SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
PACs & Politics
A group of activist women in Portland have spent a lot of their time and energy advocating for family issues — like banning Bisphenol-A (BPA), modernizing workplaces, and particularly paid family leave. (In fact we had one of those women, Andrea Paluso, on a previous show about that very topic.)
But no matter how much awareness-making they've done, they didn't feel they were having a real impact on the political process. Then one day it hit them: the way to influence politicians is with cold hard cash. So, in preparation for this November's election they formed a political action committee: The Mother Pac.
Now they're gathering in living rooms across Portland, raising awareness of their issues and, more importantly at this juncture, raising money for their PAC. Meanwhile they're also interviewing state legislative candidates to determine who to back.
The process, the enthusiasm, and the checkbook-opening, made us think a lot about money and politics. How do you influence politics with money? What's the role of lobbyists?
How do you decide how much to give and to whom? How do you know if the promises candidates make will actually be followed through with if and when they're elected? And at what point do people decide that their voices alone are not geting enough attention... and that they need to be amplified with money?
Tagged as: 2010 election · campaign · politics
Photo credit: AMagill / Creative Commons
-
I love it,Excellent article.I am decide to put this into use one of these days.Thank you for sharing this.
-
It seems our Democracy can also hinder progress. A High Speed Bullet Train would require land and right of way. One homeowner with a 100 ft of property line can obstruct and derail a whole 1000 mile project. One threatened Owl Species and a grass roots movement can decimate a dozen industries for decades. And one Senator can filibuster legislative progress for the whole nation. Democracy today is not generating Progress and New Ideas, but rather narrow thinking Self Interests and Obstinancy.
Democracy is about listening. And Lobbying. And Kvetching. But also Obstruction. And Delay. And legal Proceduralism. And Prolonged Enviormental studies that last decades and still clamor for more studies to be done.
We are good at adding social programs, unfunded mandates and spending money. We are bad at taxing, generating revenue and saving. We need to think long term. Beyond the next fiscal year or even 4 years or 10 years. Some policies like building bridges will last 150-200 years.
Government deals with people. People are imperfect. They are dysfunctional. 40% will have a diagnosable mental illness in their lifetime: Juevenile Deliquency, Alcoholism, Depression, Drug Abuse, Anxiety Disorders, Obscessions. And our Democracy reflects all of this. And it is human. And voters can be confused, unduly influenced, and Wrong. Look at the AZ immmgration policy. Dealing with psychology of the electorate means having to sometimes deny democratic process.
Our hope is the Jefferson Model of Democracy; Individuals striving for personal education, progress and industry. Loosely governed and unbridled by heavy regulation. We are what we make of ourselves, not expecting heavy external intervention. Generate an idea, plan a future, start a business, hire a staff. Good government unleashes the power of its individual citizens.
Democracies muddle through but work it out in the end.
-
" One threatened Owl Species and a grass roots movement can decimate a dozen industries for decades." -- jacob — Thu July 29th 5:54p.m.
About those owls...isn't it interesting that two human teenagers can breed in the back of a compact car, but a pair of spotted owls (much smaller, to be sure) requires some 2,000 Acres?!?!?
-
The logging industry logged them selves out of business, not the spotted owl. The USFS said that the industries lobbied the legislatures to get unsustainable scales of clearcutting and they logged themselves out of trees.
But the logging industries won't take responsibility for what they did to themselves and the blame environmentalists.
You've had the wool pulled over your eyes about that, Mr Jacob.
Glad to clear that up for you.
You're welcome.
-
"they logged themselves out of trees."
That explains it then.......I guess that is why there are no more trees in Oregon.
We should have bus excursions for school children to look at trees in Montana so they can get the 'concept' of a tree.
-
"That explains it then.......I guess that is why there are no more trees in Oregon. " Quote Jacob.
Silly, they stopped the logging before they clearcut all the trees, so that the forests can have a chance to catch up.
Hopefully the days of clearcutting and then running off to somewhere in the world to clearcut too, are over.
Sustainable logging is in Oregons future because the unsustainable logging was stopped.
If the loggers had not been stopped before they totally clearcut Oregon like they wanted to do, it would have been many decades before the trees had grown back enough to bring back the timber industries.
A USFS Public Information Officer was my brother in law during those years, so I got the information from someone who knows more that you do about what happened and why.
-
Is Democracy a universal virtue that is the only path to success in the world? Sadly in the Post Cold World Era, the answer is No.
Democracy relies on people making RATIONAL choices. But people are far from rational in decision making. IF you had a simple popularity contest with a 'shoe-in' winner and a cad, let say Gandhi and Hitler. We would predict a landslide 99.9% vote for Gandhi, if people behaved rationally.
With our electorate, and a lot of indepedent thinkers, paranoia, Fox viewers, circular thinkers, rampant Drug Abuse, and over-rationalizers , Hitler may actually get 15% of the vote. And with campaigning and advertising can make it a contest.
How else did Rod Blagoyavich get elected to Governor of Ill? How did Alvin Greene win the Democratic nomination for SC without a campaign? How was Scharzennegger elected? OR Jesse Ventura, Pro Wrestler become Gov of MN? Or an action film actor become President of the Phillipines and now a World Champion Boxer(Think Mike Tyson) is poised to become Mr. President? We have elected some very Wise Presidents who proved to Winners...And Also some Candidates who Shamed the Office. How did our Presidential process promote and elevate an empty candidate like Sarah Palin?
