Opinion: Power to the people`s republic


The July 5 New York Times science section ran a fascinating article called, “Thirst for Fairness May Have Helped Us Survive.” It argues that “humans have an inherent distaste for hierarchical extremes,” and that “the thirst for fairness runs deep.” But “low hierarchy doesn`t mean no hierarchy,” and “the basic template for human social groups is moderately but not unerringly egalitarian.”
This view of human nature is in conflict with our current American society, where wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in a small segment of our population. The effect of this concentration is felt in our political life, where the ability to spend enormous sums on elections has become a dominant determinant of who gets elected. The “Citizens United” decision exacerbated this problem, allowing corporations to make political donations, not as the shareholders might want, but as the corporate officers choose. None other that John C. Bogle, the founder of Vanguard Funds, wrote an editorial for the New York Times on May 14 supporting shareholder control over corporate political donations.
The current effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that “corporations are not people” and that “money is not speech” rings true to our inherent human desire for fairness and not to be governed by those with wealth. Although the amendment process is going to be arduous, I applaud those who are willing to put in the effort.
Another interesting attempt to amend the Constitution is floating around the Internet. The basic demand is that people who are elected to Congress should have to suffer the same difficulties as ordinary folks (like having to get their own health insurance) and also that there be term limits and limits on post-service compensation, so that ex-congress people are reduced back to being ordinary citizens (at least to some extent). Inherent in this is the same quest for fairness.
If we had, for example, 12-year term limits (including the time in both houses of Congress), the likely outcome in most states would be that, after having served some terms in the U.S. House, the representatives would vie for the open Senate seats. Thus, the Senate would mostly consist of people in their final terms, who by definition would be far less influenced by promises of campaign money or the threat of losing the support of their party`s fringe elements. Then, at least one house of Congress might be able to operate in the interests of the vast majority of Americans, who are not in the richest one percent or at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
One reason Boulder is such a great place is the efforts made to ensure that the city maintains at least some sense of egalitarianism and equal opportunity. This has manifested in everything from the Blue Line (that prevents the ultra-rich from building on the mountain backdrop) to the Open Space program (that provides all citizens the same spectacular experiences in the outdoors) to the publicly funded recreation centers and the Pearl Street Mall (where people of all social situations can mingle) to the campaign finance rules (which require campaign donation disclosure and make available public funds for council candidates.)
All these qualities and issues will show up in spades in the upcoming election. It is virtually certain that Xcel Energy, our corporate monopoly energy provider, will attempt to influence whatever energy-related issues are put on the ballot. This will likely happen indirectly through surrogate organizations, whose budgets will be funded with help from Xcel`s corporate coffers. It will be interesting to see if Boulder`s campaign finance rules are up to the job of at least identifying such sources of political donations.
A fascinating read is the book “Power Struggle: The Hundred Year War Over Electricity.” There was a time when power companies competed to serve communities. But some wily executive figured out that competition was cutting into profits, and pushed many states to regulate in exchange for granting monopoly status, thereby guaranteeing secure levels of profit. This is how we got into this bizarre situation with a huge private monopoly being regulated by an underfunded group of unelected officials in Kafka-esque process of playing catch-up. But not all states and cities have taken the same path — Nebraska outlawed private power monopolies, and cities from Fort Collins to Los Angeles have municipal power. Some states now even allow consumer choice. At least some fairness exists somewhere.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities