An organization which shares much of Common Ground’s philosophy and methodology is Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL). Compare these phrases from Common Ground’s Who We Are:
We create respectful settings for transpartisan discussion and cultivate relationships …
with CCL’s methodology:
By focusing on shared values rather than partisan divides, we build relationships with community leaders and with federal elected officials and with Congress, always starting from a place of respect, gratitude, and appreciation.
CCL’s goal, which is much more single-minded than CG4Tx’s, is to build nationwide and international political support for climate action. How is CCL’s approach working? The following chart shows the recent growth in CCL’s activities and actions in the US:
These numbers indicate that the citizen volunteers who carry out these actions and activities clearly find CCL’s non-confrontational approach attractive.
How effective is CCL’s approach in achieving its legislative goals? They’re not there yet, but here are some recent successes:
- CCL established the House Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group in the US House of Representatives which will explore policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate.
- CCL successfully recruited co-sponsors to the Gibson Resolution (H. Res 424), a Republican-led resolution that recognizes the impact of climate change and calls for action to reduce future risk.
- CCL partnered with the California state legislature to pass a resolution calling on the federal government to enact Carbon Fee and Dividend nationwide.
CCL’s success indicates that Common Ground’s commitment to respectful and civil engagement is on the right track.
Two prominent topics in yesterday’s monthly CG4TX meeting (12 November) were
- the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a way to neutralize the Electoral College, which allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, as happened in the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.
- multi-member U.S. House districts, in which representatives would be elected by ranked-choice voting, as a means of reducing the effectiveness of gerrymandering.
In a nice coincidence, the same topics were discussed in one segment of this weekend’s episode of On The Media by OTM co-host Brooke Gladstone and Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote.org.
That’s the title of an insightful article by Jonathan Rauch in the July/August 2016 issue of The Atlantic.
Mr. Rauch contends that a leading cause of the dysfunction of American politics and government is the well-intended reforms that dismantled much of the informal machinery that enabled the system to work.
Some choice quotes:
- What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome [, which is] is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization.
- Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death.
- Parties, machines, and hacks may not have been pretty, but they did their job—so well that the country forgot why it needed them.
- [The founders] were visionaries, …, but they could not foresee everything, and they made a serious omission. Unlike the British parliamentary system, the Constitution makes no provision for holding politicians accountable to one another…. By and large, American politicians are independent operators, and they became even more independent when later reforms, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, neutered the Electoral College and established direct election to the Senate.
- Beginning early in the 20th century, and continuing right up to the present, reformers and the public turned against every aspect of insider politics: professional politicians, closed-door negotiations, personal favors, party bosses, financial ties, all of it…. It was easy, in those days, to see that there was dirty water in the tub. What was not so evident was the reason the water was dirty, which was the baby. So we started reforming.
- Party-dominated nominating processes, soft money, congressional seniority, closed-door negotiations, pork-barrel spending—put each practice under a microscope in isolation, and it seems an unsavory way of doing political business. But sweep them all away, and one finds that business is not getting done at all.
- Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry.
- When [House Speaker John] Boehner was asked by Jay Leno why he had permitted what the speaker himself called a “very predictable disaster,” he replied, rather poignantly: “When I looked up, I saw my colleagues going this way. You learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk.”
Boehner was right. Washington doesn’t have a crisis of leadership; it has a crisis of followership.
- You haven’t heard anyone say this, but it’s time someone did: Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around.
A webinar, “Lean to the Green,” produced by Friends of the Earth, addresses the twin problems of money in politics and voter suppression.
The webinar is designed to recruit participants in the Democracy Awakening event scheduled to take place April 16–18 (Common Ground for Texans is a member of the coalition). From the announcement of the webinar:
Do you feel like the Koch Brothers have too much influence over our politicians, while people like you and me are ignored? Do you wonder how you can change our political system so that it better represents your concerns for the environment, and not just those of corporations and the super-rich?
It has been six years since Citizens United opened the flood gates for anti-environmental mega-donors like Exxon use their deep pockets to poison our planet. It’s now clear that to make progress on the issues we care most about, we need to stand up and fundamentally change the way we do politics — locally and nationally. In 2016 the American people will take to the streets and ballot boxes to ensure a government that serves the many and not just the money!
Join Friends of the Earth and other leading environmental groups in a free online workshop to learn more about the issues and our plan to ensure a government of, by, and for the people — not a government bought and paid for by anti-environmental special interests!
The webinar’s slides are here.
Sara Smith leads a discussion of Austin’s campaign finance system and alternatives.
On January 16, 2016 Common Ground hosted a discussion led by Sara E. Smith, staff attorney for Environment Texas, on the Austin Fair Campaign Chapter (AFCC), its shortcomings, and possible alternatives to it. It became clear within just a few minutes that although the AFCC may have been model legislation in the 1990s, it is now obsolete because City Council members no longer run at-large but now run in single-member districts. Besides being out-of-date, the AFCC is not enforced because the city’s Ethics Review Commission is a volunteer board without the resources to investigate violations fully and promptly.
The current Austin campaign finance system designed to limit corruption includes these features:
- Individual donor contributions are limited to $350 (adjusted annually for inflation).
- Total donations from outside Austin are capped at $36,000 (plus $24,000 for a run-off election).
- Fund raising cannot begin earlier than 6 months before a City Council election (this feature is designed to reduce pay-to-play governance).
- Self-loans are unlimited.
- Independent expenditures, typically from outside interest groups, are unlimited thanks to the Supreme Court Citizen United v. FEC decision. In Austin elections, they do not have to disclose their donors.
The preamble of the Campaign Finance City Code:
The City election process and city government should be protected from potential undue influence by individuals and groups making large contributions to the election campaigns of candidates for mayor and city council. The City election process and city government should be protected from even an appearance of undue influence by individuals or groups contributing to candidates for mayor and city council. The public should have justified confidence in the integrity of its government.
With the goal of protecting city elections and city government from potential or apparent undue influence by individuals or groups making large contributions to campaigns, are there alternatives to the current AFCC? Would they work in Austin? If not, what might?
Sara explored several models with us: Seattle’s Democracy Voucher system; New York City’s small-donor matching system; and Tallahassee’s Anti-corruption Initiative (for a detailed description of each system, see below).
After reviewing these models, what elements did we think were essential in a new Austin campaign finance system? Continue reading
The Texas Senate State Affairs Committee has an interim charge to “examine the effect of eliminating straight-party voting for candidates for judicial office and make recommendations to ensure candidates are given individual consideration by voters.” It is unusual for an interim committee to have a public hearing, but this committee has invited speakers. As part of the Texas Fair Courts Network, Common Ground for Texans plans to give testimony. Please come and lend your support.
When: Thursday, February 18 beginning at 9:00 AM
Where: Capitol Extension E1.016
Here are a few paragraphs from our testimony:
Although we recognize that there can be no perfect system for judicial selection of judges, we do know that if we want a fair and impartial court with qualified judges who are beholden only to the law and not to their funders, the current system of electing judges must be changed.
The recommendation under your consideration to “examine the effect of eliminating straight-party voting for candidates for judicial office and make recommendations to ensure candidates are given individual consideration by voters” neither ensures qualified judges nor removes the real or perceived influence of the funders on their decision making.
Although we support removing judicial elections from straight party voting and feel it would represent an improvement in judicial selection because it would eliminate partisan sweeps of these important positions, we feel that this change does not go far enough. It is our opinion that you must investigate the need for a completely new method of selection.
We ask you to broaden your study to look at ALL judicial selection methods used across the country.
On January 8, KUT broadcast an episode of On the Media called “Common Sense,” presenting a stunning example of a special interest’s success in influencing legislators and public policy to achieve results antithetical to public opinion. The special interest in question is the NRA, and the show examines
- the cozy and lucrative relationship between members of Congress and the seemingly all-powerful gun lobby.
- the time when the NRA supported gun control, and the staunchest supporters of “gun rights” were on the radical left.
- whether a popular poll, asking Americans to choose whether gun “rights” or gun “control” are more important, asks the right question.
- the nearly twenty-year-old ban that effectively prevents the CDC from researching gun violence.
- a recent, thorough study which found no correlation between public opinion and what policies get enacted in the U.S.
- a California pastor’s project to expand the gun-reform conversation, catalyzed by mass shootings, to include inner-city violence.
On the Media is broadcast by KUT (90.5 FM) every Sunday at 9:00 AM. Its hosts, Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield, maintain the civility and fairness that are hallmarks of public radio as they tackle sticky issues with a frankness and transparency that has built trust with listeners and led to more than a tripling of their audience in five years. The show has won Edward R. Murrow Awards for feature reporting and investigative reporting, the National Press Club’s Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism, and a Peabody Award for its body of work.
Last month, the Virginia Republican Party asked the state’s election board to require Republican voters to sign a loyalty pledge to accompany their ballot in the March 1 primary. The request was approved. The statement will read, “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.”
Although Virginia has open primaries, state law allows parties to request that voters be required to sign such a pledge or statement of party affiliation. The state Republican Party required such a statement in the 2000 primary, when George W. Bush’s candidacy was being hotly contested by John McCain. In 2012, the party proposed a similar pledge, but withdrew its request before the primary.
On December 27, Donald Trump took to Twitter to condemn the loyalty pledge, which some see as an attempt to limit turnout of his supporters:
On January 6, three Trump supporters (who are also black pastors) filed suit in federal court, claiming that the loyalty pledge would discourage poor and minority voters and impose unfair burdens on them, and that it would amount to a literacy test.
I find this story interesting on at least two different levels. First, it’s another battlefield in the ongoing saga of Trump vs. the establishment GOP, and beyond that, it raises some timely questions about the Republican Party and its image in the general electorate. Many GOP analysts see a need to broaden the party’s appeal to independents and new voters; this pledge will interfere with such efforts. Maybe that’s why the Democratic-controlled election board “gleefully approved” the Republicans’ request (in the words of a conservative writer).
In the recent November elections, various citizens’ ballot initiatives advanced the electoral voice of the people. Ohio passed the Bipartisan Redistricting Amendment (Issue 1 on the ballot) with 71% of the vote. And Seattle and Maine passed measures that limit the influence of big money on our elections. Continue reading
On Saturday, September 12, we held a meeting on the subject of the Electoral College — how it works, its history, and what to do about it. I was honored to be part of a panel that also included Professor Brian Roberts of the University of Texas Dept. of Government, Jan Soifer, chair of the Travis County Democratic Party, Kurt Hildebrand, chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas, and moderator Mike Ignatowski. Below are some of the main ideas that were discussed, based on my recollections and notes from fellow Common Ground board members.
I started out with an extended backgrounder, covering the rules by which the Electoral College operates, its origins in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and a brief history of its development over more than 200 years since then. I reviewed the four elections which are commonly cited as electing a President who did not win the popular vote — 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 — as well as 1960, when the Dixiecrat movement gave 15 electors to Harry F. Byrd, raising an interesting question about Kennedy’s popular vote tally. I concluded by mentioning the four main options for reform:
- a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College in favor of direct election by the people
- the district method, already used by Maine and Nebraska
- the proportional method, in which each state would split its electoral vote in proportion to its popular vote
- the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a way of making the national popular vote decisive without the need for an amendment to the Constitution.
See the handout I prepared for the meeting for more details on this background. Next, we heard opening remarks from Jan, Kurt, and Brian before opening up the discussion to audience questions.