Generally an election is a choice between two alternatives. It presents the two choices as equally valid; let us say between the Democrat and Republican candidates for Governor. But one candidate may have decades of experience in governing and the other may have worn shorts to work, been overpaid and been idolized with his own posse.
Most voters really have no time to read in depth and analyze candidates and issues. Their voting may be as simple as a name came first alphabetically or was the first name listed or they like the name pronunciation or the candidate has a great smiling photo.
IF you give people too many choices, don't be surprised if they make a WRONG decision. Candidates have to vetted. Propostions thought out to Long Term Generational Implications.
We may have to socially engineer choices in a Democracy so Hitler does not win. **Watch the Marijuana Results in Cali.
-
In some ways it makes sense that money influences politics, are the two ever really inseparable, particularly in a capitalist society? Perhaps, the question is how does it ever stop, how do you lessen the influence? Aren’t the Mother Pac now part of the problem? They are sitting there eating the cake, but claiming they don’t like the frosting, but they keep on eating. Are we to believe, that when they get what they want, they will then take the high road? This line is repeatedly blurred, it is blurred so often that we forget which side we are on, and we all end up puttering around in a murky water---where no one is beating anyone, they are merely joining them.
-
PAC's are a fine example of the failure of our current system.
-
Not much information on the program today from the Salem reporter!
"I don't know" and "you know" and "whatever" are not very helpful replies to questions that were not hard to anticipate.
-
Hainvg just heard the person whose PAC went against Allied Waste and lost and who felt that she had been uselessly defeated, I want to say DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!
I worked on Ballot Measure 6 (the 'Close Trojan Nuclear Plant' ballot measure) and have worked on dozens of other campaigns, since then, that have been outspent by industrial and commercial interests to the tune of millions. Some we have lost, but we have scored important victories by NOT GIVING UP and by organizing what little money we could and talking to as many people as we can.
If you go up against such interests, you stand a good chance of losing. If you don't, you stand NO CHANCE of winning. And when you DO win, it benefits everyone ... and feels SO good!
-
Thanks, I needed that reminder.
-
The Mother PAC is a way for people with similar beliefs to amplify our voices so that legislators know that we are serious enough about our issues to put our money where our mouth is. The questionaires are a great way to get candidates thinking about whether or not they have a position on our issue or if they might need more information. Mother PAC was started because they found out the hard way that just talking to legislators wasn't enough. Mother PAC didn't create the game, it is just playing by the rules.
-
Poltical Action Committees in some form or another have existed since the beginning of our republic. Jefferson and others were concerned about the influence of money on government from the outset. The influence of wealth on the process has become more of an issue with the advent of mass media (television and the Internet are but two examples). I am also very concerned about our continued lack of instruction to voters about how the system works, what are its component parts and what their appropriate roles are according to the Constitution.
The best informed voters (in terms of how our government is structured and what the parts should do) are new Americans because they must take a citizenship exam.That is why they know that the recently passed Arizona statute regarding law enforcement folks pulling over someone they suspect is an illegal immigrant is unconstitutional.
Wealth will continue to have undue influence if the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign financing is any indication.
-
This morning as I was listening to “Think Out Loud” on OPB I was hearing about our gubernatorial candidates and the millions of dollars they are raising to support their candidacy. Meanwhile, Oregon’s General Fund is short millions of dollars needed to carry out the state’s fiscal budget and cuts are being made statewide to keep expenditures in line with revenues. Wouldn’t it be wonderful, I thought, if the millions of dollars these candidates are raising could go directly into the state’s General Fund?
Couldn’t we set up our electoral process so that any established political party could nominate one candidate for each electoral office and those candidates would then fundraise as they do now, but all amounts raised would go into the General Fund? Then the candidate that raised the most money for the General Fund as of the date of the election would be declared the winner. We citizens would literally vote with our dollars donated.
Suppose candidates, once elected in this way, had to poll their constituents prior to each session or meeting of the body to which they’d been elected. Perhaps a telephone poll could be held, and each constituent could say “Yes” or “No” to each item on the agenda. In order for a candidate to introduce legislation or work in any way on an item he or she would need to be authorized by at least half of the polled constituents to deal with that issue at this session or meeting. This way constituents would determine the agenda of items they saw as most essential for governmental action at this time.
If commercial or non-profit organizations wanted legislative action, they could use their money to convince the electorate of the need for this issue to be addressed now. Their success would be determined by the results legislators got when they polled their constituents. There would no longer be any need for companies or non-profits to form PACs to finance candidate’s campaigns, and legislators would no longer be beholden to them for their positions. This would mean that all the amounts raised by candidates for office and going into the General Fund would come from individual citizens.
-
Comments are now closed.
The Golden Rule: He who has the Gold, Makes the Rules.
Is it any surprise that humans can be corrupt? Plato acknowledged this fact, and advocated not for Democracy, but rather an Enlightened Philosopher King who would preside above petty and corrupt banality and make rational governance decisions without bias. All decisions have pros and cons, benefits as well as consequence, effect and side effect. And the leader would weigh the choices, make an informed decision, and proceed with action. In someways how the Four Star Generals operate in Afganistan.