Citizens United and the Legitimate Question of Campaign Finance

Bill Maher is in the headlines for announcing that he will make a $1 million gift to the pro-Obama SuperPAC Priorities USA Action. The Daily Beast's Llyod Grove has a piece on Maher, who expands on what motivated his decision:

No, I think it’s practical,” the comedian told me Friday afternoon when I accused him of being a political romantic. “The difference between a country governed by Obama and one governed by Rick Santorum is worth a million dollars to me. Not just because I think the country would be better, but because I think it would actually better protect the money I have left.” (emphasis mine - JMG)

One of my biggest frustrations with liberals is the habit of ignoring the complexity of issues out of hand, simply because conservatives hold an opposing view. Campaign finance and the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision is, in my opinion, an acute example of this.

The issue of money and speech is complex, and there are a number of valid viewpoints depending what conditions you value. Simply stating "corporations aren't people" is not an actual argument, and does not really approach the problem that I think Mr. Maher has raised here. Yes, he has a lot of income and yes, I am very concerned about the issue of moneyed interests dominating our political economy. But if Mr. Maher (or any individual) has the means, and feels it is worth the investment, I am not sure what principle one would call upon to deny a person from making whatever donation he or she would like to make to his or her preferred candidate.

Just to be clear; I am very concerned about the issue of certain (rich) people's speech being worth more than others, simply because they donate a lot of money. But that does not immediately imply that we should deny people the freedom to make the same choice that Mr. Maher has made.

You Don't Say?

I will be honest in that I do not particularly like Maureen Dowd's columns. To me, her writing jumps off the page as successive attempts to be clever rather than clear. That being said, her latest piece on the Republican primary and the party's exceptional need to placate its most radical constituentcies has a collection of excellent quotes. My favorite:

“Republicans being against sex is not good,” the G.O.P. strategist Alex Castellanos told me mournfully. “Sex is popular.”

Who knew?

Housekeeping

Just a little celebratory post, with a bit of an oldie but a goodie: Atul Gawande's excellent "Cowboys and Pit Crews." Thanks for reading!

Many doctors fear the future will end daring, creativity, and the joys of thinking that medicine has had. But nothing says teams cannot be daring or creative or that your work with others will not require hard thinking and wise judgment. Success under conditions of complexity still demands these qualities. (emphasis mine - JMG)

The Inmates Run The Asylum

"That's why [Obama] wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image,"

I'm not sure how this is a criticism. Being a Columbia graduate, Harvard Law Review President and University of Chicago Constitutional Law professor would be pretty nice.

In Which I Feel Bad for Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney gave a speech today at Detroit's Ford Field, and the optics are woefully bad for the candidate. Liberal news outlets are picking this up as yet another example of Mr. Romney's glaring enthusiasm gap.

Now, Mr. Romney's alleged inability to fire up conservative voters has been well documented, but I think this dog ain't barking. According to the Detroit Free Press, the Romney campaign and the Detroit Economics Club jointly organized the event, and were quite cognizant on the optics issue. The only reason they did not use a smaller venue was that it sold out:

They scrapped three earlier plans: one to have Romney stand in the end zone, speaking up to guests seated in the stands; another to have him on the sidelines near midfield, speaking to guests seated in the stadium's middle sections, and an initial plan to hold the event at the Westin Book Cadillac, which quickly became oversold. (emphasis mine - JMG)

I mention this only because it is unfortunate how we're more focused on how Mitt Romney looks, rather than what he's saying.

h/t TPM

Policy and Incentives

The United States' Federal Budget has many problems. They are compounded by Republican party's a priori allergy towards taxes, irrespective of context. On that note, Ezra Klein talks some sense about budget policy, and the radicalism of the current state of the Republican party's fiscal proposals:

You can’t look at that and say revenues have nothing to do with our current deficits.

Which isn’t to say it’s not difficult for elected Republicans to admit that taxes need to rise. The Club for Growth might primary you. Grover Norquist will come after you. But being responsible is difficult. No Democrat who says Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security can’t be cut can be considered fiscally responsible. And no Republican who pledges to oppose all tax increases, regardless of circumstances, can be considered fiscally responsible. There’s no curve here. There’s only math. And politicians who want to be applauded as “responsible” can’t be permitted to ignore it. (emphasis mine - JMG)

The kind of policy "flat-earthism" that Klein is talking about permeates the the Republican party so much right now because the party's constituents are demanding it. I think this is the real tragedy of the Republican party these days. Perhaps even a tragedy of our politics in general.

Ideally, elected representatives and they constituents they represent would work in concert. People have policy preferences and vote accordingly. In turn, paid representatives of the state have a responsibility to the people they represent, to be clear about the realities of the state's finances. To me the problem is coming from both ends; GOP voters want to hear strident re-confirmations of preconceived conclusions about spending and taxes. Republican officials are not responsibly trying to cultivate a discussion of what are budget problems are, and what possible solutions might be.

Intellectual curiosity is a tricky thing. But without it, I think, we are worse off as a nation.

Why?

Mitt Romney has recently (and correctly) implied that spending cuts harm economic growth:

"If you just cut, [said Romney] if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

Which leads me to wonder why Mitt Ronmeny's economic plan is largely spending cuts:

[Romney] has pledged to cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP. He has pledged to cut taxes to about 17 percent of GDP. He has pledged to a floor on defense spending at 4 percent of GDP. And he has pledged to balance the budget.

So let’s add it all up: Romney has to cut federal spending down to 17 percent of GDP. Federal spending is currently at 24 percent of GDP, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that it will be around 22 percent for the next decade. For comparison’s sake, Paul Ryan’s budget would keep spending above 20 percent of GDP for at least the next 20 years.

That’s a lot of numbers, so here’s the bottom line: Romney is proposing to cut more than twice as much from the budget as Ryan. And Ryan’s budget, as you’ll remember, was already quite austere.

I think it is fairly clear that the logic behind Mitt Romney's candidacy is tautological; Mitt Romney wants you to vote for him to be President because he wants to be President. I hope I've been unequivocal in that I find the current field of candidates for the Republican party's Presidential nomination to be a callow lot. My contempt of Mr. Romney, however, is accentuated by the fact that it is clear to me that he knows better.

Photo source