Hex Wrecks Beck's

Over the years David Beckham has had to put up with all kinds of media criticism.  He was red-carded and sent off in a vital World Cup match, supposedly he cheated on his wife, he is not the most articulate of men and he is immensely rich. As a result the press believes him to be fair game. For me, the good he has done vastly outweighs the bad. I have no hesitation in expressing my admiration for David Beckham as a footballer, a bloke and a dad. So when this blog is critical of Mr. Beckham, it's not personal. It’s rather that he has started a furore.

At the end of his career, Becks played for LA Galaxy, an American Major League Soccer team. I don't know much about MLS except its teams don't attract big crowds unless they are winning. I suppose this is the same everywhere, except arguably the English Premier League. According to Becks, he had a term written into his LA Galaxy contract which entitled him to own a MLS franchise, i.e. an American soccer team. Quite how this was achieved defeats me unless MLS itself was a party to his Galaxy contract or a separate deal was done at the same time as he signed for Galaxy.

I need to explain something American. A sports franchise (or right to own a team) is sanctioned by the governing body of the sport. Once granted, in the right sport and if successful, a franchise is extremely valuable and its owners have a strong position when negotiating with the city in which it is based.

Earlier this year, Becks was the frontman when it was announced that a new MLS franchise would be based in Miami. Indeed, Becks said he would like Sir Alex Ferguson to manage his team. Talk about pie in the sky.

Two weeks ago, Beckham announced that the stadium for his team would be sited on the Miami waterfront, next to the Miami Heat arena, to the annoyance and irritation of a group of cruise and shipping firms and a billionaire car dealer, Norman Braham, a former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Becks said he wanted to build a 25,000 seat stadium. His opponents launched a newspaper advertising campaign, claiming the stadium would likely cost $120 million, implied at the taxpayer's expense, that the development would threaten the city’s prosperity and that many jobs would be at risk. Furthermore, The Miami Seaport Alliance has already started an infrastructure project on the site, building tunnels connecting the port to major roads and improving the discharge of ships.

Mr Beckham, either you forgot or did not know a number of things, so forgive me but I must tell you some home truths. The first rule of property is not location. It is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do a good property deal on somebody else's doorstep. It is more likely that Yeovil Town will win the Premier League than you will have your stadium on the Miami Waterfront.

Next, what guarantee is there that a Miami soccer team will be winners? None, so what makes you and your colleagues think the Miami taxpayers would stump up for the stadium? In many cities, such as Minneapolis and Denver, this is what happens. The former paid for a baseball stadium, the latter for a new football stadium. But once built, there are still dangers for the taxpayers who paid. There is nothing to stop owners of a successful franchise from holding a city to ransom by deciding this would be a good time to move the franchise to another city. Blackmail is a dirty word but needs must in the sports world.

Miami has just paid for a new baseball stadium but attendance is poor because the Marlins aren't much good at the moment. The Dolphins have yet to have a good season since moving to their new Sun Life stadium. I hardly think Miami residents want another white elephant. Perhaps the Gods have hexed sports teams in Miami, permitting fans to worship only Miami Heat, the basketball team.

Mr Beckham, I wish you good fortune in America but I believe your future lies in coaching and management, not ownership. America is an extremely hard place for wannabe businessmen. My adored Tottenham Hotspurs are looking for a new manager. I wouldn't recommend you take the job if offered but I think you'd be happier working this side of the Atlantic.

Who’s Running in 2016?

For some time, friends have been asking me who I think will be the presidential nominees in the 2016 election. Until now, I haven’t tried to guess. This weekend, The Sunday Times published an article on the likelihood of a run by Jeb Bush or, as he was termed, Bush Mark III. He probably looks good to a lot of voters. And he realises the importance of the Latino vote, something that Mitt Romney missed.

America is not unused to dynastic rule. The first seven presidents were Founding Fathers, members of America’s elite. Indeed, they included a father and son, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Members of the Gore family have occupied both Congress and Blair House. In recent times, the Clintons and the Bushes have been the subject of more newsprint than possibly all others on the planet except the British royal family. 

The thought of another Bush in the White House will provoke all kinds of reaction. The Bush matriarch, Barbara, commented that “America has had enough Bushes.” Other family members have reacted similarly. But Jeb does not have too much political baggage these days. He last ran for office in 2002. If he ran, of course his role in the 2000 election would be scrutinised. He tried to hand Florida’s Electoral College votes to his brother, using highly questionable tactics, including the alleged exclusion of eligible voters. Just politics, family style, but it makes his recent favourable comments about immigration seem a contradiction of the past.

To be frank, I know little about Jeb Bush these days. He has spent more than a decade out of the public eye. His mother might not think it right for him to occupy the White House but she has also said that Jeb was “the most qualified person in the country.” At the moment there are more than a dozen Republicans positioning themselves for a run. Chris Christie looked like a strong candidate for a while until Bridgegate hurt his prospects, probably for good.

The Democrats look different and settled. Hillary Clinton is a certainty for the nomination, if you believe most of the media. I think it’s far too soon to judge. She might have a lot of financial backing but it is almost two years before the presidential primaries conclude and that’s a long time to be a front runner. I see one thing in her favour. She has experience as a US senator. What is needed in the White House is a person who knows how to pull Congressional strings. For this, a President needs to have spent time in Congress. However, she has little experience in domestic government policy. Her role as First Lady really doesn’t signify. However, as Secretary of State, she has been front and centre on foreign policy, which is a big plus.

