Democrats, Seduced by Secret Dollars
Last year several pro-Republican advocacy groups degraded the Congressional elections by spending at least $138 million in secret donations on advertisements. The public did not know which lobbying interests gave money, or how much, or what they would demand in return. But the donations became a significant factor in the Republican gains in the House and the Senate.
Now several prominent Democrats are abandoning the high ground and have decided to raise millions of their own secret dollars. They have promised they will again try to pass a law preventing this secrecy if they win. (They were stymied in an earlier attempt by a Republican Senate filibuster.) Whatever they gain in money, they stand to lose far more by giving up principles that President Obama and party leaders once claimed to cherish.
Bill Burton, who until February was Mr. Obama’s deputy press secretary, said last week that he would help lead a group called Priorities USA, which will raise unlimited money from undisclosed sources to aid in the president’s re-election campaign. The initial money will come from the Service Employees International Union and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood producer, but more will inevitably begin to flow in from other unions and wealthy Democrats.
Mr. Obama has long claimed to champion transparency and denounced the secret-money sluice operated by Republicans last year as a “threat to democracy.” As he said in October, “The American people deserve to know who’s trying to sway their elections, and you can’t stand by and let the special interests drown out the voices of the American people.” Last year, speaking for the administration, Mr. Burton called for a “bright light” to shine on the shadowy groups.
The White House says the president has not changed his view, but somehow he no longer seems to recognize Mr. Burton as the man who was recently a close aide. “We don’t control outside groups,” said Jay Carney, Mr. Obama’s press secretary. “These are not people working for the administration.”
Mr. Burton now says he does not like the campaign finance rules, which the Supreme Court helped create, but is unwilling to cede the advantage to the Republicans. “The laws we have are not the ones we wish we had,” he said. “But if you want to change the direction of the car, you have to have your hands on the steering wheel.”
It is true that a group founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove has said it would raise $120 million for 2012, and another set up by the Koch brothers, conservative activists and industrialists, will raise at least $88 million. But Mr. Obama managed to raise the staggering sum of $750 million in 2008. And though he abandoned the public finance system to do it — possibly damaging it permanently — he at least disclosed all of his donors.
If the president stood up and publicly told Mr. Burton to end his effort, that would probably be the end of it. But he has not done so. The White House is clearly worried it will have trouble collecting big checks from Wall Street and other business interests for the re-election campaign, and has decided the political end justifies the unsavory means. At the very least, he and other Democratic leaders could demand that the Priorities group raise its money through an affiliate, Priorities USA Action, which can collect unlimited funds but must disclose its donors.
A political system built on secret, laundered money will inevitably lead toward an increased culture of influence and corruption. Democrats would attract more support as a principled party that refused to follow the Republicans down that dark alley.
Talking to China
China has vowed to smooth relations with the United States. Since June, it has allowed its artificially cheap currency to rise about 5 percent against the dollar. Its huge trade surplus — a drag on global growth — has shrunk by half since its 2007 peak. During a January visit to Washington, President Hu Jintao promised to end software piracy by government agencies and procurement policies that discriminate against foreign companies. He even admitted that China had to make progress on human rights.
It still has a long way to go — to win global respect or the trust and respect of its own people. When the Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, and the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, meet their Chinese counterparts for their “Strategic and Economic Dialogue” this week, they need to deliver that message loud and clear.
China’s human rights record has gotten worse, as its autocrats nervously watch the Middle East uprisings. Gary Locke, the commerce secretary, who is President Obama’s choice to be the next ambassador to China, rightly criticized Beijing last week for failing to make good on commitments to level the playing field for foreign firms.
The list of complaints is long: 80 percent of the computer software in China is counterfeit. Beijing just published a new investment catalog that keeps a long list of industries off limits for American firms. It changed the investment vetting process to allow Chinese companies to recommend barring acquisitions by foreign rivals. It has done nothing to reduce the enormous subsidies in the form of cheap credit to favored state-owned firms.
In general, we agree with the Obama administration’s patient yet persistent attempts to persuade China to address these economic distortions. Punitive legislation, like that often threatened by Congress, would only set off a destructive trade war. But Beijing’s intrinsic conservatism has only gotten worse as the top leadership prepares for Mr. Hu to step down next year. With the world economy gradually on the mend, China’s trade surplus could explode again and threaten a more long-lasting recovery.
The Obama administration must use whatever tools it has to urge China forward. It can keep reminding Beijing that reform is in China’s own interest. Indeed, allowing its currency to rise faster would be the most effective way to head off inflation that is threatening the living standards of ordinary Chinese. If that logic does not change any minds, Washington has other leverage. China particularly covets a bilateral investment agreement that would ease the path for Chinese firms in the United States. It wants fewer restrictions on American technology exports.
The Obama administration must make clear that these things can happen only if China keeps its promises. If it wants to be treated as a regular market economy, it must behave like one.
Standing Up for Florida’s Courts
A handful of Republican state senators in Florida bucked G.O.P. leaders last week to help Democrats block a brazenly partisan court-packing plan from gaining a place on next year’s ballot.
Championed by the state’s Republican House speaker, Dean Cannon, and approved by his chamber, the plan called for expanding the Supreme Court from seven to 10 justices, and splitting the bench into two separate five-member divisions for criminal and civil cases. The proposed amendment to Florida’s Constitution would have given the state’s conservative Republican governor, Rick Scott, three new seats to fill on the civil side.
Backers of this radical overhaul offered specious arguments about court efficiency and a nonexistent backlog problem, which were effectively debunked by an impressive array of state and national bar leaders, civic groups, and former state justices and senior judges.
The apparent aim was to retaliate against the court for tossing out defective ballot initiatives last year that had been approved by the Republican Legislature, and to get next year’s round of redistricting cases before a new civil division dominated by judges named by Mr. Scott. Unfortunately, while the court-packing was rejected, other mischievous changes were approved for the ballot, including a provision to allow the Legislature to repeal procedural rules set by the court. And the court-packing fight may not be over. The Legislature has allotted $400,000 for a study of court operations that threatens to revive the issue next year. Bolstered by last week’s victory, opponents of political meddling with the courts need to be ready.
The Goody Pile Survives Bad News
The summer people will soon discover that one of their secret vacation pleasures — the obligation to personally tote their refuse to the local dump — is being altered by governments on Long Island’s East End. “NO salvaging, scavenging and/or picking of recyclables” boomed the new sign at the Shelter Island town recycling center.
Until now, picking creatively through the separate piles of trash for new stuff has been one of the corollary rewards of having to go to the dump. Other towns are also crimping the fun because officials are concerned about injury insurance and profiteering scavengers.
No less a glory for summer residents in the eastern towns is the level of feisty, far-from-Gotham democracy that can break out. The picking controversy has sparked an impassioned protest on Shelter Island from year-round residents most affected by the change.
“Devastating to our life style,” officials were warned by one native. A plumber protested as one who gives more in old pipes and boilers as he takes from the dump an occasional lamp he can fix. Above all, there’s the “cultural and material asset” bolstering the island’s year-round souls, explained Al Kilb Jr., a former town supervisor. He advised council members to try their hands at turning trash into treasure — like the bench he fashioned in front of Louie the Clip’s barbershop.
Town officials have promised a smarter long-term plan. And they wisely decreed that “the goody pile” — the dump’s luxe section of wistfully favored discards — would remain open for pickers. Summer people will be pleased. Natives still fear the death of picking as they know it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment