On today’s program, we look at two ways that corporate lobbies and their political allies subvert democracy: “gerrymandering” and “preemption.” First, law professor Herman Schwartz breaks down the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. Then Mark Pertschuk, director of “Grassroots Change,” sheds light on how states and the federal government can “preempt” cities and local communities from for instance raising their own minimum wage, allowing paid sick leave, regulating firearms, banning plastics, or enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Plus, Ralph, David, and Steve discuss the infrastructure package and stock buy backs.
3 Comments
Thank you for mentioning One Demand. Perhaps if you had read the part of my comment from last week that explained how One Demand could effect gerrymandering Prof. Schwartz could have addressed the possible effect it could have on gerrymandering.
You did a good job of explaining the main purpose of One Demand but both you and Prof. Schwartz were off the mark in your discussion on small donor campaigns.
Neither Trump or Bernie ran small donor campaigns. Both got more total money from big donors.
They both ran small contribution campaigns. The difference between a small donor and a big donor is the total amount of contributions made by each individual donor- not by the size of the individual contributions from a donor.
For example, a donor opting in to the weekly contribution you mentioned to Bernie’s 2020 campaign for 50 dollars a week starting in March/April of 2019 when Bernie declared would make about 40 contributions by January of 2020 for a total of 2000 dollars. Not a small donor (200 dollars or less total).
Bernie says that the average contribution is 50 dollars to create the impression that he is supported by small donors. He does not elaborate the 2000 dollar total from one donor that is the same 2000 dollar total that Joe Biden might get from one donor in one check for 2000 dollars.
I am surprised that this obvious deception has fooled you.
Many pundits dutifully pointed out in early 2019 how 87% of Bernie’s donors were small donors described as donors with contributions totaling 200 dollars or less in contributions after just a few weeks of Bernie’s campaign accepting contributions. Several months later none of those pundits would address what became of the 87% as the recurring or continuing small contributions most likely took the total contributions for many of the 87% over the 200 dollar limit. Yet many of these pundits still referred to Bernie’s “small donor” campaign.
Participants in One Demand will demand that candidates finance their campaigns with ONLY small donors and enforce that demand their votes. No divided loyalties.
It is a way to test your theory that politicians want our votes more than big money.
10% of the 150 million investing just 100 dollars in contributions to small donor candidates would total 1.5 billion dollars. 01% investing 1000 dollars to five to ten candidates would total another 1.5 billion.
With 10% of voters committing 1.5 billion dollars they will also provide 10% of the vote. They will be joined in voting by other voters that cannot afford to make even 100 dollars in contributions that could push the vote total up to 15-20% in some districts which can be enough to upset the balance in those districts as it is more than the difference in many districts and would be made up of a good portion of the swing voters in those districts.
Now that you have begun the conversation on One Demand I hope you will continue it in a more timely fashion.
Re: Dems proposing a tax on stock buy backs. I’d suggest, that IF this occurs (and I have my doubts), it is ONLY because the Dems know they have in their senate caucus a real man of the people of W. Virginia who will fight to have the voices heard of the poor in his state, who he will claim essentially all think: “We don’t necessarily agree with all actions of massive trans-national corporations but we DO support their rights to grind us into economic (and/or actual) dust if they feel it is best for their bottom lines.”
To sum up: the frequency and boldness of legislation by the Dems, addressing true problems, occur in direct proportion to the utter IMPOSSIBILITY of legislative passage of such bills. Saint Obumma had to muster ALL his 13D-chess savvy to skillfully squander a massive House majority and a several-month filibuster-proof senate majority to “craft” a corporate give-away disguised as medical insurance legislation … that took more time to roll-out than it survived outside the walls of the capitol.
A great example of Federal ceiling preemption is in the – Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. This 2016 weak update amendment to the toothless 45 year old – Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 – is just more legislative incrementalism & regulatory capture.
More blind faith deregulation of corporations to self-regulate the public’s safety of some 83,000 chemicals in commerce. EPA is still unable to even have a total ban on asbestos. Congress repeatedly failing the public interest.