Thursday, March 28, 2013

Independent Redistricting Commissions and Gerrymandering



There is the major party way and the independent way to draw political maps.

The wrong way: New York’s legislature recently approved a constitutional amendment, which will go before voters in 2014, to create a 10-member redistricting commission. However, lawmakers would pick eight of its members. A handful of states: Iowa, Washington, Idaho, and Arizona among them, have undertaken redistricting reforms. Yet most continue to give party leaders some say over the final maps.

The independent way: In 2010, California voters stripped lawmakers of their authority over redistricting, the once-a-decade process of redrawing congressional lines to account for demographic shifts, and awarded that power to an independent citizens’ panel. By the 2012 elections, the group’s work had done exactly what it was supposed to: create competition for seats that had long been safe. After the 53 new districts were revealed, 14 House members decided not to seek reelection or lost their race in November, resulting in a 26 percent turnover in the state’s delegation.

“You’ve had voters shoehorned into districts for the sake of maintaining incumbency, and we aren’t doing that in California anymore,” says Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “That’s probably what would happen everywhere if you had fair redistricting.”

No state has come as close as California to getting partisan politics out of legislative map making. Advocates for fair elections say the state’s reform could be a model for others, leading to more competitive races. And because representatives whose constituents are disproportionately Republican or Democratic are under less pressure to find middle ground on legislation, more competition could produce a House that’s much less polarized. At least theoretically.

The California process began by more than 36,000 people submitted applications for the $300-a-day part-time positions. The agency pored over required essays and conducted interviews. Eventually, the state auditor randomly drew names of three Democrats, three Republicans, and two independents. That group then picked the remaining two Democrats, two Republicans, and two independents. Among those chosen: a retired high school principal, an architect, a chiropractor, and an independent bookstore owner.

In February 2011 the full board set about drafting new boundaries. Its charter called for districts of roughly equal population with compact, regular shapes that respected city and county lines, as well as so-called communities of interest. That meant commissioners tried to group together people with shared economic and social features, such as race, religion, sexuality, commuting habits, and household income. “We thought about it the same way you would think about a neighborhood, what makes up a neighborhood,” says Commissioner Cynthia Dai, a consultant from San Francisco.

The board wasn’t allowed to consider incumbents’ home addresses or look at voters’ party registration. It did take into account 20,000 written comments and testimony from more than 2,700 residents who spoke at several dozen public hearings. Based on their input, and under the guidance of an outside consultant who helped draw the lines, the panel released its new maps in August 2011.

The number of districts didn’t change, but their boundaries were drastically different. The commissioners erased a skinny 200-mile-long district that Schwarzenegger had called the “Ribbon of Shame” because it was drawn to hug the central coastline, an area full of Democrats, and to exclude the right-leaning ranchers who lived inland. Ten incumbents were displaced, their homes newly located in districts where they’d have to square off against each other if they decided to run.

That’s what happened to 15-term Congressman Howard Berman and his colleague of 15 years, Brad Sherman. Their homes in greater Los Angeles ended up in the same district, and the men almost came to blows during a debate as they fought for the seat last November. Sherman won. “The most offensive gerrymander of the last decade has been the preservation of white, liberal seats around Los Angeles to the downside of Latino seats,” says Rob Stutzman, a GOP consultant who served in Schwarzenegger’s administration. “The fact that you had Berman and Sherman drawn together is a great example of what should have been done a decade ago.” The panel combined territory from their old districts to create a new one composed mostly of Latinos. Democrat Tony Cardenas prevailed there, becoming the San Fernando Valley’s first Latino congressman.

Democrats maintained their sizable edge. They won 38 seats, compared with 15 for Republicans. But Justin Levitt, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who runs a website tracking redistricting issues around the country, says the board stands as “the best example against the incumbent protection plan that was in place before,” because it’s driven by people who “don’t have incentives to pay back into the political system.” It will take another couple elections to know whether straighter lines on a map can keep sending entrenched politicians home.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Technology and Social Welfare Groups

Mark Zuckerberg is adding a new title to his roster: Political Organizer.

The Facebook Inc. chief executive is in the process of co-organizing a political advocacy group made up of top technology leaders that would push federal legislative reform on issues ranging from immigration to education. Mr. Zuckerberg is working on launching the group along with Joe Green, who was one of the CEO's Harvard University roommates.

