Seeking Input for Electoral Reform Wish List: What Say You?

Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in downtown Manhattan on September 17th, I have noted on a number of occasions that there is an inspiring amount of independent and third party activity and organizing taking place at the demonstrations.  Members of the Green, Libertarian, Socialist and Reform parties, among others, have been involved in the movement from the very beginning, in addition to legions of Independents. 

Much of the organizing work being accomplished at Occupy Wall Street is being done within autonomous working groups and caucuses.  There are working groups devoted to everything from media and internet to outreach, direct action and reform.  There are a number of groups, of which I'm aware, that should be of special interest to independents, third party advocates and opponents of the two-party state.  Over the next couple days, I'm going to provide some info on these various groups and relay portions of the documents and proposals they have been working on, all of which can be found through the New York City General Assembly's website for Occupy Wall Street.

Today, the focus will be the Politics and Electoral Reform group – in which I have been active for a number of weeks.  The group is working on a proposal recommending electoral reforms that could be implemented by states and localities to level the playing field for those who have been marginalized, and whose interests are not represented, by the Republican-Democrat two-party state. Numerous reforms are being considered by the group, which is collaborating on a working draft document for the proposal.  Here is an excerpt from the section of the document specifically devoted to the recommendations for reform:

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their voters.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  Expansion of the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. There are alternatives.

• Expansion of franchise. Those who are denied of the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Term limits should be imposed by law or by the people at the ballot box.

• Ballot access reform. All should be equal before the law regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A publicly funded election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses and conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda.

• Vote counting. The reintroduction of hand counted, paper ballots, or the introduction of significant controls to protect against the rigging of electronic voting machines, which are produced, operated and serviced by corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.

• Weekend or holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Campaign finance. Publicly funded election campaigns, or matching fund systems that allow candidates who refuse to accept corporate donations to compete on a level playing field with candidates who are heavily financed by corporate interests.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an IRV runoff between the top four candidates from the primary. Countless other possibilities.

(Note: the proposal is a living document, and any of the above could and probably will be changed by the group at some point.)  I'm relaying this excerpt because many readers here at Politea have thought long and hard about a lot of these issues, and could provide some interesting suggestions that could be taken up by the group.  So what say you, folks?  What do you think of the recommendations as they stand?  Should any be amended? or dropped? or edited?  Are there any important potential reforms that are missing from the list?

The Foreclosure Crisis in the People's House

In recent weeks, Democrats and their allies have taken to criticizing the Chamber of Commerce among other lobbying organizations for their acceptance and use of "foreign funds" to influence the outcome of elections in the United States.  From Greg Sargent at the Washington Post, last week:

The White House will keep up its assault on outside spending by conservative groups and will continue to press the case about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's foreign money, despite hints of retreat on the latter issue, senior adviser David Axelrod told me in an interview this afternoon . . .

"The fact that these front groups are spending hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed sources on attack ads to influence these elections is a serious issue and we're going to continue to raise it," Axelrod told me. He added: "As we've said from the beginning, the prospect that foreign controlled companies might somehow be involved, this was opened up in the Citizens United debate, and it continues to be a concern."

This effort began in earnest toward the end of August, when the president argued in a weekly video address that transparency in television advertising will "stop the corporate takeover of our democracy."  From the video address:

this summer, [we're] also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.  We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.    The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.  They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them.  You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation.  You don’t know if it’s BP.  You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank.   [Emphasis added.]

As we all know, the Democrats and Republican parties are owned and operated by their corporate paymasters.  Someone should inform the president, because he appears unaware, that corporations hijacked our democracy some time ago.  Indeed, he wouldn't be sitting where he is today were it not for the generous support of his corporate sponsors.

But what if we had a more expansive definition of what constitutes "foreign influence" in our elections?  In the early days of the republic, if I remember my history correctly, most Americans did not identify themselves first and foremost as Americans, that is, as citizens of the United States.  Rather, their primary identification was with their state or even their locality.  They were New Yorkers or Virginians first and Americans second.  Meddling on the part of the federal government or other states was itself seen as undue foreign influence.

Today virtually all members of House of Representatives are almost completely bankrolled by precisely these sorts of "foreign interests."  Money flows into their campaign coffers from corporations and organizations based outside of their districts and states.  The people's house has been foreclosed upon and stolen right out from under us.  In a post on political panhandling from last summer, I highlighted a number of findings from a study by the Maplight organization, which showed, among other things, that:

• For 99% of U.S. House members (418 out of 421), Washington, DC was among their top 5 contributing states. . . .
• Almost all House members, 97%, raised more than half of their funds from outside their congressional districts.
• Five House members raised 99% or more of their funds from outside their congressional districts.
• Only 13 House members, or 3%, raised most of their funds from within the district where their voters live

Given these statistics, it is any wonder that Democrats and Republicans are incapable of representing the interests of their constituents?  Their loyalties lie elsewhere: out of district, out of state.  Only the most naive or cynical individual could conclude otherwise.  The other day, I received a press release about a new documentary that examines the lobbying system in the United States, entitled, The Best Government Money Can Buy.  From the release:

The documentary features beltway insiders and watchdogs from both sides of the aisle speaking very candidly about their process; the link between campaign finance and lobbyists; how our elected officials have become more beholden to the special interests than their constituents and, most significantly how - lip service aside - there’s little motivation by the Members to change the system.

A number of segments from the movie have already been released online.  One features dueling interviews with Daniel Newman, the CEO of Maplight, mentioned above, and Nick Calio, the Executive Vice President of Global Government Affairs at Citi Group.  Calio states, with a straight face, that the current fundraising regime "keeps members of Congress closer to their constituents in some ways than almost anything else does." Daniel Newman, on the other hand, lets the statistics speak for themselves when he notes that "79% of all the money raised by members of the US House came from outside their district . . . [and that] 57% came from outside their state."


The Best Government Money Can Buy Clip #10 from Cinema Libre Studio on Vimeo.

Political Panhandling and the Reproduction of the Two-Party State

One of my favorite regular features at The Think 3 Institute are Sam Wilson's commentaries on, and analyses of, fundraising letters from the professional panhandlers in the Democratic and Republican parties. This week, in a post entitled "Competitive Codependency: the Bipolarchy Begs," Sam juxtaposes specimens from Sharron Angle and Nancy Pelosi:

Two begging letters arrived in my mailbox yesterday. One was from Sharron Angle, who somewhat defensively, as if anticipating a dispute, dubs herself the "Official Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate Against Harry Reid." . . . The other begging letter came from Nancy Pelosi, with a cover letter from Barney Frank. The Speaker of the House is writing on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Sam concludes:

each side accuses the other of being dominated by "special interest" donors, and this is one of those happy cases when both sides are right, or both wrong, depending on whether any American has the right to call any other a "special interest." . . . together they demonstrate how perpetual competition enriches both pillars of the American Bipolarchy. The Republicans must have money because the Democrats have more, and the more Republicans raise, the more Democrats need. This money fuels the permanent fundraising machines both parties operate . . . and the people who operate these machines are the principal beneficiaries of campaign donations. Arguably, both major parties exist today primarily as fundraising machines, pitching their opposition in extreme terms to maximize donations by making the need for them appear more urgent.

In his analysis of Angle's letter, Sam touches on a point I've been meaning to address for some time now, but haven't broached yet here at Poli-Tea. He writes:

I thought the likes of her were all for federalism and states' rights. Why, then, is this person who seeks to represent the state of Nevada asking for donations from a New Yorker? The mere request proves that in her own mind she doesn't represent her state as much as she does a party or an ideological movement.

