Chances are that you've never heard of chartalism (unless you arrived here because you Googled the word). I've been reading an increasing number of articles which argue certain points which are central to the economic theory of chartalism. This theory is centrally focused on characteristics of a fiat currency regime. The basic assumptions and conclusions are sound although I have not studied it enough to have a fully informed opinion. Further, I disagree on principle with some conclusions on the surface level.
So what is it all about? Basically, the chartalists suggest that the state issues fiat currency via government spending and recoups (destroys) the money via taxation. Thus, fiat issue is no more than printing money and, if the government did not do so, there would be no money for citizens. This extends to a conclusion that the private sector cannot save money unless the government runs a deficit. This is further shown by using simple algebra with the formula for GDP. This reinforces the argument of the adherents.
I see a few basic flaws in this theory. First, if there were no fiat money, that would not destroy economic activity. There would be, at a minimum, barter activity. Second, it seems to ignore debt (or at least under-appreciate its role like most all schools of economic thought). Since private banks issue credit, the state is not the only entity which can issue currency (depending on one's definition).
Nonetheless, this is important. Governments can and do print money. The U.S. Dollar is essentially backed (primarily) by U.S. Treasuries. In other words, the value of the Dollar is derived by the use of it to pay government debt. The point remains that next time you find yourself in a debate about the nature of the state and deficit spending, one can not summarily dismiss the notion that deficits don't matter or the suggestion that the U.S. will not default on its debt. There are shades of gray to this. Again, I don't completely agree with all the assumptions or conclusions of this theory. But, well-informed (and sometimes even well-intentioned) adherents will make good points - specifically that this theory is sound due to its identity relationship from the GDP math.
One of the main goals of Stop Taking Soma! is to educate and inform. Shouting matches between ideological opponents and semi-informed debate participants are a problem in the political environment. If libertarians (small "l" or big "L") or other marginalized political (or economic) groups fail to understand the perspective of our opponents, we will risk continued marginalization and be reduced to nothing more to uninformed noisemakers.
For more on chartalism and its post-Keynesian cousin circuitism, visit the forum on Steve Keen's blog and read this thread. (Full disclosure: I have not yet read it.)
Friday, March 5, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Cool Trilemmas
I'll admit that my vocabulary did not contain the word "trilemma" until a few weeks ago. It's a natural extension of the commonplace "dilemma" where we have three options. Then, in a span of no more than days, I was exposed to two interesting trilemmas.
The first trilemma that I would like to introduce is the so-called "Impossible Trinity". This hypothesis states that a national economy can only achieve two of the following three characteristics: a fixed exchange rate, free capital movement, independent monetary policy. A nation with a fixed exchange rate is able to maintain a stable currency as it relates to the rest of the global economy. China, for example, maintains a fixed exchange rate by pegging its currency to the U.S. Dollar. Nations with free capital movement allow goods and services to be (relatively) freely traded by private citizens across borders without significant taxes or other restrictions. This is a common feature of globalization. Finally, independent monetary policy implies that a nation's banking system (usually via the central bank) can set interest rates and manage the supply of money without outside interference.
This trilemma is an important one to understand (and I think it is generally accurate) in the context of global political economy. Using the China example again, it is clear that as they open up their economy to freer movement of capital, they have to cede monetary authority in order to maintain their fixed exchange rate. This is one major factor in the accumulation of U.S. debt by China. If they wanted to exert a more independent monetary policy, they would either have to be more restrictive in managing capital flows (i.e. less exports to the U.S.) or abandon their fixed peg to the Dollar.
