what will Barack Obama—or John McCain—do to reform the system when one of them takes office?
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Contribution Limits, Other Reforms, Disclosure, Public Financing
By Michael Waldman – 05/23/08
I just sat through a nail-biting, emotionally exhausting
two hour TV movie. The opening ten minutes were especially
nerve-wracking. The film begins with elderly Floridians squinting at
their butterfly ballots, then stabbing at the ballots, scary music playing,
over and over, voting by accident for Pat Buchanan. Think of the shower
scene in "Psycho" with your grandmother instead of Janet Leigh. Even more
exciting: would the panting, lurching advance man catch up with Al Gore before
he walked onstage to concede?
Maybe not everybody would find this as thrilling. But
Recount,which airs on HBO this Sunday, is one of the
better political movies I've ever seen. It "gets" the motives and methods
of political players better than anything in years. More relevant to the
work of the Brennan
Center, it brings to life
the ways our elections can go wrong, and the rickety and often corrupt
machinery by which we still cast and count votes.
(Full disclosure: I am an old colleague and friend of Ron
Klain, the protagonist; I see GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg at the beach many summers;
and I go duck hunting with James Baker every year. Well, that part isn't
true. But like anyone involved in politics, back then I had a rooting interest
in the outcome of the recount.)
The narrative crackles and does a good job portraying the
legal machinations that led to the Supreme Court's 5–4 intervention to stop the
counting, thus making George W. Bush President. It's all here, from the
"Brooks Brothers riot" in which Republican congressional staffers shut down the
counting in Miami,
to the frenzied efforts to read and understand the Supreme Court opinion that
announced its reasoning only applied to this case. The acting is
terrific, and the dialogue is sharp and as profane as real life politics (and
HBO).
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Voter Lists and Databases, Voter Purges and Challenges, Voting Technology
By Michael Waldman – 04/30/08
The Supreme Court issued a ruling in the most important voting case since Bush v. Gore. In Crawford v. Marion County, the Justices upheld Indiana's law requiring a government-issued photo ID as a condition of voting. (The Brennan Center coordinated the amicus briefs in opposition to the law.)
We're analyzing the decision and the road ahead, but here are a few things we know. The Court accepted our argument that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Unfortunately, the Justices ruled that even though the Indiana law could disenfranchise real voters ... and even though there was no proof of voter fraud in the state ... the plaintiffs had not proven that Indiana violated the Constitution by imposing these rules. It left open the door for further challenges to laws where plaintiffs could prove injury.
What will this all mean?
First, we do expect that there will be a major push in state legislatures and Congress to pass very restrictive voter ID laws, this year or next. Whatever the merits or demerits of voter ID in theory, these proposals invariably are crafted to impact the poor, minorities, the elderly and others who simply lack the required photo ID. We are working with advocates to make sure they have our research on the impact of ID proposals.
Second, we are moving to strike down other barriers to voting and fair elections. Coincidentally, the day after the Crawford opinion came down, we filed a we filed a federal lawsuit to strike down Florida's restrictions on voter registration groups. (The suit was filed on behalf of the Florida League of Women Voters.) The restrictions are so severe the League—hardly a radical fringe group!—has been forced to shut down its registration activities. Our board chair, James Johnson, is co-counseling the case with us.
Ultimately, it would be a huge missed opportunity to simply focus on stopping bad laws. We see a thrilling surge of citizen engagement and participation in this election. This should be the time to craft new voter registration laws to make sure that every citizen who wants to vote, can vote. In the coming weeks we will be putting forward a draft proposal for universal voter registration, including Election Day Registration, for Congress and others to consider.
We're eager to hear your thoughts, so please let us know if we can answer any questions on these or other issues.
Best regards,
Michael Waldman
Executive Director
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter ID
By Michael Waldman – 03/12/08
After Spitzer; NY Reform, Take Two
By Michael Waldman – 03/12/08
The painful personal tragedy involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal is
obvious, and for other forums. In the storm of frenzied tabloid
attention, I hope we don't lose sight of the opportunity that has been
lost for New York—and one that might be gained.
Albany is notoriously broken. When the Brennan Center looked at the
legislative process in 2004, we deemed the legislature the nation's
"most dysfunctional." In 2006 we checked again and found little
progress. Our report on New York's campaign finance laws was entitled
"Paper Thin." Trial court judges are chosen by a corrupt system struck
down as unconstitutional after a two week trial, but eventually
resuscitated by the Supreme Court. Still, one Justice called the system
a "stupid law."
Eliot Spitzer vowed to change all that, and he did try to do just
that. I saw it with my own eyes. He earnestly pushed for campaign
reform, for example, and would not sign the pay raise lawmakers craved
until they passed some modest contribution limits. The Brennan Center
hosted him to speak to a private meeting of business and civic leaders
last spring. He was compelling and convincing. He proposed strong
redistricting reform and opposed the status quo on judicial selection.
As we know, little came of this reform push even before this week.
Relations between the governor and the legislature soured. The joke
was, "It used to be that decisions were made by three men in a room.
Now you can't get them in a room." Spitzer's progress was hindered, in
fact, by the reliance on that very closed system. Negotiations were
inevitably conducted in private, without much chance to build public
support. As a result, little public outcry occurred. By year's end,
reform energy had been well and thoroughly drained. Reformers were
reduced to waiting for the long expected but never quite materialized
Democratic takeover of the State Senate. The Spitzer era ends with
Albany and New York politics essentially unchanged. The power brokers
must be laughing.
