Congressman Jim Cooper joins Change Congress
I was inspired last week by the launch of the Change Congress movement to post a video of Lawrence Lessig describing the idea, as well as a badge in the sidebar. Today, we heard the announcement of the first congressional bite at the Change Congress apple. Thing is, it wasn’t quite the name some were expecting, “blue dog” Congressman Jim Cooper:
I am very proud to announce today that Congressman Jim Cooper (TN-5) (Dem) has become the first Member to join the Change Congress movement. (He supports planks 2, 3, and 4). Congressman Cooper is a “blue dog” Democrat.
Bluethunder wrote about the mixed feelings of this announcement.
So an effort focused on changing congress, and already we’re in bed with the very people we are trying to change? . . . I had assumed Change Congress was meant to be a progressive organization. But convince me I am wrong, I believe very much in the ideas espoused by Change Congress, but was surprised by this. I still support Lessig in his ideas and endeavors.
And this led to a good discussion at openleft on the idea of Change Congress. First Populista:
Don’t judge on one candidate. There will be many more added.
The biggest issue of all of them is number 4. Public financing. IMO that will go a long way to improving the rest of the problems. If you are not beholden to campaign contributers then why would you give them corrupt earmarks? Why would you want PAC or lobbyist money?People play the game because it is the game. 1-3 will reform the game. 4 will change it. If a Blue Dog like Davis supports it? Fine with me. I will disagree on other points with him but if he is up for changing the system that is what I care about most.
So how can you “end earmarks” without that meaning that the President gets sole budgetary discretion over spending? I mean if the budget has $100M for “infrastructure” maybe he’ll just build a bunch of bridges in Arizona. Why not, if Congress doesn’t stipulate how to spend the money?
The thing that pisses me off about this pac/lobbyist thing is that it equates ALL PACs and lobbyists. Taking $500 from the UAW or the Sierra club or Progressive Patriots is a vastly different thing than taking $500 from Exxon or Blackwater or whatever.
My personal opinion: If we’re going to accept the idea that the system would be better if politicians didn’t take money from PACs and lobbyists, we’re going to have to accept that this means eliminating the PACs we like along with the PACs we don’t.
It’s a pill. Swallow it.
4 Responses to “Congressman Jim Cooper joins Change Congress”
http://www.matthewfunk.net/blog
I agree wholeheartedly on the matter of universally eliminating PACs, not just the “bad” ones. After all, every army in the world is in favor of eliminating the “enemy’s” arms, while they feel they should be allowed to keep theirs. Disarmament must be total.
What this requires, however, is an acceptance not only that people with allegiances - like said blue dog - can change, but that they must. The notion of a revolution is that past modes of behavior will be cast aside for new ones - otherwise it’s just a matter of people with the new modes replacing the previous people wholesale; supplanting one hierarchy with another. That way lies oligarchy, not democracy.
In short, if transformation is your objective, you have to embrace the notion that anyone can transform.
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/
Do you think that “eliminating PACs” would run into any major First Amendment problems? Particularly after Buckley v. Valeo, where money = speech? I know that there is a “compelling interest” in guarding the political process against corruption, but do you think that the current Supreme Court would allow for “universally eliminating PACs”?
Sam always asks tough questions. This one deserves a full blog post. Here are some off-the-cuff points I’d make:
(1) Jurisprudence on the interplay between the First Amendment and money is a bit of a mess thanks to Buckley. Buckley is an extremely problematic decision for a host of reasons. (I vaguely remember reading a critique by Rawls that was excellent.)
(2) Buckley aside, the first prong of Change Congress is “I will not accept contributions from registered lobbyists or PACs.” It is legal (First Amendmentwise) to regulate direct donations to a campaign (what PACs generally do), as compared to the more problematic area of independent spending (e.g., through ads) that other 527s do.
http://www.luros.org
Is taking $500 from the Sierra Club really different than taking $500 from Exxon? I take issue with that idea. An organization that uses its collective resources to pressure legislature to adopt a position does not become better or worse because they align with one platform or another without some external method of evaluating the platform.
Discussion