Capped Contributions

Campaign Finance Reform on the Horizon as Congress Considers Optional Public Financing

The only news on this today so far is covering Sam Waterston's involvement with the plan, but word on the street is that on Wednesday, Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) will be releasing a proposal to overhaul campaign contributions in a voluntary program titled the "Fair Elections Now Act," that would make congressional elections ::gasp:: fair.

Amidst discussions about the interplay between legislators' response to AIG's needs (as well as other government entities) and AIG's previous campaign contributions, it has come finally to the center of some legislators' attention (and more importantly their legislative agenda's) that it is time to begin reforming campaign finance for Congress. Of course, there is also discussion about reforming the presidential campaign finance system, a system already in place that was famously rejected by Barack Obama in his 2008 election for president because he was outraising his competitor by vast margins (insert random article talking about Obama's rejecting of public finance here).

Obama's Money
McCain's Money

What will this new legislation mean for our elections? Potentially, if widely accepted by congressional candidates (as the system is voluntary), the following could come from this system:

1. Electeds beholden only to their electorate - money raised by campaigns must come from their state. Currently, candidates can accept money from all over, meaning the means for election (the media and communications necessary to win an election) can come from all over the country, where special interest can influence a state's electeds with money.
2. A potential decrease in negative campaigning - with a limited campaign war chest for elections, candidate's will be more likely to focus on their positive message, rather than focusing on the negative message regarding their opponent(s).
3. Better Legislation - with elected officials that are in office because they are good for the people, rather than the system, legislative priorities will shift - lending to a government that will not provide a safety net for incompetent or dangerous companies that are hurting our people now (read here: the AIG / Banking Fiasco).

I will say that with regards to the final point above, I do believe that original loosening of the restrictions on banking was done with the best of intentions for the government and its people, but that the continual deregulation that led to this ridiculous current position of our financial system could have been avoided had that deregulation been stopped (which more legislators - not beholden to financial lobbyist - might have fought).

Anyway, long and short of it is this:
If we truly see a campaign finance reform system presented on Wednesday that is actually palatable to congressional candidates, we may have the opportunity for the people to recapture their lost government; leading to a renaissance of government that could catapult us into a new era. This may be an idealistic, or even idiotic belief, but I am content to play a fool if the potential for a reformed and truly democratic republic is possible.

I wish we were organizing tea parties around this issue rather than the budget...

-----
Today's Suggested Reading
I just started this book today but it is already turning out to be fantastic in the first 75 pages. This account of human history is along the lines of Jared Diamond in its excellent depiction of the human development arc.
NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny
Robert Wright

Employee Free / Forced Choice Act

Labor and Business go at it over NLRA Revisions

EFCA is proposed legislation that is now up for review in the Senate regarding revisions to the original National Labor Relations Act of 1935. There are already strong arguments that have been made from the left and the right regarding this act's potential impact on business and labor. Here is what some are saying.

Proponents (Labor: AFL-CIO, SEIU)

1. Will protect the middle class
2. Will stop corporate intimidation in organizing a union

Opponents (Conservative Think Tanks, Union-Busters: Heritage Foundation, Labor Relation Institute)

1. Will allow very small units in large organizations to run a "card check" certification, effectively unionizing a small subsection of a business without an election
2. Ends Union elections, and silences employees by banning elections
3. Will require an election to disband a Union
4. Will create more union employees that pay union dues, which will end up back in Democrats hands and make labor standards even more strict on companies, starting a cycle of more Democrats in Congress, less speech for companies and eventually, a Socialist State
   

And some other resources
Ed and Labor Committee Fact Sheet
Language of EFCA

The Issues at Hand
Card Check vs. Secret Ballot - The most hotly debated of all of the issues with the employee free choice act is that the NLRB would now be directed that,

"...whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection."

Campaigning when starting a Union - Unions are often not allowed to campaign on the companies' premises while the company can force anti-union meetings
Collective Bargaining - After an election is held and a Union established, companies can drag on bargaining indefinitely

So what does EFCA actually do?
It would revoke part of Taft - Hartley Act by freeing up the NLRB to recognize a collective bargaining unit with a majority instead of giving a company the ability to require an election after a majority has already been heard.
It would impose harsher penalties on companies that impose unfair labor practices such as intimidation and firing
It would end first-contract bargaining more quickly by requiring arbitration by an outside source when demands cannot be met on both sides within 120 days and lock that contract in effect for 2 years.
It would allow an organizing force to effectively organize a company's employees even before a company has an opportunity to add its opinion to those being weighed by the employees.
It will kill a lot of Union-busting companies by shortening their window of opportunity prior to an election.

At first, I was very skeptical about this bill and thought that I might end up being pulled to the right by it. I had read that it would only take 30% of employees signing a card to form a recognized union. I had read that employees would not be allowed an election and would be forced to use the card-check system. However, these things are not true and if you look at the actual bill's language, there is nothing even close to that in the bill. It will however, probably make it easier for employees to organize, and that will be a dangerous thing for companies and Republicans (as listed as #4 under Opponents, above) and luckily there is a very simple solution for that.

So the Opinion:
1. EFCA, as it stands, is a good bill. It's clean and will make it easier for employees to organize which is a good thing for those employees.
2. EFCA will not end Union elections, nor force public card-checks, but will allow for those who have already done a card-check with 50% or more (the same majority needed during the election) to be recognized. There is no reason to hold an election once 50% of workers have already voted in favor of something.
3. Campaign Finance needs to be changed before this bill is passed or soon thereafter. If there is anything that is wrong with EFCA, it is that the balance of political power in state capitols and D.C. will change and we will see an increase in Labor's power. It will swing the country as more employees are organized. Then paying dues, that money will go to more Pro-Labor Electeds and eventually to a Labor-controlled state. Maybe it's time, those of you on the right who have been anti-campaign finance reform, to reconsider as this is about to tip the balance pretty quickly and leave you out in the cold.

**UPDATE: From the Wall Street Journal, "The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act." Granted this article is really negative towards unions, but at least they figured out that it's not un-american...

-----
Today's List
2007 Votes for Cloture in the Senate