Myth Taken Politics

Funding Democracy

Democracy thrives on public participation. When more people hear ideas and consider them, they have an advantage at making decisions. Political campaigns allow the public to hear candidates discuss ideas, exert charisma, show debating acumen, and be exposed to other candidates who might challenge their assertions. But as the cost of reaching the public has increased and the amount of media that can drown out public campaigns has multiplied, the disparity in fundraising has allowed for less than open contests.

Campaign reform measures have not made a substantial impact, and may have even had consequences that exacerbated the problems. In addition, the impact on the need for money has allowed for the appearance of undue influence of elected officials that feel they rely on future support. Efforts have been made to limit the amounts that can be given, which may have limited the influence of single donors, it may have increased the influence of powerful organizations that can spend enormous amounts to bring in large numbers of limited amount donations. Efforts to provide transparency may have provided a check on the influence of a particular donor against a particular elected official, but when there are so many givers and unknowable networks between them, it seems more like an amorphous blob than distinct and identifiable influence peddlers. Also, when the system is so open and everyone participates, the system itself seems corrupt rather than providing checks on specific situations.

Campaign reform has consisted of debating the importance of speech and whether giving dollars are a form of speech. It seems absurb that if some individuals have monetary resources that dwarf most other peoples and can use that disparity can drown out the words of most people, that an equality based democracy exists. On the other hand, public funding from general revenue seems to be a non-starter and more importantly if enacted would lead to diminished campaigns resources when incumbents decide that general revenue decisions may lead to cuts to non-essential programs.

It is impossible to say what disparity in candidate funding leads to non-competitive races. Some may argue ten to one, others that there is some minumum. I feel that two or three to one is a threshold amount that can allow money to allow races to become less competitive. I would propose allowing each contribution to a candidate's campaign to split with two-thirds to the campaign coffers and one third to a pot that is used to pay for public forums and media placement for all of the major candidates. In this way, the contributor is mainly helping their candidate as two-thirds is directly given to the candidate and the other third still provides the candidate with the opportunity to reach the public and try and best the competitors.

It may still be the case that certain donors or network of donors may seek to remind elected officials of past contributions, and elected officials may desire to have that support continued for future campaigns. But since contributions to the opposing candidate will still provide some support to that elected official and that disparities can no longer be as pronounced, that realization should provide more insulation from those influences.

If necessary, the influence on campaigns by outside forces/organizations can similarly be checked, not at the time of contributions, but at the time of spending on particular elections. If spending on media during an election and mentioning that election or candidate would necessitate a premium paid to the pot of money spent for public forums for that election.

The idea is to promote, not limit debate. To enhance the importance of each and every voter over that of money. And yet not keep interested parties from bringing their points of view to the discussion, just not allowing others to be effectively drowned out.

Inorganic vs. Inhumane

Although many shoppers now consider "organic" foods to be healthier for them than the non-organic food, the facts are a bit muddier. Which is not to say that "organic" food production may be better for the environment and potentially make life safer overall. But what is not often considered by shoppers at all (especially since the 70s and 80s) are the lives and health of the people who work to pick the crops that shoppers are buying and feeding their families. Today's report on NPR's Morning Edition was the latest story of inhumane foods (Modern-Day 'Slave Farms' in Florida). In the report a disgusting portrait of unemployed homeless being taken advantage of and being ripped off. It may seem counter-intuitive  to rip off the poor, but it is easier because the poor rarely can fight back and actually the poor produce great wealth for our society.

But as shoppers, we rarely consider the hands of the last person who touched that potato before we did. We might consider the quality, freshness, whether it was grown organically. Organic growers have a rigorous certification process that costs growers beyond the additional extra costs that growing organically. Which is not to imply that there are not laws and regulations concerning fair treatment and payment of farm workers and that conditions may have improved over the years. But as the NPR report indicated, barbaric practices still occur and there is no rigorous certification for humanely picked crops.

I propose a cruelty free workforce with a guaranteed certification that every hand that touches our food must be the hand of a person with 100% health-care coverage, that the workers living conditions have higher standards than organically raised chickens that they raise, that hunger never slows down humans stooping to gather fruit, and that no worker owe more to their boss at the end of a day of work than their boss owes them. It may not make us healthier or wealthier, but it shows we are wise.

The Lady and the Tiger

Raymond Smullyan has written a few logic puzzle books. His questions provided the enjoyment of scratching ones head and as an added benefit had some real world applications. Although the rules are not as clear in real life, the current puzzle is why Judith Miller is going to jail. Misdirection abounds, whether the prosecutor is being unfair, whether Matt Cooper got true releases from all of his sources, and the nature of Karl Rove's participation as revealed in the Cooper email.

So let me quickly throw together some clues: Judith Miller produced several articles that the White House probably appreciated concerning their weapons of massive destruction (which is actually at the root of this story); Karl Rove, according to the Cooper email, gave misinformation to at least one reporter (Ambassador Wilson was not "authorized" on behalf of the CIA by his wife to go to Niger and more importantly Wilson was clearly telling the truth and accurate about the Iraq-Niger connection and Rove wrong); Rove is a very high ranking figure in the White House; Rove's lawyer has admitted that Rove spoke to Cooper regarding Wilson's wife; the sources are reported to be within the administration. So why is Miller getting months in jail if Rove has released Cooper from their agreement?

Possibilities include:

1. Rove did not give Miller the same freedom to talk.
2. Miller spoke to other lower level administration people who have not given their release.
3. Miller spoke with someone higher up who has not given their release.

The first possibility seems peculiar, especially since Miller was probably considered helpful to the White House. The second seems unlikely since if Rove was speaking about this, lower level sources would be given some cover since prosecutors look to the top of the chain and because lower level folks would likely have either gotten their information from or in conjunction with Rove and be known. So the third possibility seems to be the most likely of the three.

My guess is actually a combination of number one and three. FOLLOWING IS PURE CONJECTURE. Miller was offered an interview with the President, in which Rove and perhaps others were present. Either Rove or the President spoke about Wilson's wife. If Rove was the source in this situation he would likely not give the same release for Miller that he gave to Cooper. And if Bush was the source or repeated or confirmed Rove, Miller is likely to not have gotten Bush or Rove's release.

While Miller is sitting in jail, she might consider that unlike Woodward and Bernstein she is protecting the type of people that Deep Throat was helping to bring down (higher level people who may have committed abuses of power). Although this type of realization should not convince her to break her promises, it should as least make her think about her position of being used by the administration over and over to sell untrue allegations to the public. Perhaps she should have been investigating deception by the administration and unveiling the truth. She might have been smeared by the administration or even be in jail protecting sources that risk their careers to get the truth out, but she might have been celebrated not just her courage but also for performing excellent journalism.