Freedom of Money?

Readers of this blog will know I am a fierce critic of American political campaign finance laws. The problems stem from the interpretation of part of the First Amendment, which provides: “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech…”  The Oxford English Dictionary defines speech as “the act of speaking, the natural exercise of the vocal chords, the utterance of words or sentences, talk, speaking and discourse, the opportunity to speak and converse, and so on.” In this long definition, there is no mention whatsoever of money.

The philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, observed: “the limits of my language are the limits of my world.” He did not say anything about the limits of his money. In a succession of cases over the past twenty years or more, the Supreme Court has ruled that money equates to speech and that American citizens cannot be prevented from spending their money as they wish.

Not all politicians agree with this approach. Senator John McCain, President Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential election, co-sponsored the 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Act which outlawed so-called ‘soft money’ and Political Action Committees. It took only a short time before the Supreme Court nailed the Act, opening the election floodgates to PACS and ultimately permitting virtually unlimited funding from corporations and trades unions through what are now called SUPERPACS. Not long ago, Mayor Bloomberg was reported to have spent more than $100 million on one of his campaigns for Mayor of New York City. He spent his own money, by the way. This enormous sum now pales into insignificance compared with the amounts which are now being contributed towards political campaigns.

The 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United has loosened pretty well all campaign finance restrictions. Now, individual million-dollar donors are pursued by both political parties. Wealthy people are backing national politics to an extent never seen before. This week, The Washington Post alleged that the Republican National Committee has raised the top donation tier to $1.34 million. The Democrats have joined the band wagon, seeking $1.6 million from individuals to support the Party’s convention, as well as Mrs Clinton’s campaign. What do the donors get in return? On the record, they receive exclusive retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the conventions, and special dinners.

What else do they get? Arguably, the gratitude of politicians to the uber-wealthy, gratitude which might convert into tax breaks, political career advancement, and introduction of policies to the advantage of the very few and the expense of others.

The Koch brothers have made significant financial contributions to libertarian and conservative think tanks and campaigns. They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and that lobby against efforts to expand government's role in health care and combat global warming. The latter is hardly surprising as the basis of their wealth is in oil. By 2012, the brothers reportedly donated more than $100 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations. What did they want in exchange? All we know is the party they support did not get into the White House but Congress was a different matter.

It is hard to assess the influence the new funding landscape will have on next year’s election. Perhaps things have not changed at all since the founding of the republic, except for the extraordinary higher amounts of money which will be applied to the fights both for the White House and for Congress. After all, the system of using political parties as vehicles to launder the buying and selling of government influence and decisions, not to mention political favors, is not new. It goes back to President Washington’s time. I suspect the patronage system would remain in place even if soft money was eliminated entirely from American politics and the amounts which an individual or corporation or trades union were fully regulated.

What I believe Americans should ask themselves is how the democratic ideal of equality is being served if a voter can spend anything he likes on supporting political candidates? The obvious link is the more a voter sends, the better is his chance of patronage. How is the much vaunted ideal of freedom enhanced by letting super-wealthy people have access to those who can help advance their political thoughts and desires to the detriment of those who cannot afford such influence? Is this a fair and just system?

To be more exact, are there circumstances where an individual would advance millions of dollars towards a political campaign because of altruism and love of what the party stood for? No, I didn’t think so. Money is not speech. Indeed one of the definitions of money is “to supply with money, hence bribery.” I am obliged to the Oxford English Dictionary for making my case.

The Price for Freedom of Speech.

Katie Hopkins is a name that may not be familiar to Americans. She first came to prominence in 2007, when she reached the final of the UK version of reality television show, The Apprentice, and then turned down competing in the final. She is now a columnist for The Sun newspaper. Katie does not conform to PC conventions. Supposedly, she champions the spirit of hard working Britain, delivering a strong take on employment, business, mothers, lifestyle and politics. However, she has a very unpleasant side. Earlier this year, Ms Hopkins wrote a column comparing migrants to "cockroaches" and "feral humans" and said these people were "spreading like the norovirus". She also branded Helen Mirren as “Dame Miserable.” Hopkins has been often criticized in the media and by both advocacy groups and politicians for her shocking comments but she argues she has the right of freedom of speech.

America’s Hopkins is Ann Coulter. She is angry, mean and arguably one of the most the most hated women in the USA. She is a conservative social and political commentator and writer. She often appears on Fox News, a bastion of right wing, white America. But does what Coulter writes and says deserve the protection of ‘freedom of speech’?

Let me give you some Coulter examples. On Mexicans: “If you don’t want to be killed by Isis, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you.” On Jews: “I want Jews to convert to Christianity. I don’t want a world without Jews, I just want them to be perfected.” On Muslims: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Many people suffer from disability. In 2012, Coulter called President Obama a “retard.” When criticized by people with disabilities for this remark, her response was, “oh, screw them.”  Her latest book is entitled ‘Adios America!’ I hope any sequel is titled ‘Adios Ann.’

Donald Trump has bought into the ‘be nasty’ medium. He delights in making personal remarks, not merely about his fellow candidates but about their wives. He castigates people who are fat or ugly or a different skin colour. I believe he is running his political campaign based on his TV show. And according to the polls, Americans are lapping it up, as are the television networks. In the film Network, the lead presenter says to his audience, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not taking it anymore.” If only the American public would say this to Trump, Coulter and others of their ilk.

Why is it that people who publish in a gratuitously offensive manner earn not just notoriety but popularity, fame, wealth and the trappings that go with such appalling actions? When did being obnoxious become such good copy? I have met so many journalists and media news people who believe in ‘fair and balanced reporting’ and who were diametrically opposed to gutter journalism. The late Ben Bradlee never offended anyone in public life, nor published the story unless and until he had the evidence from more than one source. David Broder, a political correspondent par excellence, always wrote both sides of the story. Elmer Lower, the man whose brainchild was the 1960 Presidential Debate between Nixon and Kennedy, would never have sanctioned a television columnist or pundit who insulted races, religionists or a disadvantaged section of society. All these journalists would offer a target of their stories a right of response, something La Coulter never does.

America has weak defamation laws. Anyone in public life is fair game. The private citizen has weak protections, and lobby groups like The American Civil Liberties Union will be lined up to protect speech freedom. The ACLU exists to ensure The First Amendment to the American Constitution is upheld. Might I remind you that the amendment: “prohibits the making of any law… abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press ...”  

In the UK, we enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press but our defamation laws are strong and the press is looking down the barrel of potential legislative sanctions following numerous behavioural scandals, mainly in the Murdoch press empire.

It is difficult to understand why Americans in their droves expressed disgust when, for example, Janet Jackson’s nipple was inadvertently exposed briefly in a Super Bowl half time show. Some closed-minded states insist that creationism be taught as a science alongside Darwin’s evolution theory. It is now PC to protect school children from competition despite its existence in the real world. I suspect these same people can be tolerant of shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh and opinionated columnists like Coulter who demonise whole elements of society merely because they are different. The inconsistency, if not hypocrisy of this stance is difficult to justify.

Thomas Jefferson, a man conflicted if ever there was one, who owned slaves yet declared the right of people to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” also defended press freedom. He wrote, “The only security of all is in a free press,” despite the fact he was often the target of hostile journalism. I fear Jefferson is right. The best way to defeat Coulter and her ilk is not to watch her, not to listen to her and not to read her words.

PS. Last night, Secretary of State John Kerry announced America will over a two year period accept 85,000 refugees for re-settlement in the light of the Syrian crisis. Will La Coulter tell her readers that America already accepts 70,000 refugees each year? I suspect she will feed her public with a diet of vitriol and untruths.

Hillary and the Apple Cart

Almost from the day of President Obama’s re-election in November, 2012, Mrs Clinton has been the clear Democratic front-runner for 2016. She has had no serious challenger in her own party until recently. Much is being made that Bernie Sanders is polling well in New Hampshire and Iowa. This is what you would expect from a liberal contender in these states. The race will narrow as the primary season gets closer. The Republicans have not yet fixed on an opponent who will give Hillary a run for her money, unless you believe Donald Trump will make a viable candidate.

However, in typical Clinton fashion, an apple cart has been upset by the candidate herself. A few months ago, it was disclosed that during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, she used a private e-mail server which may, or may not, have been used by her to send classified information.

The American media has gone wild because it smells scandal. The pro-Hillary tribe proclaims her innocence, pointing to her denial last March that she “did not e-mail any classified material on my e-mail,” all 55,000 pages of it. The anti-Hillary destruction crew say the contrary must be the case. They point to a report by the Inspector General of the intelligence community who concluded that, after examining a small number of the private e-mails, on at least four occasions classified information was sent and that potentially hundreds of classified e-mails had been sent.

In April this year, retired US army General David Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $100,000 for sharing highly classified information with his biographer (and lover), Paula Broadwell. According to Anne Tomkins, the US attorney who oversaw the Petraeus prosecution, there is no comparison between the two cases. General Petraeus admitted that he knew what he was doing, whereas Hillary did not. Quite how Ms Tomkins reaches such a conclusion has not been explained. Last week, Mrs Clinton said, “It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email.” In this carefully worded way, Mrs Clinton has apologised for her private e-mail arrangement.

I don’t believe this apology will be enough to get Mrs Clinton out of trouble. There is a Watergate feel to what is happening. In 1972, Nixon and his advisers believed the Watergate burglary problems would be solved through a PR initiative. By the time Nixon realised that Watergate’s political and legal issues were paramount, it was too late to save his Presidency.

It is almost six months since the existence of the private server was made public. The FBI says its investigation is not complete. Sources within the FBI say it is a criminal probe. The Clinton camp say the probe is civil and fact-finding in nature. They continue to handle the situation by making PR offensives which, presumably, they hope will make the problem go away. What has happened to the famous Clinton antennae?

Instead of trying to win a PR battle, Mrs Clinton should recognise she has a political calamity on her hands. She should call for the FBI to put up or shut up and seek a speedy trial. She can accuse her investigators of playing politics by the delay as it will interfere with her White House run. She should demand specimen charges be brought against her now or the matter should be dropped. If Mrs Clinton is prosecuted and found guilty and fined before the primaries start, she should pay and be done with, after making a fulsome apology to the voters.

The potential ramifications are huge. There is already a lot of mud that can be thrown at Hillary. Her billing record at the Rose Law firm, the Whitewater fiasco, her failure to make progress in Congress with healthcare legislation, the unauthorised removal of furniture from the White House in 2000 when the Clintons left and the Benghazi fiasco when she was Secretary of State. Add to this the suspicion amongst many American voters that she cannot be trusted to tell the truth, all will be ammunition for the Republicans after they settle on their presidential candidate.

By letting Servergate drag, Mrs Clinton is allowing upset apple cart to grow legs. If she is not prosecuted, talking heads at Fox News will, no doubt, accuse the Attorney General of interfering with a criminal investigation and countermanding an FBI decision. Possibly, the President might be accused of directing the AG to abandon a prosecution, which he has power to do, and face a Republican Congressional initiative for impeachment for failing “faithfully to defend the Constitution.”

Should Mrs Clinton be prosecuted, that is not necessarily an end to her campaign. Republican hopeful Rick Perry was been indicted for abuse of power but has only just removed himself from the race for the Republican nomination. I think he took this action not because of the prosecution but because he could no longer adequately finance his run. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Democratic candidate John Edwards was prosecuted for violating campaign contribution laws. The prosecution did not force him out of the race. It was his marital infidelity that ended his run. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is being investigated over alleged campaign contributions yet he remains in the Republican race.

If Mrs Clinton takes the steps I advocate and loses her fight in court, she will know the American public likes a fighter, especially one who comes back after a loss. After all, her husband was known as “the Comeback Kid.” However, what voters will not like is a person who upsets an apple cart and leaves it to others to clear up the mess.

The Visible Invisible Primary

The official starting gun of the Presidential election cycle is the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucus next year. The candidate hopefuls will be judged carefully by the registered Democratic and Republican voters of these states. Neither have any significant importance in the general election to follow as they have few Electoral College votes. The period between candidates testing the waters for a Presidential run and the start of the primary season is called the Invisible Primary. During this time, not only the citizens of New Hampshire and Iowa but also the media are testing candidates, less for their policies than for character. The unspoken question asked by the voters is, “does this person have Presidential qualities?” More precisely, “would this person be an effective Commander-in-Chief?”

What are the qualities needed to be President of the United States in the 21^st century? Pretty much the same as they have been since the 1930s. Brains, judgment, experience, guts and heart, to which one might add a thick-skin and stamina. Looking at the list of some twenty candidates currently in the 2016 race, how many of them have these qualities? The media sometimes does not help. Does it really matter whether Donald Trump’s hair is his own?

The race for the Presidency used to be a twelve month event. Now it seems to last for four years. Almost as soon as Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012, the political talking heads were at it, seeking possible candidates for 2016. Hillary Clinton was fund raising and tying up ward captains almost from the get-go, although she did not get her fingers dirty. Others did the job for her.

Whilst I question the permissiveness of fund raising in American elections, I have no objection to how most of the money is spent. Mini economies are created. Many political and campaign jobs get created. Local television and radio stations earn advertising revenue, the manufacturers of pins, badges, letter openers, T shirts, yard signs and other merchandising see a bump in profits, hotels and motels in out of the way places find their rooms filled and office space is leased country-wide. Of course, some candidates and helpers might help themselves to the funds but I cannot remember any major blemishes in the past few presidential elections.

However, I feel for the American voting public, who have to endure perpetual electioneering and numbing TV adverts. I suspect they look enviously at the British general election rules. 28 days’ notice is all that is required to call an election, at least it was until the 2010 Conservative/Liberal coalition. Now, a British government is required by law to serve its full five year term unless it loses a vote of confidence. The next British election will probably be held in 2020 but, alas, the campaign will start two years beforehand.

This year’s Presidential candidates seem to be a poor selection. Mrs Clinton has probably got the Democratic nomination already sewn up but how is she qualified for the job? Does eight years in the Residency and East Wing of the White House, two years in the Senate and four as Secretary of State make her better qualified than her rivals? Last week, Hillary took the Ethanol Pledge, a rite of passage in Iowa. Iowans want federal funding for corn-based fuel despite the fact that ethanol is more expensive to produce than oil. Bernie Sanders might challenge Mrs Clinton. He is a very experienced legislator and an architect of the Bank Crisis rescue in 2008/9. However he has a problem. He is not photogenic. In a nationwide election, this will hurt him. A sad reflection, I know, but nevertheless true.

As for the Republicans, Donald Trump is keeping his lead. He has no legislative or governing record whatsoever to protect, so he can promise and pronounce on everything without being challenged on his record. He knows that you campaign in poetry. I doubt he has considered that you govern in prose. He talks of “playing to people’s fantasies” but it is difficult to imagine how President Trump would wrangle worthwhile legislation from a contrary Congress. I expect he will remain centre stage for a while. Will he get anywhere near the Republican nomination? I very much doubt it but he may well run as an Independent, in which event he will take votes from the Republican nominee.

Who in the long list of Republican contenders will succeed? At the moment, it may be someone who has not yet put his hat in the ring, who is not bound to the Republican base, a person with governing experience who can appeal to the centre. I’m watching and waiting.