There is a chance, though, for a new start. David Paterson comes
from a special place: he was the leader of the minority in the state
senate. The Senate Democrats were always the most enthusiastic for
rules reform of any faction in state government. Paterson is now in a
position to make progress, using his far smoother legislative
relationships. But only if he steps up to the task. He should resist
the temptation not to make waves. Sure, he has to consolidate his
power. But he must also consciously don the mantle of reform agent, and
show that his smooth style will work better than the steamroller.
Everything didn't change on Day One—it never could. But Day One of the
Paterson governorship is approaching. We hope it will be the beginning
of a new, true, reform era. Day One, Take Two?
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform
By Michael Waldman – 02/19/08
As this riveting campaign unfolds, we can easily miss a startling fact: the President of the United States who follows George W. Bush will be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. Two liberal (oops, progressive) Democrats or the Republican most willing to stand up to Bush over the first six years of his presidency. To use the word of the moment, that is change. And because of a little-noticed electoral fact, more change may be on the way.
The candidates this fall will be competing to win an electoral bloc that has been the invisible force determining many recent elections. The reform-minded voters who backed Ross Perot in 1992 will once again be the "jump ball" for this election. Call them, to paraphrase our outgoing chief executive, "The Deciders."
The cantankerous energy of the Perot vote may seem distant today, but I remember it vividly. I stood a few yards away from the stage in Little Rock, Arkansas on Election Night, 1992. That night, speaking to 30,000 screaming supporters, president elect Bill Clinton took note of the day's biggest surprise. Ross Perot had received 19 percent of the vote, after it was clear he was flakier than a fresh croissant. Clinton told Perot's voters he heard them, and pledged political reform as an early priority.
Perot is often remembered today as a funny looking little man vowing to "get under the hood" of a broken system. He lent himself easily to Dana Carvey's mimicry, as when he declared that George H.W. Bush had tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding. In fact, Perot waged a sharply substantive campaign. Perot vowed to clean Washington of "foreign lobbyists." He spoke of campaign finance reform. He talked about the ballooning budget deficit—not so much as a matter of economics, but as a metaphor for how government had gotten out of control. And he assailed the pending NAFTA trade agreement. Perot's supporters were overwhelmingly Republicans ready to break with the GOP.
In fact, that's how political change usually happens in America. A part of the governing coalition breaks off. The disaffected bloc backs a third party bid. One of the major parties wins by absorbing the independent force to form a new majority. That's what happened with the Whigs and the Republicans in the 1850s. FDR's Democrats absorbed the third party Progressives of the 1920s, who had been disaffected Republicans. (Harold Ickes, for example, was a Republican before he became FDR's long serving cabinet secretary. His son is a top Clinton strategist.) Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy worked successfully to absorb the George Wallace voters of 1968 into a new Republican majority. Following the pattern, Ross Perot was a disaffected Republican—and his voters were ripe for the plucking after 1992.
Instead, the Democrats failed to win them over. In Clinton's first years, reform didn't happen. Campaign finance and lobbying changes never passed. Deficit reduction took so much political capital that it wound up looking half-hearted. And on trade, Clinton simply disagreed with Perot, passing NAFTA and other deals. The Perot vote, in short, wasn't courted. (I remember urging political reform to a senior official. "What about Perot?" I implored. "Let's hope he runs," came the reply.)
The result: Perot voters switched to the GOP in 1994, giving them the Congress. The bloc swung back to Clinton in 1996. It split in 2000; moved strongly for Bush in 2002 and 2004; and repudiated the Republicans in 2006. Once again these less partisan, change-oriented, often angry voters are in play. Recently I asked one of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's top strategists how much overlap there was between the Perot vote and a potential base for an independent Bloomberg candidacy. "Eighty-five percent," came the answer.
How can candidates today appeal to the "radical center"? Some issues remain from 1992, and some are new. Public financing of campaigns is still a top priority. (Let's hope that's not still true when Chelsea Clinton is old enough to run for President.) Today it's plain that the voting system glaringly needs repair too. A swirl of other issues may appeal to these voters—ranging from immigration reform (the proxy for free-floating anxiety) and anti-free-trade sentiment to new concerns about a resurgent Imperial Presidency.
Especially intriguing, each candidate today has some claim on the political change vote. McCain sponsored the bipartisan campaign finance bill that became law in 2002. Obama was a key sponsor of ethics reform. Hillary Clinton introduced omnibus election reform that is the best single bill on voting. Neither party seems content to simply turn out its own base, as Karl Rove did so effectively for the Republicans over the past eight years. The early skirmish between McCain and Obama on whether they will participate in the presidential public funding system is a telling sign that the independent-minded voters are already "in play."
There are many good reasons to hope these candidates speak to the need for repair of our democratic systems. It's the right thing to do, for one. Moreover, democracy reforms are the only way that profound policy change will be possible after Election Day. All true. But something far more basic is at work: A bid for the mantle of political reform isn't just high mindedness, it's raw political self-interest. And that's good for the country.
> More posts from the Michael Waldman can be found on his bio page.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Public Financing
11 comments | Permalink