Money vs Voters

This week by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of removing any limits to the amount of money a corporation or organization (like a labor union) can spend in support of a candidate running for federal office. This ruling strikes down 63 years of precedent set by previous supreme courts as well as severely weakening the McCain-Feingold Act, which set restrictions on the direct involvement large special interests could have on campaign finance.

Now, some might say the McCain-Feingold Act just resulted in the rise (beginning with in the 2000 Presidential Election) of what have come to be known as 527s, popularized to the point that they have been given their own verb, "swift-boated". McCain-Feingold, in a lot of people's opinions, has in no way addressed the issue it was supposed to address, money versus free speech. The efficacy of McCain-Feingold can be (and has been) debated to exhaustion, but at the very least, it was a proactive attempt to ensure the electoral process remains connected to the voters and not special interests.

The Supreme Court decision, according to some, has done nothing to significantly change the landscape of electoral politics, while others suggest the sky may be falling. The only certain reality of this decision is the fact that it has just become easier to influence an election with money and more difficult to hear the voice of the average voter. The argument could be made that corporations, unions and non-profit organizations are filled with voters too and making it easier for them to speak is a victory for free speech.

However, there is no way to know whether or not groups who might financially support a candidacy are actually speaking on behalf of the interests of that candidate's representative area or on behalf of a broader agenda. While, the voice of the voter in a particular election is ensured to be directly related to the interests of their area of representation. The ability for organizations to affect an election with endless amounts of money allow special interests, who may have absolutely no concern for a candidate's effect on their region, to have a significant hand in the futures of people thousands of miles away, all to further one particular cause.

Even more disturbing is the reality that the Supreme Court made this decision based on the case brought by a partisan organization, Citizens United, about whether or not they could disseminate ads to "On-Demand" cable services for their movie "Hilary: The Movie" during the 2008 Presidential Election as motion picture and not as a political advertisement, which fall under different regulation. A case, originally about whether or not a movie is treated like a motion picture or a political ad, has now opened the flood gates of financial influence on federal elections and potentially drowned out the voices of average people.

And once again, the fate of millions have been virtually decided by the few who decided to show up. This court decision, like many others will most likely go forward without many people paying any attention, that is until September, October and November come around and the Mid-term elections are front and center nationwide. However, what the now oblivious masses will discover at that time, is that the money train left the station while they weren't looking and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Tragedy & Engagement

While driving around with my wife I began to think about Haiti. Not about the tragic events that have racked that nation or some of the stupid things that public figures have said regarding their plight. What struck me was a feeling of hope and the idea that in the face of all the things in this world that are wrong, depressing or sad, people still have the capacity to help those that they do not know.

Celebrities and artists from all walks of life and every corner of the globe, former heads of state with a plethora of differences between them have come together with thousands of the world's citizens to reach out to a devastated nation. With every global tragedy, be it Darfour, Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Serbia-Herzegovina, The Phillipines, China, Thailand, Katrina or September 11 (to name a few), the world comes together to the best of its ability in an effort to return some semblance of normalcy and hope to those who have been affected.

Later in the day I was struck with a question, one that often comes to me in the aftermath of charitable efforts like this in the face of tragedy. Why? Why does it take such painful, awful and tragic events like Haiti to remind all of us that everything going on around us, whether or not we are directly involved, should matter to us. If my neighbor down the street gets mugged or beaten up, it affects me. If I lose my job, or my cousin drops out of school, it should matter to our community, because both of those events could be a pattern of a larger issue going unresolved.

As the saying goes, "no man is an island" and since we can't actually succeed without the efforts of everyone else, it would benefit all of us to care about what happens to others and get engaged before things escalate. Before a couple of weeks ago, most people couldn't point to Haiti on a map, but now it's the first thing you hear about in the morning. Haiti has had problems for many years now and if the world cared about the country a little sooner, things might be a little different.

If each of us can take a minute from the isolated lives we're working so hard to live, we might become more aware of what's going on around us and put ourselves in a position to do something about it. Who knows, maybe we can prevent the next Haiti, Katrina or Darfour. One thing I do know is that effort spent preventing disasters is goes a lot further than the effort responding them and a little concern for others today might result in a brighter tomorrow for everyone.

The Problem with MLK and Barack

Today is January 18, 2010. On this day falls the national observance of Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday, and furthermore, his contribution to a civil rights movement that changed the consciousness of the country. A year ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as President, becoming the first African-American person to hold the nation's highest office. These two events are related in ways that might surprise the average person.

Both of these men are known for leading movements that neither of them sought to lead. MLK was just a budding preacher at Ebenezer Baptist Church when the Bus Boycott began in Birmingham, Alabama. It was this boycott that brought the injustices to Blacks in the south to the national stage (you'd think the Civil War and Reconstruction, might have been a pretty big clue, but I digress) and MLK front and center as figure head of the Civil Rights Movement. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois, when Sen. Harry Reid brought Barack into his office and told still young senator that he thought he should run for President and could win. Obama, as we now know, would go on to unify a country (shattered by financial ruin, unending war, fear of terrorism and eroding confidence in its leaders) as well as an international community increasingly disenchanted with an arrogant nation.

Both of these men are also portrayed as examples of the best the African-American race has to offer as well as proof of progress the United States has made in achieving racial equity. The fact that these two men are not seen as the potential of any educated, motivated, supported and hard-working African-American who is given a chance is proof positive of how little African-Americans think of themselves and the rest of the nation thinks of African-Americans. The fact that people can look at the singular victories of MLK being given a national holiday and Barack Obama being elected as President as evidence that "race doesn't matter any more" only serves to prove how little we understand the enormity of the work yet to be done.

As I type these words, there are thousands of marches, panel discussions, festivals and other various celebrations being held across this nation in honor of Dr. King. In the homes of many proud African-Americans (including many that I know personally) exist commemorative shirts, calendars, bobble-heads, playing cards, etc in honor of Barack's historic victory.

Unfortunately, in many measurements of success (high school/college graduation rates, average income per household, average salary), African-Americans still rank near the bottom and have actually fallen behind races that existed in negligible numbers at the time the Civil Rights Movement began, while in most measurements of failure (incarceration rates, murder rates, infant mortality rates, high school dropout rates, obesity rates) African-Americans still rank near the top.

Now, there are many factors that contribute to these disturbing realities and some very smart people (Cornell West, Henry Louis Gates, The Center for Information & Research On Civic Learning and Engagement - CIRCLE, to name a few) have written and reported on this issue ad nauseam, but that's another point for another post. The point I'm making is that the success of a race, nation or movement cannot be wrapped up in the histories of two people. While MLK and President Obama can absolutely be held in the highest regard of dreams achieved, potential realized, and hope of progress to come, it cannot stop there.

In order for the dream of a truly progressive society that judges people (to use the words of MLK) "...not based on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character", we must use the successes of these two men as a call to arms and not singular trumpets of victory. The consequence of our complacency could darken the light shone on our nation by these two men until they become distant stars we only read about in dusty forgotten books.