The group, which so far doesn't have a name, is aiming to raise roughly $50 million and has already secured commitments in the tens of millions of dollars from Mr. Zuckerberg and more than a dozen other tech executives including LinkedIn Corp. founder Reid Hoffman. They plan to register as a 501(c)(4), a distinction reserved for social welfare groups that are not organized for profit.

Mr. Zuckerberg has told confidantes that the new group will initially be focused on comprehensive immigration reform and making the pathway to U.S. citizenship less complicated for all immigrants. The group also plans to focus on issues including education reform and funding for scientific research.

The new group has also enlisted several consultants well versed in Beltway politics. Rob Jesmer, the former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is especially active on a day-to-day basis. Joe Lockhart, Facebook's former vice president of global communications and a former press secretary under president Bill Clinton's administration, and Jon Lerner, a Republican strategist are also involved.

Immigration has been a particularly popular issue among the digiterati, the elite of the computer industry and online communities. The word is a portmanteau, derived from "digital" and "literati". Tech executives are lobbying lawmakers to ease restrictions on visas to entrepreneurs and professionals. Many have endorsed the Startup Act 2.0 bill, which proposes creating a new visa for foreign-born entrepreneurs who manage to raise $100,000 and hire American workers.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

OFA Joins Fair Elections for NY




The reconfigured Obama campaign, Organization for Action (OFA), is getting involved in a fight for campaign finance reform in New York. It plans a conference call with grassroots supporters on Wednesday to urge action in the fight.

OFA will send an email to its list. The email references New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Fair Election Campaign and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, will also be on the call. It marks an early, post-presidential election endeavor by OFA, which is just beginning to pick battles to engage in.

"In New York Elections, the voice of the public is being drowned out. Contributions from special interests, lobbyist, and corporations are far to influential. Disclosure is inadequate, and enforcement of the laws currently on the books is to lax." the email says.

Currently New York has two systems. New York City has tough campaign finance limits and a public matching funds system. The rest of the state has a very lenient system with 10 times the New York City limits. Gov. Cuomo would like to have one system and use the New York City system as its model.

As an interesting side-note, a New York City Mayoral candidate went to court to challenge the New York City limits and accepted campaign donations at the state limit. A judge hadn't decided the case but made the candidate put his donations into a court ordered escrow account so he could not use the donations. Today he gave up and joined the public matching funds system and returned the escrow donations to the donors. They now can donate at the smaller limits.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Voting for the ‘Least Worst’ Candidate Corrupts Democracy



Speaking on C-SPAN, consumer advocate Ralph Nader decried the lack of choices at the ballot box and predicted super rich candidates would run in 2016.

But first some history. I met Ralph in 2004, while in Manchester, New Hampshire. CUIP (Committee for a Unified Independent Party) was holding a national meeting and interviewing independent presidential candidates. We eventually supported Ralph. During the campaign, Ralph came to New York City and gave a speech and I helped manage the book signing and sale of his campaign products. Listen to part of the speech:



Also WATCH his speech in a church in Harlem.

In his C-SPAN appearance, Nader said the influence of money on the political process along with the weakening of unions had prevented candidates from addressing certain controversial issues. Voting for the lesser of two evils had also allowed candidates to skirt around particular topics.

Nader, a five-time candidate for President of the United States, denied the two parties were so entrenched that it was impossible for a third party candidate to win a national election. He remarked that super wealthy individuals such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had the resources to run a successful presidential campaign.

Self-financed candidates had the potential “to be attractive to a lot of voters,” Nader said, because they were not beholden to political donors and special interests.

“So people are ready,” he added. “But you have to convince them that the candidate has a chance to win. They’re not convinced the little third parties have that chance because of all the obstruction.”



So what do you think about what will happen in 2014 and 2016?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Sunday, March 24, 2013

GOP Lawmaker's Virtual Congress



I have been using the concept of virtual teams, working from home, and later teleconferencing since 1998. Then Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer has recently nixed the Web company's work-from-home policy to boost its performance. So this story peaked my interest.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) wants to create a "virtual Congress," where lawmakers would leverage videoconferencing and other remote work technology to conduct their daily duties in Washington from their home districts.