One can credibly generalize this basic critique to cover the Democratic-Republican ruling establishment and political class in its entirety. Almost 100% of Democratic and Republican lawmakers receive more than half of their funding from donors outside of their districts. Consider these findings from a 2008 study by MapLight, a non-partisan, non-profit research group that tracks the "connection between money and politics":

Representatives raised $700 million in campaign funds from January 2005 - December 2007. $551 million of these funds, or 79%, came from out-of-district. $146 million of these funds, or 21%, came from in-district. The remaining $3 million of campaign funds (0.5%) could not be definitively located as in-district or out-of-district . . in other words, legislators raised about four out of every five dollars in campaign funds from outside of where their constituents live.

Though this is not especially surprising, the numbers are still rather startling. From the same study:

• For 99% of U.S. House members (418 out of 421), Washington, DC was among their top 5 contributing states. . . .

• Almost all House members, 97%, raised more than half of their funds from outside their congressional districts.

• Five House members raised 99% or more of their funds from outside their congressional districts.

• Only 13 House members, or 3%, raised most of their funds from within the district where their voters live . . .

• Washington, DC, is the top location for contributors; it is the source of $146,807,711, which is 21% of all contributions.

• For 99% of U.S. House members (418 out of 421), Washington, DC was among their top 5 contributing states.

• For 19% of U.S. House members (81 out of 421), Washington, DC was their number one contributing state.

• Washington, DC, with only 0.2% of the U.S. population, has fewer residents than every state except Wyoming.

It is no accident that our representatives do not represent our interests. It is not in their financial interests.

Ballot Access Law, Political Sock-Puppetry and a Suggestion for a Divide and Conquer Third Party Fundraising Strategy

The ballot access regime that has been constructed in the United States over the last century aims primarily at keeping alternatives to the corporatist stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties off the ballot at all costs. In order to ensure the reproduction of the two-party state and duopoly system of government, the Democratic and Republican parties must keep political competition to an absolute minimum. Indeed, the logical conclusion of the political strategies that have come to characterize Democratic-Republican party government is the abolition of competitive elections as such.

However, it is also in the immediate interests of each ruling party if the other is forced to compete with third party challengers. Thus, Democrats should be among the staunchest supporters of libertarian and conservative alternatives to the Republican wing of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, just as Republicans should be among the staunchest supporters of liberal and progressive alternatives to the Democratic wing of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. The fact that this is not the case just goes to show how deeply invested Republicans and Democrats are in the reproduction of the duopoly system of government, and of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. But there are always noteworthy exceptions.

The Green Party of Texas is currently embroiled in something of a scandal following revelations that a Republican consultant from out of state organized a ballot access petition drive that will ensure they remain on the ballot through 2012. The Republican's logic is simple to discern: if Greens are on the ballot, they will take votes away from Democrats, thus aiding Republican victory. In accepting such a "gift" the Green Party's logic is equally easy to discern: if Greens are not on the ballot, they cannot compete; but if they are on the ballot, they intend to win, defeating both Republican and Democratic opponents. A lengthy editorial at Green Party Watch provides background and discusses the matter in some depth:

This week it was revealed that: a) a Republican consultant in Arizona arranged for… b) a non-profit corporation in Missouri to pay $200,000 for… c) a petitioning company “Free & Equal” to collect 92,000 signatures and… d) give them as a gift to the Green Party of Texas to get a slate of candidates on the ballot.

Are Democrats pissed? You betcha. They are suing the Texas Green Party, Free & Equal, and “Take Initiative America” to delay the balloting of Green Party candidates until they can determine the source of the funding, and they are pointing fingers at Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Green Party of Texas is cooperating by agreeing to delay submitting their slate of candidates until the courts rule on the matter. kat swift, State Coordinator of the Green Party of Texas, has been reported saying that they believe the petition drive was legal, but will wait for written assurance of that fact. swift also said that once the petition drive is determined to be legal, the Green Party of Texas will field a slate of candidates regardless of what individual funded the petition drive . . .

This is not the first time that Republicans have “conspired” to help Green Party candidates to surpass ballot access barriers that they themselves have created. Republicans are accused of financially assisting Ralph Nader’s Independent campaigns for President in 2004 and 2008, neither of which tipped the election . . .

