Opinion: Whose government is it anyway?
Our political processes are
becoming more captive to forces beyond the control of ordinary citizens.
Political debates are becoming more polarized. Candidates are becoming more
cartoon-like in their pronouncements and self-serving in their actions.
Deception is increasing. Donations sometimes appear to be nothing more than
legalized bribery, and expenditures just try to bury the opposition.
The
current redistricting process is a major cause. It occurs after every 10-year
census, and most states have a list of conflicting criteria to be met
(community of interest, minority representation, geographic continuity, etc.)
Some states have established bi-partisan commissions, sometimes the dominant
party in the state legislature rules, and sometimes judges (elected or
appointed) play a role. The net effect has been for political parties to gain
more and more “safe seats.” The Web site fairvote.org has some damning statistics on the lack of
competition in most U.S. House races. The result is that, for these seats,
primaries determine the election outcome. In most states, only the party
faithful can vote, so the most extreme candidates have the best shot at
winning.
Fortunately, some years
ago, Boulder turned down an effort to create districts, and elections are
non-partisan, so we have avoided the worst of this. But we have our own version
of “safe seats” — council incumbents almost always get reelected. And they
don’t always deserve it. Instead of bland campaigns and soft-edged commentary,
we need some real in-depth inspection of any incumbent who has acted in a
self-serving or deceptive manner, so that voters can see more of what is behind
the smoothed-over presentations.
The City Council could also
help. Boulder’s conflict of interest ordinance is so weak that it is a joke.
Only the most blatant conflicts lead to recusal. This ordinance needs serious
strengthening. When I was on the council, some council members went out of
their way to not vote even if there was no legal violation, and others got
called on the carpet if they didn’t recuse themselves. Now “civility” rules,
and almost never does anyone raise a stink.
With
the Citizens United decision, more and more money is donated by corporations.
(Even John Vogle, founder of Vanguard Funds, wrote in the New York Times in May
that he supports shareholders having a vote in corporate political giving.) And
now there are the Super PACs, legal devices for funneling large sums of
unaccountable money into targeted political advertising. The comedian Stephen
Colbert has set up one as a kind of spoof super-PAC — “Making a better
tomorrow, tomorrow.” Check out colbertsuperpac.com. It’s worth looking at.
Nationally, I believe that
term limits for Congress are essential — we need some elected officials to
focus on producing results, because they know their time is short. It worked in
the Colorado Legislature. We need redistricting reform, where the first
priority is maximizing the number of competitive seats. Primaries need to be
open to independents; this would weaken the extremist elements within the
political parties, and likely the parties themselves. And of course we need the
“corporations are not people, and money is not speech” constitutional
amendment.
Locally, we need more
in-depth critical examination of candidates, including incumbents. We have
great press (including the Daily Camera, for which I am fortunate to write) and
many independent activist groups. Let’s make sure that voters see the specific,
detailed and sometimes critical information on candidates and issues.