Arguably, the president who had the greatest success in his relations with Congress was LBJ. He had spent many years in both the House and Senate before becoming Vice President, he knew where the bodies were buried and he was a superb political operator. Just look at the legislative programme that was stalled during JFK’s presidency and compare it with LBJ’s successes from 1964-1967 as Chief Executive. There is no way that Kennedy would have had the Civil Rights Act passed, let alone the Voting Rights Act.

I have no strong feeling as to who the 2016 presidential nominees will be but if I was a person of influence in either party, I would be looking to the Senate for my candidate. Here’s my reasoning. In this year’s mid-terms, the Democrats will get a pasting unless President Obama has a series of successes. Maybe he will find a way to make things better in Ukraine and Syria. Perhaps the perception of the economy will pick up. Unlikely scenarios, I know, but the prospects of the Democrats regaining a majority in the House are very poor. Maybe they will keep hold of their Senate majority but it won’t make any difference if the House stays Republican. The stalemate in passing legislation will continue.

In 2016, I have no idea which party will control Congress. Let us assume that it remains divided with the parties having a majority in only one chamber. A president with experience only as a state governor is bound to flounder for a while as he or she comes to grips with Congress and Washington’s toxic political ways. If a two-term Senator or four-term Congressperson is voted in, at least he or she will have had national experience and a knowledge of how to manipulate former legislative colleagues.

Neither Mrs Clinton nor Mr Bush has the experience and know-how to bend Congress to their will. In fact, no president has been able to do this since LBJ and, arguably, Richard Nixon, who had spent eight years in both Houses of Congress.

So this is why I am keeping an open mind on presidential nominee choices until I see who comes out of the Congressional pack and puts his or her hat in the ring.

The Supremes are at it Again: Diana Ross Would Do Better!

Photo credit: The Onion

Last week, a Supreme Court ruling gave a small number of wealthy donors a way to heavily influence political campaigns. In McCutcheon v FEC, a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that the overall limit that individuals can give candidates and political parties would no longer be limited. The huge inflow of money from so-called Super-PACS will be inflated even more because donors can expand their giving by writing single cheques for as much as they like for each candidate. The previous maximum was set at $123,200 for this year’s mid-terms.

Politicians can now focus on the big dollar givers, whose largess has been off-limits until now. Billionaires like conservative industrialists Charles and David Koch and liberal hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer can expect to be asked to spend tens of millions of dollars, in addition to their donations to Super-PACS. The ruling declared unconstitutional a total limit on how much an individual can give federal candidates. Once again, the Court interpreted the First Amendment by equating speech with money.

John McCain, the Republican US senator who has championed restrictions on campaign funding, predicted “there will be scandal.” Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group for reducing the role of money in politics, stated: “The Supreme Court is turning our representative system of government into a sandbox for millionaires and billionaires.”

However, conservatives have cast the ruling as a victory for freedom of speech. Craig Engle, a Republican election law attorney, said “This isn’t a threat to democracy, it is democracy. One of the things that is anti-democratic is when people aren’t allowed to express themselves freely.”

It is ironic, using the word “free” about speech which is paid for by rich donors, donors who will certainly expect a return on their investment. I want to challenge the five Justices who ruled against FEC. I would ask them first to re-visit the First Amendment which states:

            “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

For those Justices who want to rely on a strict construction of the Amendment, was there not “money” in the United States in 1791 and, therefore, had the Founders wanted to allow the free use of money, would they not have said so? For me, the interpretation by the Court is specious.

Assuming for a moment the Justices are right on this issue, then surely it would be permissible for political donors to give in “money’s-worth,” such as a fleet of Cadillacs. But the election statutes of most states regard such a gift as bribery and unlawful. There is a lack of consistency here which the Court doesn’t seem to address.

What does “speech” mean? Speech is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as:

            “The act of speaking; the natural exercise of the vocal organs; the utterance of words and sentences. Talk, speaking or discourse; colloquy, conversation, conference.”

Nowhere in the definition is there a mention of money. Therefore, any Justice who relies on a strict construction of the Amendment is plainly wrong to equate free speech with, say, a donated advertisement. So, presumably the nucleus of the Court’s majority decision rests in the meaning of “democracy.” The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as:

            “Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people, and is exercised either directly by them or by officers elected by them. In modern usage, it often denotes a social state in which all have equal rights.”

I assume the Justices who gave the majority decision believe a person should have equal rights to spend his or her money. In normal circumstances I would agree. But when it comes to elections, the principle of “one man, one vote,” does not imply that one man contributing millions of dollars to a political campaign is equal to millions contributing just one dollar each. The outcome of people’s votes should neither be decided by the amounts that can be spent, nor the unbridled, conspicuous consumption which will follow at election time.

If a billionaire decides to spend millions of dollars on a political campaign, it is natural to ask “what does he want?” Joseph Kennedy spent like crazy to get his son into the White House. When asked why JFK could not achieve a larger majority in the 1960 presidential election, his father replied, “I couldn’t afford it.” Is this the kind of democracy the Supreme Court wants?

There is no solution to the campaign funding problem while the Supreme Court decides that rich people deserve more democracy than their fellow citizens. The political parties don’t mind the lack of control. There are as many billionaires supporting the Democratic Party as the Republicans. Efforts by Congress to legislate – see McCain-Feingold – have been overturned by the Court. The only way to deal with the problem is a constitutional amendment and that is not even a blip on the radar at the moment.

So, American citizens are faced with an unequal democracy. It occurs to me that Diana Ross and her backing singers would do a lot better than at least five of the current Supremes.