Readings for 3 March 2010

In 2008 Barack Obama and the Democrats were elected to fix the economy; and yet the only real measures at their disposal—increasing government spending and bailing out or nationalizing key industries—is precisely what is sparking voter discontent. Had Democrats not passed an $800 billion stimulus package, if Obama hadn’t bailed out the auto industry or continued the TARP program, the country would likely be in far worse shape than it is today. Yet the president is getting no credit for doing the exact things he was asked to do last November.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United to expand the ability of corporations* to pay for election-related communications, prominent law professor Lawrence Lessig is calling for a constitutional amendment to protect elections from the influence of money. The text of the proposed amendment isn’t done yet, but the goal is to protect Congress from the influence of money.Lessig’s argument is simple: Congress is fundamentally (though, thanks to the Supreme Court, legally) corrupt, and most people think it is corrupt, which makes it hard for elected majorities to effect change and also undermines people’s faith in their government. …

Lessig is trying to make his proposed amendment a bipartisan initiative, and that may turn out to be a successful strategy. Perhaps disillusioned liberals and angry conservatives could make common cause–although bear in mind that much of the massive campaign spending that exploits current campaign finance loopholes comes precisely from these two extremes. But it’s a huge problem, and Lessig is probably right that this is the only real solution. So I’m strongly in favor; I just wouldn’t put too much money on it.

Wilkinson and Pickett both work as epidemiologists. They study the health of populations, and, over recent decades, pioneering work by Wilkinson has helped reveal the most reliable foundation for good health and long life. Want to live long and prosper? Go live in a relatively equal society.Over 200 studies since the early 1980s have now documented that people living in societies where wealth has concentrated at the top of the economic ladder live significantly shorter, less healthy lives than people who live in societies that spread their wealth more evenly.

But in a world where something like the Fair Elections Act passed, a good reputation and a halfway-decent head for organizing could get you the 1,500 small-donor contributions that would be necessary for public funding to kick in. That would allow people who spent their lives doing things that are relevant to politics but not relevant to financing a political campaign the opportunity to finance a political campaign anyway. Maybe they’d even win.

The thing about the current political system is that no matter how much you like or agree with a politician, unless they’re self-funded, you have to look at them and recognize that this is someone whose core competency is spending 30 percent of his or her time asking people for money, meeting and talking with people who might have money to give in the future, and generally figuring out how to pay to be a politician. That makes them a very weird person.

Atlanta Progressive News has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s vision.
…
In an e-mail statement, editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News.”