The second trilemma comes courtesy of Dani Rodrik, a Turkish economist at Harvard. Rodrik suggests that the world economy is subject to the following: we cannot simultaneously achieve a deeply integrated global economy, maintain national sovereignty, and operate democratic governments. We can only achieve two of the three at any time. This argument appears to hold true. If we want advanced globalization while maintaining the nation-state, governments would have to forgo much domestic policy - national policy would be focused on policies which enable global economic integration (this appears to be the general direction today, in my opinion, fueled by financial elite corporatism). The second choice would be to pursue globalization while protecting democratic principles. Such an option would require a global government which could act in the interest of the entire world under a democratic framework. Third, we could maintain democratic government and national sovereignty while settling for less global economic integration. Rodrik suggests that this is what the Bretton-Woods system sought to achieve.
So, in summary, trilemmas provide cool thought experiments. These two are interesting and are good to keep in mind when attempting to understand the working of the global political and economic system.
The first trilemma that I would like to introduce is the so-called "Impossible Trinity". This hypothesis states that a national economy can only achieve two of the following three characteristics: a fixed exchange rate, free capital movement, independent monetary policy. A nation with a fixed exchange rate is able to maintain a stable currency as it relates to the rest of the global economy. China, for example, maintains a fixed exchange rate by pegging its currency to the U.S. Dollar. Nations with free capital movement allow goods and services to be (relatively) freely traded by private citizens across borders without significant taxes or other restrictions. This is a common feature of globalization. Finally, independent monetary policy implies that a nation's banking system (usually via the central bank) can set interest rates and manage the supply of money without outside interference.
This trilemma is an important one to understand (and I think it is generally accurate) in the context of global political economy. Using the China example again, it is clear that as they open up their economy to freer movement of capital, they have to cede monetary authority in order to maintain their fixed exchange rate. This is one major factor in the accumulation of U.S. debt by China. If they wanted to exert a more independent monetary policy, they would either have to be more restrictive in managing capital flows (i.e. less exports to the U.S.) or abandon their fixed peg to the Dollar.
The second trilemma comes courtesy of Dani Rodrik, a Turkish economist at Harvard. Rodrik suggests that the world economy is subject to the following: we cannot simultaneously achieve a deeply integrated global economy, maintain national sovereignty, and operate democratic governments. We can only achieve two of the three at any time. This argument appears to hold true. If we want advanced globalization while maintaining the nation-state, governments would have to forgo much domestic policy - national policy would be focused on policies which enable global economic integration (this appears to be the general direction today, in my opinion, fueled by financial elite corporatism). The second choice would be to pursue globalization while protecting democratic principles. Such an option would require a global government which could act in the interest of the entire world under a democratic framework. Third, we could maintain democratic government and national sovereignty while settling for less global economic integration. Rodrik suggests that this is what the Bretton-Woods system sought to achieve.
So, in summary, trilemmas provide cool thought experiments. These two are interesting and are good to keep in mind when attempting to understand the working of the global political and economic system.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Twenty-Five Days
Well, it looks like it's been twenty-five days since my last post. That's pretty bad! My excuses aren't necessarily that great, but it's been a combination of three factors: a) busy work/personal life stuff, b) getting more up-to-speed on local issues/politics, and c) reading some books.
In the meantime, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced that he would not run for re-election. This was a bit of a surprise and big news here in Indiana. Bayh timed his announcement well with clear knowledge that no Democrat would be able to get enough signatures to have ballot access in the primaries. This will allow the party insiders to choose the candidate rather than the electorate.
I truly do hope to post more regularly going forward, but I am undecided on how I plan to focus my efforts. I have some desire to focus on more local issues - especially as the 2010 election cycle ramps up and I get more involved with the local LP. This blog may not be the best outlet for that. The national/global/economic scene always interests me, but I probably won't churn out content as frequently and would prefer to focus on analytically-driven essays rather than the news cycle.
I'm open to all comments, feedback, and requests... I'd like to thank everyone who frequents the site and enjoys my ramblings.
In the meantime, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced that he would not run for re-election. This was a bit of a surprise and big news here in Indiana. Bayh timed his announcement well with clear knowledge that no Democrat would be able to get enough signatures to have ballot access in the primaries. This will allow the party insiders to choose the candidate rather than the electorate.
I truly do hope to post more regularly going forward, but I am undecided on how I plan to focus my efforts. I have some desire to focus on more local issues - especially as the 2010 election cycle ramps up and I get more involved with the local LP. This blog may not be the best outlet for that. The national/global/economic scene always interests me, but I probably won't churn out content as frequently and would prefer to focus on analytically-driven essays rather than the news cycle.
I'm open to all comments, feedback, and requests... I'd like to thank everyone who frequents the site and enjoys my ramblings.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A Libertarian View Against the Banks
There has been much ado over bailouts and socialism, Wall Street and Main Street, greedy bankers and noble capitalists, and a myriad of other related catchphrases and ideological positions when it comes to a discussion of the state of our financial system over the last year and a half. The debate rages on as today former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker testified before the Senate Banking Committee and with Barack Obama's recent call for a new tax on banks. Volcker has suggested a ban on proprietary trading for certain banks. This is a modified reinstatement of Glass-Steagall which served to separate standard commercial banking from hedge fund like behavior.
Lately, the conservative mainstream has taken to siding against such reforms. Typical free market rhetoric has led the way. It's been suggested that a ban on prop trading would over-regulate the banks and inhibit growth. We also hear the usual arguments against corporate taxes which state that it such policies only hurt the end consumer. I'd like to offer an alternative point of view on this subject that I think libertarians (and Libertarians) should consider supporting. I'll present my logic one point at a time.
1. Our System Encourages "Too Big To Fail"
This is a complex and very difficult issue. My free market ideals support a position which would say that companies can engage in any behavior they want and get as big as they want. They should be able to do this so long as they do not engage in fraud and/or stealing. The problem with today's system is that fraudulent behavior is supported. Banks can engage in expanding the money supply at will via credit creation in our fractional-reserve, fiat monetary system. I recognize that there is a legitimate debate to be had on the degree of fraud that such activity constitutes, but banks are allowed (and encouraged) to extend their liabilities well beyond their liquid assets. This creates an environment which is recipe for Too Big To Fail.
2. The Federal Reserve Further Enables Such Behavior
The Federal Reserve is the watchdog of the banking system. Large institutions have a direct line to the Fed in the primary dealer relationship. The liquidity provisions which the Fed has created over the last two years has not only expanded its balance sheet, but it has allowed these large banks to trade potentially risky assets for cash. This strengthens their reserve asset positions artificially and allows for further credit expansion. In the case of the last year, credit expansion has been swapped for asset speculation via proprietary trading.
3. Too Big To Fail Presents a Hazard to the Broader Economy
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, random talking heads on CNBC, or any other person in power discuss why we had to bail out AIG. I understand their point of view. Most Americans who were opposed to bailout frenzy probably do not truly grasp the meltdown we would have experienced. No one can say definitively how bad it would have been, but it would have been painful. I would posit that Too Big To Fail would not exist in a true free market. That is an ideal which is too far from reality. Poor investments should be liquidated but are allowed to persist and grow in a bubble economy. This should be prevented.
4. Proprietary Trading Serves Marginal Economic Value and Enhances Too Big To Fail
Some large banks also serve as market makers by providing liquidity to investors. This legitimate role was developed long ago to fill in the gaps in the market to make it easier for investors. (More on this in a future post.) However, market making has been extended to significant trading. This is gambling plain and simple. I am not opposed to gambling, but it is important to understand that it serves no economic purpose other than speculation. When several large banks trade in the markets for speculative purposes, they create counter-party risks between each other. So, large banks (and other financial institutions) which participate in such activities ultimately enhance Too Big To Fail regardless of their direct participation in commercial banking. (For more detail, read this at Naked Capitalism.)
5. Too Big To Fail Risks Should Be Insured by Too Big To Fail Institutions
There has been a lot of arm-wringing that certain large banks already repaid their TARP money and should not be further penalized with a new tax. I disagree; although I would not position this policy as a tax. The government has enabled and continues to support Too Big To Fail. This should be ended. However, in the interim, this continues to pose a systemic risk. Failure should not be covered by taxpayers. As the FDIC collects a tax (fee or insurance premium) to build its reserve fund to address failed banks, so too should the government collect a similar tax on Too Big To Fail institutions to protect the taxpayer. (There is also a legitimate libertarian debate against the FDIC, but we'll save that for another post as well.)
It is not a popular position for libertarians to support government intervention in the markets. This is not the issue at hand. We must recognize that there is a close relationship between Washington and lower Manhattan. Our economy has been transformed over the last two decades to one built on financial engineering underpinned by credit expansion and cozy corporatism. This must come to end. It will either end by implementing policies which unwind it carefully or with a spectacular crash which will make last the last year and a half look like a walk in the park.
Lately, the conservative mainstream has taken to siding against such reforms. Typical free market rhetoric has led the way. It's been suggested that a ban on prop trading would over-regulate the banks and inhibit growth. We also hear the usual arguments against corporate taxes which state that it such policies only hurt the end consumer. I'd like to offer an alternative point of view on this subject that I think libertarians (and Libertarians) should consider supporting. I'll present my logic one point at a time.
1. Our System Encourages "Too Big To Fail"
This is a complex and very difficult issue. My free market ideals support a position which would say that companies can engage in any behavior they want and get as big as they want. They should be able to do this so long as they do not engage in fraud and/or stealing. The problem with today's system is that fraudulent behavior is supported. Banks can engage in expanding the money supply at will via credit creation in our fractional-reserve, fiat monetary system. I recognize that there is a legitimate debate to be had on the degree of fraud that such activity constitutes, but banks are allowed (and encouraged) to extend their liabilities well beyond their liquid assets. This creates an environment which is recipe for Too Big To Fail.
2. The Federal Reserve Further Enables Such Behavior
The Federal Reserve is the watchdog of the banking system. Large institutions have a direct line to the Fed in the primary dealer relationship. The liquidity provisions which the Fed has created over the last two years has not only expanded its balance sheet, but it has allowed these large banks to trade potentially risky assets for cash. This strengthens their reserve asset positions artificially and allows for further credit expansion. In the case of the last year, credit expansion has been swapped for asset speculation via proprietary trading.
3. Too Big To Fail Presents a Hazard to the Broader Economy
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, random talking heads on CNBC, or any other person in power discuss why we had to bail out AIG. I understand their point of view. Most Americans who were opposed to bailout frenzy probably do not truly grasp the meltdown we would have experienced. No one can say definitively how bad it would have been, but it would have been painful. I would posit that Too Big To Fail would not exist in a true free market. That is an ideal which is too far from reality. Poor investments should be liquidated but are allowed to persist and grow in a bubble economy. This should be prevented.
4. Proprietary Trading Serves Marginal Economic Value and Enhances Too Big To Fail
Some large banks also serve as market makers by providing liquidity to investors. This legitimate role was developed long ago to fill in the gaps in the market to make it easier for investors. (More on this in a future post.) However, market making has been extended to significant trading. This is gambling plain and simple. I am not opposed to gambling, but it is important to understand that it serves no economic purpose other than speculation. When several large banks trade in the markets for speculative purposes, they create counter-party risks between each other. So, large banks (and other financial institutions) which participate in such activities ultimately enhance Too Big To Fail regardless of their direct participation in commercial banking. (For more detail, read this at Naked Capitalism.)
5. Too Big To Fail Risks Should Be Insured by Too Big To Fail Institutions
There has been a lot of arm-wringing that certain large banks already repaid their TARP money and should not be further penalized with a new tax. I disagree; although I would not position this policy as a tax. The government has enabled and continues to support Too Big To Fail. This should be ended. However, in the interim, this continues to pose a systemic risk. Failure should not be covered by taxpayers. As the FDIC collects a tax (fee or insurance premium) to build its reserve fund to address failed banks, so too should the government collect a similar tax on Too Big To Fail institutions to protect the taxpayer. (There is also a legitimate libertarian debate against the FDIC, but we'll save that for another post as well.)