Each time there is outrage that Greens would accept Republican money to surpass ballot access barriers set by Democrats, but no efforts by Democrats to establish fair and equal access to the ballot. For Democrats and Republicans it is all about winning, not “principles”, but for the Green Party it is only about having an opportunity to appear on the ballot and appeal to the electorate. [Emphases added.]

While there seems to be no dispute regarding just who funded the Green Party petition effort in Texas, the same cannot be said of the Michigan Tea Party. Last month it was reported that Democratic party groups were likely behind efforts to gain ballot access for third party Tea Party candidates for public office. From the Detroit Free Press:

Michigan Tea Party activists were agitated Monday, convinced that a shadowy group of left-wingers was trying to hijack their identity and run faux Tea Party candidates for office to siphon votes from authentic, limited-government conservatives.

The fears were aroused by an apparent petition drive in southeast Michigan aimed at qualifying the candidates for the Michigan ballot under an official Tea Party banner. Leaders in the state's Tea Party movement said Monday they knew of no connection between actual Tea Party activists and the petition circulators. Backers of the petition drive have so far chosen to obscure their identity, declining to respond to news media inquiries or file paperwork with the state Bureau of Elections.

At least one of the activists behind the effort was revealed a few weeks later. Also from the Detroit Free Press:

A Tuscola County man unknown to local Tea Party activists has been identified as a contact person for the mysterious petition drive to qualify a Tea Party party for the Michigan ballot. . . .

Mark Steffek of Reese filed incorporation documents in April, registering the Tea Party name in Michigan. Last week, Steffek registered the Tea Party as political party with state elections officials. Mark Graham, who heads the Tea Party movement in Tuscola County, said this morning he’s not met or heard of Steffek . . .

Steffek’s political activity in the past appears to be limited to contributions to UAW and Farm Bureau PACs, and to the 2002 gubernatorial campaign of former Democratic Congressman David Bonior, of Mt. Clemens.

While such efforts are looked down upon in many quarters, they should not be dismissed out of hand. It is no secret that minor parties and their candidates for office face an uphill fund-raising battle against Democrats and Republicans. Why not openly pursue a divide and conquer strategy? Why shouldn't the Green party openly court top contributors to the Republican Party? Why shouldn't the Libertarian Party seek out contributions from leading Democratic campaign contributors? The fund-raising letters write themselves: help us defeat your enemy.

Consumer Alert: Beware of Political Campaign Contribution Scams

Any worthy history of grift and graft would certainly detail the reciprocal relationship between the art of the confidence trickster and that of the political huckster. The duopoly system of government constructed by the Democratic-Republican Party has transformed the apparatus of political representation into a front for organizations of carpet-bagging hobos, parasitic tramps and panhandling bums, whose hysteria rises in direct proportion with their want for funding.* Of course, no one likes to think of themselves as an easy mark, yet, every year millions if not billions of dollars are extorted from the people of the United States to fill the campaign coffers of the duopoly parties and their willing shills, in a wealth redistribution scheme that ensures the reproduction of the duopoly system of government and the continued alienation and disenfranchisement of the American voting public.

One of my favorite series of posts at The Think 3 Institute is dedicated to analyzing campaign fund-raising letters. Reading the most recent installment, I began to ponder the similarities between this genre of political panhandling and traditional schemes of advance-fee fraud, such as the Nigerian 419 scam. Suddenly, the following document appeared on my desktop:

Request for Urgent Political Action from the Bipartisan National Policy Review Panel

Dear Sir or Madam,

I must solicit your strictest confidence in this endeavor, which is of the greatest importance to the future of our country and even to liberty itself. I am sure of and have confidence in your ability and reliability to engage in an undertaking of such importance which requires your maximum confidence as well.

We are top party officials and members of the highly respected Bipartisan National Policy Review Panel who have unearthed sensitive intelligence regarding pending legislation and policy proposals currently making their way through relevant committees and executive working groups. In order to thwart the subversion of justice and our very way of life represented by these policy proposals, some of which you have likely read about in the independent media, we solicit your assistance to enable us to transfer into your possession funds that would otherwise support the proponents of said proposals and their passage.