Under a resolution Pearce introduced on Thursday, lawmakers would be able to hold hearings, debate and vote on legislation virtually from their district offices.

Pearce believes a remote work arrangement may benefit Congress and make lawmakers more accountable to folks in their home districts.

Pearce says the resolution would eradicate the need for members to jet back and forth from their districts to Washington each weekend. This would allow lawmakers to spend more time with their constituents rather than the armies of lobbyists from K St., he argues.

“Thanks to modern technology, members of Congress can debate, vote, and carry out their constitutional duties without having to leave the accountability and personal contact of their congressional districts. Keeping legislators closer to the people we represent would pull back Washington's curtain and allow constituents to see and feel, first-hand, their government at work. Corporations and government agencies use remote work technology; it’s time that Congress does the same," the New Mexico Republican said.

He introduced the same resolution during the last congressional session.

What do you think of this concept?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Companies Should Show Us the Money



In a petition to the S.E.C. by 10 legal scholars in August 2011, would mandate that publicly held corporations disclose their political spending. In the months since the petition was posted, the commission has received nearly half a million comments on it, more than on any other issue in its 79-year history, that have been overwhelming in favor of the proposal. (Typically, S.E.C. rule-making petitions get fewer than 100 comments.)

But despite this broad support from the investing public, experts in securities law, institutional money managers, and numerous public officials, the S.E.C. has yet to write an official rule on which the commission can actually vote.

Federal law already requires political action committees to disclose corporate donations. By putting in place comprehensive disclosure rules, however, the S.E.C. can plug a major loophole in the law, forcing companies to also reveal what they give to tax-exempt “social welfare” groups and trade associations, including chambers of commerce. These entities have often been used as vehicles for political spending by way of so-called issue ads, ads that purport to be educational but are often veiled attempts to support a specific candidate or even party.

In other words, the S.E.C. could, in a single stroke, do what Congress and the courts have been unable or unwilling to do: require publicly traded companies to report all of their political spending.

Since the Supreme Court, in its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, opened the floodgates of corporate spending in elections, the S.E.C. has been under pressure to demand transparency in how those dollars are spent. The rule in the petition under consideration wouldn’t close every avenue corporations have for influencing elections, but it would shine the bright light of public disclosure on their political activities as never before.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that an unprecedented $6 billion was spent on electoral races in 2012. Because of the current gaps in disclosure rules, though, we may never know how many millions of shareholder dollars were used to influence races at all levels of government.

Those dollars are unlikely to serve shareholder interests. Study after study has shown that political spending is a bad investment. Corporate political donations can drain financial resources and create risks to its reputation. And as John C. Bogle, founder of Vanguard, has pointed out, “corporate managers are likely to try and shape government policy in a way that serves their own interests over the interests of shareholders.”

Pension officials and other fiduciaries have a compelling interest in knowing that money invested on behalf of thousands is being invested appropriately. Employees and retirees need to know if the funds for their retirement are being used to bankroll a political campaign, and not for the benefit of shareholders. I have always thought that shareholders should have the ability to opt-out of using their money for political campaigns.

A national coalition has begun to pressure the S.E.C. to act, bringing together Republicans and Democrats representing 90 million constituents and fiduciaries holding more than $1 trillion in pension assets. And some companies have already agreed to make such disclosures. But there are more than 5,000 companies listed on major United States stock exchanges. We need a comprehensive and uniform rule that will force them to reveal how they are using shareholder money to affect the political process.


On Tuesday, the Senate Banking Committee gave Mary Jo White, President Obama’s choice to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, a rousing show of support, voting 21 to 1 to send her nomination to the full Senate for a vote. Ms. White, who is likely to be confirmed as the S.E.C. chairwoman, will need that bipartisan backing as she takes on a host of challenges at the nation’s top financial regulator.

But if she really wants to make a difference, Ms. White, a former federal prosecutor, should tap into some of that good will in her first days in office and push forward the vital proposed rule on corporate disclosure that the S.E.C. has been considering for over a year and a half. The power to push this reform forward will rests in her hands.

All that would be required would be a “yes” vote by Ms. White and two of the current four commissioners, two of whom are Republicans and two, Democrats.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

City of Wheatland, CA Bails-Out of Section 5



The Justice Department announced that it has reached an agreement with the City of Wheatland, Calif., that, if approved by the court, will allow it to bail out from its status as a “covered jurisdiction” under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and thereby exempt the city from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Wheatland is located in Yuba County, Calif., which is a jurisdiction subject to Section 5. The agreement is in the form of a consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The City of Wheatland filed its bailout action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 14, 2013. City officials had contacted the attorney general prior to filing its action, indicating that the City was interested in seeking a bailout. The city provided the Justice Department with substantial information, and the department conducted an investigation to determine the city’s eligibility. Based on that investigation, the department is satisfied that the city of Wheatland meets the Voting Rights Act’s requirements for bailout.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Archi’s Acres, High-Yield Hydroponic Organic Farm




Here is a interesting story I just came across.

Dylan Ratigan, left a highly-successful, self-titled show at MSNBC last June in search of meaning and purpose in his work and life. He had lost both after 18 years in Manhattan and the chaos surrounding the hollow political debates permeating America’s media and politics.

It was a three-tour Iraq combat Marine and his war-protestor wife who pointed him in a new direction. They were guests on his show last June discussing how they were bootstrapping their way to operate a high-yield hydroponic organic farm that uses 90% less water and produces three times as much food. It was a business that promised to cure food deserts, areas where access to fresh and healthy food is limited, while having the potential to create jobs for thousands of combat veterans, each of whom was the beneficiary of $1 million in military training while on active duty.

The couple even created a school where they trained other veterans to open their own farms or establish their own organic businesses in pursuit of a dream of creating thousands of American jobs and feeding millions of people.

They garnered the support of a senior military General and his wife, who were so inspired that they decided to do anything they could to help other veterans find meaningful work healing communities by teaching them how to build and run their own sustainable food-producing systems.

From Imagination to Reality
Since he left MSNBC last June, he first started working with these inspiring visionary veterans on the phone, and then in person to expand their dream and help turn it into a reality. The process has restored meaning and purpose in his life and the opportunity and privilege to literally use his my money where his mouth is.

Last Fall, he moved from NYC to north San Diego County, just outside of the Camp Pendleton Marine Base, to work full-time with Colin and Karen Archipley at their hydroponic organic farm, “Archi’s Acres.”

After realizing how impressive their ideas and effectiveness are, he decided to invest the money that he earned for writing Greedy Bastards (which when combined with a loan from Whole Foods) will build a 30,000 square foot, “farm incubator” that can serve as the prototype for job-creating, water-saving, food-producing, veteran-led hydroponic organic greenhouses nationwide. They have enlisted Major General Melvin Spiese and his wife Filomena to join in support of the mission to make this program more diverse and robust enough to build it into a nationwide network.

There Intention
There intention is to create real value and good jobs in countless American communities, by harnessing the power of the 1% of Americans who served in the past decade of war. These high capacity people have already demonstrated their unique ability to be trained and subsequently serve with distinction under most arduous and demanding of conditions, and can leverage those qualities and skills against some of our greatest needs. They have begun redeploying returning veterans and unemployed civilians to US cities, while coordinating with city, state and federal governments to create good jobs providing local, fresh food, reduced energy waste and pollution, improved wellness and rebuild infrastructure.

With more than a decade of war winding down, we have a wealth of returning veterans. This gives us a unique and powerful opportunity to refocus their training on transitioning our nation to sustainable systems, as they transition themselves from military back to civilian life.

While they are just getting started on a national roll-out at Archi’s Acres, I believe all of this is possible if we work together with a shared vision.

Together, we can join in a mission to learn, model and scale a high-integrity value-based culture. Together, we can heal and evolve America into a sustainable, healthy and prosperous future.

I encourage you to join in this journey.

CLICK HERE to find out more.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Sen. Carl Levin to Grill the IRS Over Dark Money



First some history on Dark Money.

A former Illinois congressional candidate and a government watchdog organization have teamed up to sue the Internal Revenue Service, claiming the agency should bar dark money groups from funding political ads. The lawsuit, filed by David Gill, his campaign committee and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, is the first to challenge how the IRS regulates political spending by social welfare nonprofits, campaign-finance experts say. These nonprofits, often called dark money groups because they don't have to identify their donors, have increasingly become major players in politics since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in early 2010.

