Money & Politics

     With the Supreme Court ruling on a 5-4 consensus which allows any donor from donating any amount of money to a campaign, it seems that democracy has we know it is indeed dead.  Democracy should be representative of all people, not a select few. While I disagree with the ruling, I also know that it is not the end of democracy because while money is very influential in politics, it does not buy elections or a person’s right to vote.  Should we all hold those that run for office accountable? The obvious question is yes. How do we ensure they remain accountable to us – their constituents? Yet it is another easy solution: We vote!

     If you remember this conversation regarding donors pouring unlimited amounts of money into campaigns and a court ruling in the Citizens United case stating the corporations can contribute as they are people (which could become a whole new discussion, but I won’t digress now), then you will understand why this court ruling is important but not a “nail in the coffin” for Democracy. If it were, then the words “President” and “Romney” would be an official title, not just words that happen to share the same sentence.

     The fact of the matter is that the Republicans outspent Democrats 2:1 in political ads, thanks again Citizens United case (the lead ruling that is wrong for 21^st century America), yet they didn’t win.  It doesn’t matter how much money a campaign has that counts (thought it does help), it is how the candidate resonates with voters and it is their TURNOUT to vote for that candidate that wins an election.  So while the Supreme Court of the United State issued a ruling to strike down campaign finance laws and paved the way for more money to flow into campaigns, it doesn’t affect the overall process of democracy in America. Besides, if you want to contribute more to a campaign but are financially constraint, then donate time and effort instead of money. A campaign needs all levels of volunteerism, not just on the financial front.

     I am torn with this decision. I understand both sides of the argument. I do feel that just because someone has more money they should get influence; but that is what people think will happen and I don’t see that as a valid argument. There are ways to strengthen the law elsewhere when one law is struck down. Not to mention, if a part of the “American Dream” is to make money and spend it on whatever you want to, then those that have “made it” have the right to throw their money at whichever campaign they choose to associate themselves with while they are alive.  The other thing to consider is that if constituents don’t like the idea that their potential elected officials are taking money from certain people and not others while running a campaign of “for the people” then they need to be held accountable. 

     While this ruling paints a “doom and gloom” version of what events MIGHT become, let us focus on what it means now, how we can combat it (if we disagree with the ruling), and work to strengthen our Democracy…which I believe is what the Supreme Court has done with striking down this law relating to campaign contributions. The main thing to remember is that money will always be in politics whether it is coming from a voter of  “middle class America” or “high class America” because all classes of America vote when it comes to elections.

Time for the Next Generation of Politics

Next year will be my ten-year reunion from high school. At twenty-seven years old, I’ve been apart of many campaigns, have attended two inaugurations, have attended a political convention, and have demonstrated in a major Supreme Court case that ended in the favor of which I was demonstrating for given the case. I have also run for, unsuccessfully, office twice.  I do like campaigns and I do like fighting for what I believe what is right; at some point I will be elected and when I do, I hope that I will able to make the decisions that represent all of my constituents. Until then, I will continue to work on campaigns and be hold an active role in shaping the political landscape, both on the state and national levels.

     It really don’t surprise me that Congressman John Dingle, democrat representing the constituents of the twelfth district of Michigan, is retiring from the United States House of Representatives. He was first elected to congress back in the 1950s…1955 to be exact.  To date, this retirement marks the ninth one for the democrats and the republicans are not immune to retirement, as eleven of their members will not see re-election. While some will be missed for their service, if not all of them, it paves the way for the up-and-coming generations to take their place.  Another important point is that it provides opportunities for Congress to truly be more representative of the country. With all of these retirements unfold, and I don’t believe they are over as I image at least five more members will not seek re-election, it will only boost the profiles of women, Hispanics, and other minorities (of both race and beliefs) will be elected to office.  In fact, we are already seeing “the establishment” starting to evolve into younger and more diverse candidates and their points of views regarding the best course for the United States.  In fact, states are even breaking traditions and we will see by the end of the night of the 2014 Election Day. Hopefully, there will be more candidates elected to office that are of a third party as the current political parties can’t seem to agree on anything except no raising of taxes and continuing resolutions.

     The midterms will hopefully break up the “lame duck” status that has frozen Washington into a stalemate. Since Congress is unwilling to work with the President (which is interesting because the past shows that Congress manages to work with the President regardless of administration) and trying to say just enough to get re-elected, it only make sense for this President to use his Presidential authority to get things done that benefit the people he represents. The republicans can’t afford to jeopardize their already minimal relationship with the general public; furthermore, they cannot go into upcoming presidential election cycle with high partisanship and old century ideas. The democrats could also learn that partisanship is just as bad for them as their friends across the aisle – the best course is to talk and explain one’s position instead of looking at someone and going, “well, they are a republican so they must be stupid and don’t (or won’t) understand my position on this issue.” Going back to the republicans for a minute, they have to understand that not every American is living in the earlier part of the previous century.  In the twenty-first century, people are tired of partisan bickering. They want real solutions to the problems facing the country they live in and are proud of since their childhood. Let the new generation of politics come crashing in by the end of the 2014 midterms!

The Road To Equality For All & Ending Poverty via “The Rubio Way”

Before I start - I know I stated in my last piece I would discuss more on the Duck Dynasty controversy; however, I just can't drag it out any more than what it has already been within the media and honestly it is just something I'm over with.

     Equality.  It is a word that has a different meaning for everyone. There are many areas of equality: women’s equality, LGBT’s equality, educational equality, income equality, voting equality, and many others. Sometimes it is just simply equal representation for all citizens.  It is interesting the ways how far equality has come in the history of the United States. 2013 was a great year, and 2014 will be too; but there are a few speed bumps to overcome in order for 2014 to be just as great. One such state is Utah.

      The state of Utah passed a law stating marriage to be recognized as between a man and women. A federal court struck down the law as unconstitutional and said the state cannot discriminate against those same-sex couples wishing to get married.  As a result, Utah became the newest member of the “Marriage Equality” club.  The victory was short-lived as the United States Supreme Court has halted the federal court’s ruling.  As a result, the governor of Utah – Gary Herbert – has stated that the state will not recognize the same-sex marriages that have been performed since the federal court ruling (which is roughly over 1,300 within the state). From my understanding, the ACLU chapter in Utah has already filed to challenge this action, and the halting itself (not sure about that but I will get back to you all on that matter).  From what I’ve gathered, the ACLU position isn’t as solid as many would like it to be and if that is indeed true, the Supreme Court would rule against them.  The thing that made Utah such a victory was that it was a conservative state and also passed a law only recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman.  There have been other laws or amendments in other states that are strikingly similar – such as Amendment One in North Carolina. If marriage equality could come to Utah, it could come to other states that deny LGBT citizen’s basic rights.  The Supreme Court’s interference, while constitutional, is still disheartening given so much they have already achieved with it comes to LGBT rights in the United States (DOMA & Prop 8 court cases). Marriage is about love and if two people love each other, then they should have the right to get married. A loving home is a good thing for society…and it’s future generations.

       Speaking about the society’s future generations, it has been fifty years since the “War on Poverty” started and while we have made strides to reduce poverty in the United States, we could always do more.  According to some Republicans, like Florida Senator Marco Rubio – who many see as a potential 2016 Republican candidate – seems to think the best way to alleviate the issue of poverty is to support marriage as it takes two paychecks to support a family, two loving parents to raise children, etc.   While the rhetoric seems like a good touch for the potential candidate (which I really don’t think he will be the nominee due to his bang-up job on immigration reform and the republicans still have a Hispanic issue to contend with), it seems odd that the senator would be against marriage equality.  If he really wanted to end poverty by supporting marriage, he would draft legislation to support marriage equality.  After all, two paychecks are better than one, there have been studies that show children growing up in same-sex parent households are no different (in fact better in some studies) than those who grow up in different circumstances. I’d rather have a child grow up in a house with parents in a committed same-sex marriage than a one-parent household or an abusive household setting.  It seems that the Senator, as well as other Republicans, are playing the usual “election year politics” card…but Senator Rubio has a little more to lose since he is continuing to groom himself to be the GOP nominee by switching from one important topic (Immigration Reform) to another one (Ending Poverty).   It probably is not the wisest thing to mention that the way to end poverty is to throw more money at the states and cut the funding to many anti-poverty programs that help many constituents in his state (and in the forty-nine other states for that matter).  Even conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation have already begun criticizing his remarks on poverty and his way to end them.  If Senator Rubio wants to be the GOP nominee in 2016, he still has a lot to learn when juggling important issues and stick to the battles he can win – deficit reduction, needs of the voters in his state of Florida, assistance with immigration reform, etc.  I just hope if he breaks a sweat while playing politics he will have a bottle of water within arm’s reach.        

Ducks Out of Line

It’s been a few weeks since the fiasco surrounding Phil Robertson, one of the bigs on the A&E’s show “Duck Dynasty.”  While he has been suspended - and reinstated I might add - for his comments regarding race and homosexuality, it is important to remember some basic guidelines that focus on two important freedoms: the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion (yes, they are located in the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States…in case anyone forgot).  The other things, besides the statements made, are the actual facts encompassing the controversial remarks and the perception of “truth” by others.  Finally, the hypocrisy of both the media and general partisan audience that has been offended to some degree or another is reaching new proportions in the twenty-first century.

Found within the first amendment, of the Constitution of the United States, are the following words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”  Now there are certain circumstances such as slander, etc. but the only thing that could be deemed slanderous is he discrepancy in history regarding race in the rural south (and the south in general).  Anyway, let’s begin with the discussion of the freedom of speech.  Given the wording found in the constitution, it would seem that Mr. Robertson is entitled to state whatever he’d like…whether or not he is right.  He can still state his opinion…and in this case, his beliefs.  [However, the freedom of speech mainly refers to free speech against the government and therefore a company does have the right to dismiss any employee that doesn’t agree with their standards.]  Speaking of beliefs, it is vital to remember that the United States is not a Christian nation (or a Hindu nation, but you get my point).  There is “no ring to rule them all” (yes, I’ve seen the new Hobbit movie and I hated it – just like I hated the books) because the United States is a pluralistic society.  Why do you think so many countries, and people, around the world don’t like Americans – and thus attempt to extinguish lives of Americans around the world?

Now, the interesting thing about Mr. Robertson is that he believes in the Holy Bible.  There is nothing wrong with believing in it; but, it’s necessary that those who believe it understand it and adhere to all of it.  The Bible is like a bag of M&Ms – you don’t open a bag and eat just the ones you like, they are all the same (calories and all) so don’t pick and choose which ones to eat – so you can’t pick and choose which verses to follow and which ones to omit.

In the next blog piece, I will try and tackle some of these things that Mr. Robertson believes in and the actual understanding of what is in the Bible. I will also discuss his remarks on race.