The source of these funds is as follows: during the most recent [insert: Republican or Democratic] administration, various government and party officials set up independent action committees to collect monies both in support of and against necessary foreign and domestic policies, however, they grossly overestimated the costs of this political struggle, resulting in a large surplus of funds, which can now be accessed by the new regime to ensure passage of its radical [insert: left wing or right wing] agenda.

By virtue of our positions on the Bipartisan National Policy Review Panel, we cannot acquire this money in our names, but we can control the flow of these funds, and direct it to individuals and groups whose consistent support of liberty and justice, the Constitution and a vigorous two-party system, is beyond question, and can be trusted in such sensitive matters, thus denying it to radical [insert: liberals or conservatives] whose motives are open to serious doubt.

I have therefore been delegated as a matter of trust by my colleagues on the panel to seek partners into whose accounts we would transfer portions of the $35,628,320 in question. Hence we are writing you this letter. We have agreed to apportion the funds thusly: 2.5% for every account whose owner abides by the terms of the agreement, until the funds are depleted enough so as to ensure that they cannot be utilized for the effective implementation of the above-mentioned legislation and policy proposals. Please note that this transaction is 100% safe and we will commence the transfer seven days after the receipt of the following information by tel/fax at XXX-XXX-XXX: on your personal or business, signed and stamped, letterhead paper, your relevant bank account information and personal identification number. This information will enable us to compile letters of claim for the funds in question, to be deposited directly into your accounts.

We are looking forward to your support in thwarting the radical agenda of the new [insert: left wing or right wing] regime and solicit your utmost confidentiality in this transaction. Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter using the above tel/fax numbers. I will send you more detailed information of this project once I have heard from you.

Should you decide not to participate, please consider donating even modest sums to relevant party officials and committees dedicated to ensuring the continued existence of our two-party system of checks and balances in government.

Yours truly,
Dr. Eberhard Crook
Chairman, Bipartisan National Party Policy Review Panel

Note: please quote this reference number (FD/S/09/09) in all your responses.

It is a common refrain among partisans of the Republican and Democratic Parties that the factions which constitute the duopoly system of government "check" and "balance" one another. Yet, for all intents and purposes, the only checks and balances that are of any significance to partisan flim-flam artists are the balances of their campaign funds accounts and the checks that augment them. Every year millions of Americans fall prey to such frauds. Do not be taken in by these scams. If you receive a letter such as that above or have been the victim of a Democratic or Republican campaign "contribution" scheme, notify relevant authorities.

*The comparison with professional politicians is not intended to denigrate our nation's homeless.

Campaign Finance Reform as Duopolist Farce

This week a federal judge struck a blow for equality of political opportunity in a ruling which found Connecticut's public funding system for political campaigns unconstitutional because it discriminates against minor parties. Ballot Access News quotes the summary from the decision:

The CEP (Citizens Election Program) enhances the relative strength of major party candidates in ways that represent a severe burden on the political opportunity of minor party candidates for the following reasons: (1) it provides participating major party candidates public funding at windfall levels, well beyond what most major party candidates would typically be able to raise on their own from private fundraising sources; (2) it permits major party candidates who are as equally ‘hopeless’ as minor party candidates in many districts to become eligible for full funding without first requiring such hopeless major party candidates to make the same threshold showing of public support required of minor party candidates through the additional qualifying criteria; (3) the additional qualifying criteria for minor party candidates are nearly impossible to achieve, thus ensuring that minor party candidates will only very rarely qualify for the ‘enhancing’ benefits made available by CEP participation; and (4) in the event a minor party candidate does qualify for partial CEP funding, it handicaps that participating minor party candidate by automatically granting full funding to his or her participating major party opponent, and by prohibiting the partially-funded minor party candidate from raising private contributions, up to the full grant amount, in increments greater than $100.

A Nation of Laws: by the Corporations, for the Corporations, of the Corporations

It is often said that the United States is a nation of laws, not of men. This may be so, but the laws themselves are still made by men, and women of course, specific ones in fact, with specific loyalties, prejudices and agendas, the sum of which is equal to the disenfranchisement of the greater portion of the US public in the interest of maintaining the reigning two-party system of government and the corporate oligarchy that the duopoly parties represent. In May, Think Progress reported:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), in a Senate hearing on the EPA budget . . . decried the extraordinary amount of spending by corporate global warming polluters to lobby Congress. Reading from a report on new lobbying disclosures, Whitehouse noted that carbon polluters such as electric utilities and oil and gas companies have spent nearly $80 million on lobbying just in the first quarter of 2009. [Emphasis added.]

It is further worth emphasizing that Whitehouse decried the lobbyists rather than the members of Congress who are bought and paid for with all of those lobbying dollars. Nonetheless, in his criticism of big industry polluters, Whitehouse stated:

there has been a constant battle with polluters who don’t want to pay the costs of their pollution, either preventing or cleaning it up . . . They’d like to just dump it and have it be somebody else’s problem. There’s absolutely nothing new about that. Polluters don’t want to pay. [Emphasis added.]

In all fairness to the polluters, however, we must admit that this is not exactly true. They pay, and they pay handsomely . . . when they're cutting their checks to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress! $80 million in four months is no small sum, even in the age of the trillion dollar bailout. And, of course, they're not the only ones. In a report detailing campaign contributions from finance, insurance and real estate interests to the members of the House Financial Services Committee by the Public Campaign Action Fund, it was found that:

• The average committee member took $885,586 from the financial, insurance, and real estate interests over their career.
• The financial, insurance, and real estate interests already donated $2.25 million to committee members in the first quarter of 2009.
• Twenty-three members of the committee took more than a million dollars in campaign cash from the industries, including 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Forty-three members received at least $500,000.
• The list was topped by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) at $3.62 million and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) at $3.12 million, both of whom represent districts outside the geographic home of the industry in New York City.

As Senator Dick Durbin recently put it, speaking of the Congress: "Frankly, the banks own the place." This, naturally, is not entirely true either. The banks do not own the Congress, the people do. The banks own the Democrats and Republicans who allow corporate lobbyists to craft legislation in the name of the people, which they then rubber stamp without reading. It is symptomatic of the contemporary duopoly form that a bill requiring bills to be voted upon only after a three day reading period has elapsed has less than ten co-sponsors (HR 554). Perhaps we can slip the so-called "Read the Bills Bill" past them while they're not reading something else.

In their defense, duopolists from both parties are often quick to point out that "everyone is doing it." How many times have you read or heard a Democrat respond to some piece of criticism by stating that Republicans engage in the same behavior? How many times have you read or heard a Republican respond to some piece of criticism by stating that Democrats do it too? Of all the apologia peddled by ideologues of the duopoly parties, this is one of my favorites. For a brief moment the truth is unwittingly allowed to appear within the confines of the duopoly dialogue.

Independents for Governor

Races for the 2010 gubernatorial elections are already beginning to take shape across the country (in Maine and Idaho, for instance), driven in no small part by the number of independents who have put themselves in the running early, likely in order to overcome the various hurdles to independent bids erected by the duopoly state apparatus. This past week two independent candidates made headlines in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy Cahill has withdrawn from the Democratic Party and registered as an independent. At Massachusetts Conservative Feminist, Tina Hemond provides us with some context:

Timothy Cahill the current Massachusetts State Treasurer plans to leave the Democrat Party this week, according to the Boston Globe. Cahill, who is apparently fed up with the tax and spend party policy, will most likely run as an independent against Governor Duvall Patrick. Patrick, who also faces a challenge from Republican Christie Mihos, has been losing popularity as the State's financial woes continue unabated.

Shortly after Cahill made his move, Republican Charlie Baker announced that he would seek the Republican nomination and oppose Mihos in the party's primary. The Sun Chronicle reports:

Republican Charlie Baker's decision to run for governor days after state Treasurer Tim Cahill made a move toward an independent bid sets up a potentially titanic three-way race with incumbent Deval Patrick, local political activists said Tuesday . . . Baker, a former state government official, is stepping down as head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care to seek the Republican nomination for governor in next year's state election. Businessman Christy Mihos is also running as a Republican.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, independent candidate Chris Daggett has just reached the fundraising threshold to qualify for state matching funds in the 2009 gubernatorial election. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Independent candidate for governor Chris Daggett announced yesterday that he has raised enough money to qualify for matching state funds, earning a spot in the two official general-election debates. At a news conference on the steps of the Statehouse, Daggett made the argument that neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to fix the problems that face the state. "If we are going to make New Jersey an affordable place to live and work, we have to elect a governor who is free of the special interests that have created our current fiscal crisis," Daggett said. Daggett, of Bernards Township, said he expected to raise $3.6 million, which would earn him twice that in matching funds . . . He will face off in the official debates with Democratic Gov. Corzine and Republican candidate Christopher J. Christie. Daggett becomes the first independent candidate to qualify for taxpayer-funded campaign funds in time to get into the state-sanctioned debates.

The rise in the number of registered and self-described independents across the country has likely changed the political calculus for potential candidates who, like many Americans, are fed up with the two-party system of favors and trade-offs, and have thus seized the opportunity to challenge entrenched duopoly powers ahead of the political curve leading up to 2010.

To do or not to do?

At The Seminole Chronicle, Tyler Yeargain puts together a political to-do list, and makes a case for direct democracy, term limits, ballot access reform and campaign finance reform:

The Electoral College often distorts elections, hurts third party candidates and gives people the impression that their vote does not count. For example, in 2008, President Obama received 52.9 percent of the popular vote, but nearly 67 percent of the electoral vote. And we all remember in 2000 when Vice-President Gore received 500,000 more votes than then-Governor Bush, but lost the Electoral College vote. Cleaning our hands of this dreadful system would certainly add to our reputation as a democratic beacon of light.

Campaign finance reform can make our elections open to anyone, and make our politicians more honest and accountable. I think it is a reasonable thing to say that if politicians were not so much in the oil companies' pockets, then we might actually develop alternative fuels, increase fuel efficiency, combat global warming, and decrease gas prices. Why would politicians vote with an industry that does not employ people in their district and does not provide them with a steady flow of contributions?

Repealing the rule that only candidates who are polling at 15 percent nationwide or higher can participate in officially-sanctioned presidential debates would present voters with more options than the Democratic and Republican parties. The last independent candidate to appear in a presidential debate was Ross Perot in 1992. People often complain about the two-party system, and inclusion of third-party candidates (but not all third-party candidates) would present people with more options.

Implementing term limits for our representatives and senators in Congress would allow more people to serve their country and represent American citizens, thus providing the U.S. with a government that is aware of what the citizens are in support of but would be willing to make risks and stand up for what they truly believe by not having to run for re-election.

The Misrule of Law

Though I tend to emphasize the executive and the legislative branches of government here at Poli-Tea, the judiciary is not exempt from the machinations of the duopoly kleptocracy, which is bought and paid for by national and multinational corporations. The NYT reports on the Supreme Court's decision in the Massey Energy case:

Elected judges must disqualify themselves from cases involving people who spent exceptionally large sums to put them on the bench, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

One would think that recusing oneself in such an instance should be common sense. The dissenting justices think otherwise. At Docudharma, Michael Gass traces the outlines of the cloud behind the silver lining:

Massey Coal lost a case and appealed it. Before the appeal was heard, Massey Coal funded the campaign of a lawyer named Benjamin to be elected to the Appeal Court. Benjamin won the election, then refused to recuse himself twice, voting each time in favor of Massey Coal. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, who then ruled by 5-4 that Benjamin had acted wrongly. 5-4 that it is wrong for a corporation to buy itself a judge. And, who is buying off the judges? Corporations. To stunning effect!