In the meantime, I am doing my best to ignore the trivia and trash reporting of what, so far, has been a lack-lustre invisible primary, save for The Donald who seems to be running strongly. But the media is giving him an easy ride. Oh please, someone in the press, ask him how he will fund, build, maintain and police a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican boundary? Ask him how to justify why a person born in the United States cannot claim citizenship as of right. Will no one ask The Donald the hard questions? Until then, the Invisible Primary might as well remain invisible!

Americans and their Love Affair with Guns

Cartoon: Denver Post

In Greek legend, the Gordian knot was the name given to an intricate knot used by the peasant Gordius to secure his oxcart. An oracle foretold that he who untied the knot would rule all of Asia. People tried to undo the knot but to no avail. This is the position in which President Obama finds himself on gun control. In a July interview with the BBC’s Jon Sopel, the President said:
“You mentioned the issue of guns. That is an area where …I feel that I've been most frustrated and most stymied. The fact is that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings. And… if you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it's less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it's in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing.”

I am with the President on this one but who is creating the stumbling blocks? Is it a Process issue? Lobby groups such as the National Rifleman’s Association wield power way beyond their numbers. First, the NRA has its own PAC, enabling it to give unregulated funds to politicians. By funding numerous US Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, the lobbyists confound any legislation presented to Congress. In the 2012 election, more than 250 legislative hopefuls from both parties received NRA contributions.

Let us assume Congress wants to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of a semi-automatic rifle. I’ll call it the Comet 100. By altering the length of the stock and re-naming the rifle the Comet 101, the legislative ban is defeated. If an example is needed where Congress acts like an ostrich, when one of their number, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head in public at a shopping mall in Arizona, was there a groundswell in Congress to pass tighter gun laws? There was nothing. Fortunately she survived but her career as a legislator was over.

Perhaps the stumbling blocks are erected by the judiciary? On numerous occasions since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has ruled on the right of Americans to own weapons. The Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has been consistent, namely that American citizens have the right to “bear arms.” The Amendment states that citizen militia has such a right, yet the Supremes don’t interpret the Constitution to mean that the right is limited to members of the armed forces. How is a gun-toting gang member who lives in one of Chicago’s Projects a member of the militia? To change the law, either the Court has to do an about face or the executive and legislative branch need to change the Constitution, a tortuous process at the best of times and an almost certain vote loser. In my years of studying America’s way of life, I have not read one serious paper or editorial advocating a constitutional amendment.

I don’t regard the issue as one of either process or law. I believe it is set deep in American culture. Americans, black and white, rich and poor, Christians, Jews and Muslims, believe fervently in freedom. It follows that many Americans believe they have the right and freedom to defend themselves. If this means owning and using a firearm to preserve that freedom, that is their right. The cost of children’s lives, for example the 28 murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, is part of the price paid by Americans for their freedom. So is the recent loss of life in Ferguson.

Most Americans I speak with are amazed to discover that a British citizen has the right to own a firearm and to keep it at home. It requires a Police license and weapons must be secured under lock and key. However, I have no absolute right to use a firearm to kill or wound anyone, even an attacker. There is a legal principle that British citizens must not take the law into their own hands and in defending themselves, they must use only such force as is reasonably necessary. This may well be the case both federally and in some US states but the all too frequent American-style killings make me believe it is not.

Rather than just criticise, may I offer a partial solution? If sales of bullets were regulated so that any sales would be registered, it might be possible to trace some gun ownership from a bullets used to kill or wound. If nothing else, this may act as a deterrent to indiscriminate use of guns, although the black market in bullets would probably be significant.

So, Mr Obama, if you are really serious about changing gun-safety laws, you will have to do better than wring your hands. Take the issue to the American people, get on the stump and persuade Americans that their freedoms will not be reduced or harmed by reconsidering gun ownership. Will the President follow this advice? I doubt it. I accept this is a complex issue. I also accept it is a vote loser in many states but as the President will not be standing for election again, what personal damage arises?