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.
 This change has the potential to infect our local politics. For example, the Daily Camera reported on Tuesday that the two groups opposing municipalization together reported spending less than $11,000. But the cost of the poll Xcel ran earlier in the summer together with Boulder Smart Energy Coalition’s large print ads and slick direct mail piece, all of which ran prior to the council’s final decision on the ballot language, likely totaled more than double that. Boulder passed Campaign Finance Reform to try to limit and make transparent contributions in council races. And language exists in the City Code that ought to ensure that receipts and expenditures made “in anticipation of” ballot proposition certification/candidacy are reported. If we don’t get a handle on this now and fix any loopholes, candidates and organizations will collect and commit most of their money before races have even begun. Then no one will have a clue about who is contributing or how much is being spent.
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.


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