Primary Funding and the Two-Party State

Tim Higgins at Just Blowin' Smoke asks: why do we pay for primaries? He writes:

as a registered Independent (and card carrying Libertarian) I have to ask myself why any government money (you know, my money) is being used by the Democratic and Republican Parties to hold these primaries, especially since I don't get to vote in either.

Adding:

Third party candidates do not get to utilize such government resources in challenging this two party monetary monopoly.

This is a topic with which I am not very familiar, but it stands to reason that the organization and political economy of the primary system would serve to reinforce the two-party state and undermine efforts aimed at breaking open the duopoly system of government. Anyone know of good resources for information pertaining to this issue?

On a related note, Roll Call calls out Republicans for using public funds to subsidize their "rebranding campaign." Intoxination wonders: "How does this sit with conservatives? Should people have to pay taxes to help fix the Republican brand? Couldn’t this start the slippery slope to socialism?"

The 100 Days Daze

While the collapse of the GOP coalition has led many on the right to question their preferred duopoly party's priorities, the new Democratic majority has led many liberals, progressives and leftists to do the same. At the WSWS, Tom Eley considers 'Obama's 100 Days' and concludes:

After only 100 days of the new administration, workers and youth are coming face to face with the fact that Obama represents no change from the anti-working class, anti-democratic and militaristic polices of his predecessor. His presidency has already established the impossibility of effecting real change in government policy by means of elections within the framework of the existing two-party system, or through appeals to the Democratic Party.

Glenn Greenwald reflects on Sen. Dick Durbin's admission that the US Congress is "owned by the banks," and states the obvious:

That Congress is fully owned and controlled by a tiny sliver of narrow, oligarchical, deeply corrupted interests is simultaneously so obvious yet so demonized (only Unserious Shrill Fringe radicals, such as the IMF's former chief economist, use that sort of language) that even Durbin's explicit admission will be largely ignored.

Last month, I noted Chris Bowers' complaint that he has . . .

helped raise over two million dollars for Congressional Democrats . . . who, upon their arrival in Congress, do whatever they can to openly distance themselves from both me and the causes I believe in. Why do I keep giving money to people who will respond by publicly slapping me in the face?

Liberals and progressives should ask themselves the same question with regard to their voting habits and party affiliation. Why support a party which does not represent your interests or uphold your politics?

Update: Kevin Hayden at the American Street responds to Greenwald's post, and asks:

So should we shrug and say “same old, same old” then bend over and say “thank you, Sir, may I have another?” Only if you consent to being a tool . . . Will there ever be a way to successfully bridge the gaps that the rich like to plant to keep the peasants distracted from their thieveries and predations? . . . is there a way to make it change?

Insofar as you support the duopoly parties you consent to be the tool of the bipoligarchy which they represent and which controls them. Insofar as you buy in to the ideology of the duopoly you are part of the problem. The surest way to "make it change" is to join the opposition to the two-party state.

Surprised Party

Arguably, the Republicans' defeat in 2008 was as much a function of conservative discontent with the party's trajectory under the Bush administration as it was of the liberals' enthusiasm for the Obama campaign. Many such conservatives have come to the conclusion that their interests are simply not represented within the confines of the two party system, leading to calls for a "strong third party." (Wandering in the political wilderness, others are not as willing to give up on the GOP, and jokingly call for the organization of a strong second party, and the restoration of the two party system.) Ironically, however, some liberal Democrats, who have just returned from the political wilderness, have apparently learned nothing from the experience of their conservative counterparts, and are surprised to find that the party apparatus continues to frustrate their political aims. Chris Bowers complains that he has "helped raise over two million dollars for Congressional Democrats . . . who, upon their arrival in Congress, do whatever they can to openly distance themselves from both me and the causes I believe in. Why do I keep giving money to people who will respond by publicly slapping me in the face?" It is a good question, one which more people should ask themselves. Why would anyone raise money for a political party which does not represent his or her interests?