Gill, an emergency room doctor who has advocated for health-care reform, including a single-payer plan, was the Democratic candidate for the 13th district in Illinois. After a tight race, Gill ended up losing to the Republican candidate by 1,002 votes, a loss the lawsuit blames "largely, if not exclusively," on spending by the American Action Network, a social welfare nonprofit.

American Action Network, launched in 2010 by former Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, reported spending almost $1.5 million on three TV commercials and Internet ads opposing Gill, mainly in the weeks right before the election. That was more than any other outside group spent on the race, and more than Gill's principal campaign committee spent on the entire election, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The Gill lawsuit, filed in US District Court in the District of Columbia, alleges the IRS failed to properly regulate the American Action Network, citing seemingly contradictory definitions the agency has applied to such groups for years.

The statute governing social welfare nonprofits says they should be operated "exclusively" for promoting social welfare. But the IRS paved the way for political spending by these groups by interpreting "exclusively" as meaning the groups had to only be "primarily" engaged in promoting the public good. Some groups have taken this to mean they can spend up to 49 percent of their money on election ads. The lawsuit claims the IRS' interpretation of the law "is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law," and asks for an injunction prohibiting the agency from using it.

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, blamed the IRS for sitting on its hands as social welfare nonprofits have been formed specifically to run negative ads paid for by anonymous donors. "Now the IRS can explain its deplorable inaction in federal court," she said. In filings to the IRS, the group said it spent $25.7 million in its 2010 tax year. In separate filings to the Federal Election Commission, it reported spending about $19.4 million over the same period on political ads, or about 76 percent of the total expenditures reported to the IRS.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in offering a new plan to unmask secretive political groups and their dark-money donors. In a Washington Post op-ed, Murkowski and Wyden write, "At minimum, the American people deserve to know before they cast their ballots who is behind massive spending, who is funding people and organizations, and what their agendas are." More than $400 million in dark money was spent during the 2012 elections, mostly by conservative organizations, a fourfold increase from 2008. Leading dark-money groups included Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, the US Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, and Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax outfit run by Grover Norquist.

The Murkowski-Wyden plan would try to force politically-active nonprofits, big business trade groups, labor unions, and shell corporations to reveal the true source of their funds. In spirit, it's not all that different from the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.

Today, if a donor gives $10,000 or a $1 million to Rove's Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit, to spend on political activities, that donor stays secret. Murkowski and Wyden's plan would make Crossroads disclose that donor. To use a real example, a board member for the tea party-affiliated group FreedomWorks reportedly funneled more than $12 million in donations from him and his family through a pair of Tennessee corporations and then to FreedomWorks' super-PAC. The donor's identity was one of the biggest mysteries of the 2012 campaign, and it remained unsolved until the Washington Post reported six weeks after Election Day, that FreedomWorks board member Richard Stephenson and his family were behind the big donations. Under Murkowski-Wyden, Stephenson's name would have come out right away.

The two senators, in their outline for new disclosure legislation, try to anticipate the landmines on the road to 60 votes. They suggest raising the limit for donor disclosure from more than $200 to more than $500 to focus on larger donors. They also carve out an exemption so that dues-paying members of, say, the NRA or the Sierra Club who aren't giving money for political activities aren't disclosed like donors giving strictly to influence elections are.

So, sometime in the next few months, Senator Carl Levin's permanent subcommittee plans to call the Internal Revenue Service to task for allowing the political super PACs to be classified as tax-exempt 501(c)(4)s. "Tax-exempt 501(c)(4)s are not supposed to be engaged in politics," he said. "It is against the law to do so." Then he added, with a certain undeniable relish, "We're going to go after them."

Finally, someone in power plans to grill the IRS on why it is allowing hundreds of millions of dollars in secret dark money to flow through supposedly nonpartisan "social welfare organizations" and into our elections. Levin's comments aren't a complete surprise. In his retirement announcement, he will not run in 2014, Levin said his investigative subcommittee will "look into the failure of the IRS to enforce our tax laws and stem the flood of hundreds of millions of secret dollars flowing into our elections, eroding public confidence in our democracy."










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubbleTechnorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon