Moving to a new space

I have moved all the information on this blog to a new home, where I will be blogging much more often. Please check out, follow, and comment on http://polawtics.blogspot.com

What do you expect to get from your tax dollars

I will be on Patt Morrison's show on KPCC on Monday December 13th. You can listen by tuning in to 89.3 or clicking here.

Live Webcast of 9th Circuit arguments re Prop 8

Click here to watch a live webcast of the arguments concerning Prop 8.

Election 2010 and Republicans

I was quoted today in a Christian Science Monitor article about the 2010 elections in California and what they mean for Republicans. You can click here to read that article.

He Can't Rangel Out of an Ethics Violation

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

By an overwhelming vote of 333 to 79, 20-term Congressman Charles B. Rangel was censured by his colleagues for 11 ethics violations, including, among other things, improperly using his office to solicit fundraising donations for a City College built in his honor and failing to pay income taxes on a vacation home.

Rangel is the first member of the House to be censured in almost thirty years. The last were Congressmen convicted of having sex with Congressional pages. Congress passed up the opportunity to doll out a reprimand, a lesser punishment. 

Rangel, like the newly convicted former Congressman Tom DeLay, claims that his punishment is politically motivated. (For more on DeLay, please see this recent post).

Rangel seemingly strode the streets of Harlem, the area of New York he represents, as a king among men. He has indeed given a great deal to our country, serving in the Korean War and as a driving force of the civil rights movement. Four short years ago Rangel nabbed the coveted position of chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

After this steady rise, came a precipitous fall. By 2008, newspapers buzzed with reports that Rangel accepted Manhattan apartments below fair market value, failed to report personal assets on disclosure forms, and neglected to pay income taxes.

Rangel was also accused of number of fundraising violations involving a City College built in his honor. Rangel, for instance, was charged with using Congressional stationary to solicit funds, asking companies and their representatives with business in front of Congress for donations, and protecting a tax loophole for a company that promised to make a million dollar donation to that school. Rangel eventually relinquished his position as chair of the Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel later said he brought the situation on himself, but vehemently pleaded with members of Congress to serve up a lesser sentence, a "reprimand." His pleas were to no avail and the formal censure was handed down.

What will happen to Rangel now that he has been censured? Not much. His reputation may have been forever tarnished, but it seems once Rangel stepped down as chair of the Ways and Means Committee, the concrete sanctions ceased.

Rangel's campaign for a reprimand instead of a censure shows just how much words matter. Perhaps that should be no surprise to members of a governing body whose job descriptions include drafting laws, an area in which words most certainly do matter.

A censure is a formal resolution condemning inappropriate behavior that carries no specific consequences. Censures and reprimands are the same thing in the Senate, but different in the House, where a reprimand is served up when the crime is seen as not rising to the level of requiring a more formal resolution.

Another question, will this ordeal bring down more than Rangel's reputation, but also something that is already pretty low, public confidence? 

Debate re Huffington Post piece

There is a great debate going in the comment section of a Huffington Post piece published yesterday about the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case involving public funding for political candidates.

Enjoy!

The Supreme Court Could Axe Efforts to Reduce Big Money

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post. 

The Supreme Court has decided to review a 1998 Arizona law which provides public financing to qualified candidates. This decision will likely define the constitutional boundaries of public financing laws across the country.

Critics claim programs that provide public funding for candidates are welfare for politicians, that the public should not be forced to support candidates with whom they disagree, and that public funds could be better spent in other areas. Proponents, on the other hand, contend that these programs provide qualified candidates who may not have access to campaign funds with the opportunity to run competitive campaigns, allow candidates to spend time with all of their constituents and not just those who can provide campaign donations, reduce corruption or the appearance of corruption, either of which may arise as a result of private contributions, and increase public confidence in their elected officials.

In an effort to allow publicly financed candidates to remain competitive in the face of heavy opposition spending from privately financed opponents or independent expenditure groups, many public campaign finance laws provide so-called "rescue funds." These rescue fund provisions now stand on constitutionally shaky ground because of the Court's 2008 decision in Davis v. FEC.

In its misguided 2008 decision, the Supreme Court found struck down a portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (popularly known as McCain-Feingold), the so-called "Millionaire's Amendment," on First Amendment grounds. That amendment provided that a candidate running against a self-financing candidate could raise triple the normal contribution limits. The Court found that this amendment unconstitutionally limited a self-financing candidate's First Amendment right to spend as much of his own money as he wishes, concluding that a self-financing candidate would be not want to continue spending his own money if he knew his candidate would be able to raise larger contributions. In addition, the Court looked with disfavor on the state's asserted interest in leveling electoral opportunities for candidates of differing personal wealth.

Enter John McComish and company. McComish and some past and future candidates and a political committee challenged the constitutionality of the rescue funds provisions contained in Arizona's public campaign financing law claiming in essence that under the Court's 2008 decision the First Amendment rights of non-publicly financed candidates and independent groups is infringed upon under Arizona's law, because their spending triggers a publicly financed candidate's receipt of additional public funds. Put another way, plaintiffs claimed that they would not want to keep spending money if that action triggered the receipt of public funds by an opposing candidate.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that Arizona's public campaign financing law was not the same as the Millionaire's Amendment, in part because the purpose behind the two provisions is different. The Millionaire's Amendment was designed to level the electoral playing field, an interest that has never been in favor with the Court. The purpose of Arizona's public campaign financing law, by contrast, is to reduce corruption or its appearance, an interest that have long been upheld by the Court.
Further, the Millionaire's Amendment treats similarly situated candidates disparately, while Arizona's law treats different candidates differently. In Arizona's law, one candidate opts into a public financing scheme, and another does not.

In June, in an ominous move, the Court issued an order to stay the Ninth Circuit's ruling.
The Court's ruling will likely determine the constitutional limits of rescue fund provisions across the country. If rescue funds provisions are struck down on First Amendment grounds, the continued viability of public financing laws will be called into question. It may be difficult to convince candidates to take part in public financing programs if they cannot get additional public funds when faced with high spending opponents or third parties.

An earlier, lengthier version of this article is cross posted in the Daily Journal.