It is not a popular position for libertarians to support government intervention in the markets. This is not the issue at hand. We must recognize that there is a close relationship between Washington and lower Manhattan. Our economy has been transformed over the last two decades to one built on financial engineering underpinned by credit expansion and cozy corporatism. This must come to end. It will either end by implementing policies which unwind it carefully or with a spectacular crash which will make last the last year and a half look like a walk in the park.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Obama's Second Chance
The President "did something unusual" today as he engaged the opposition at the Republican GOP House Issues Conference. I caught bits and pieces on the radio and television, and I plan to record and watch the event in its entirety over the weekend. I have to admit that I'm a bit impressed with Obama on what I've seen/heard thus far.
The GOP House delegation invited Obama for a Q&A today in Baltimore, MD, and the cameras were rolling. In what became an American version of Prime Minister's Questions (of which I am a big fan), Obama took questions from GOP House members. A bit of political wrangling mixed with solid debate led to a few honest answers from Barack Obama which put his intelligence and oratory on display without a teleprompter.
From what I've been able to dissect thus far, both sides scored some points. But, to me, while Obama toed the line between playing politics and denouncing politics, he scored some big points tonight. This is the Obama that I favored over John McCain. This is the Obama I wished we would have seen more of in the last year.
Let's be clear. I'm no huge fan of many of Obama's policies. Admittedly, I've always had an open ear to his anti-Washington populist message. Let's also be clear that I'm not so naive that I'd immediately assume that he has changed. However, his change of tone since the election of Scott Brown opens the door for a second chance.
The President now stands at a crossroads. Despite a poor State of the Union Address and a poor record of deficient action as it is measured against his populist rhetoric, his personality affords him the opportunity to prove Americans (like me) wrong. I'm skeptical of his commitment to cooperation and bipartisanship, his stance against the financial elite and powerful lobbies, and his willingness to support true reform and budget control. I'm very skeptical.
Actions speak louder than words. Let's watch.
The GOP House delegation invited Obama for a Q&A today in Baltimore, MD, and the cameras were rolling. In what became an American version of Prime Minister's Questions (of which I am a big fan), Obama took questions from GOP House members. A bit of political wrangling mixed with solid debate led to a few honest answers from Barack Obama which put his intelligence and oratory on display without a teleprompter.
From what I've been able to dissect thus far, both sides scored some points. But, to me, while Obama toed the line between playing politics and denouncing politics, he scored some big points tonight. This is the Obama that I favored over John McCain. This is the Obama I wished we would have seen more of in the last year.
Let's be clear. I'm no huge fan of many of Obama's policies. Admittedly, I've always had an open ear to his anti-Washington populist message. Let's also be clear that I'm not so naive that I'd immediately assume that he has changed. However, his change of tone since the election of Scott Brown opens the door for a second chance.
The President now stands at a crossroads. Despite a poor State of the Union Address and a poor record of deficient action as it is measured against his populist rhetoric, his personality affords him the opportunity to prove Americans (like me) wrong. I'm skeptical of his commitment to cooperation and bipartisanship, his stance against the financial elite and powerful lobbies, and his willingness to support true reform and budget control. I'm very skeptical.
Actions speak louder than words. Let's watch.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Citizens United Decision and Free Speech
The Supreme Court issued a significant ruling this week on the subject of campaign financing. It is a complex subject and the opinions authored by the Court illustrate this complexity checking in at 183 pages (read here if you dare). I have read most of them and will offer my thoughts.
In the 2008 election cycle, a group called Citizens United produced a film called Hillary: The Movie which was apparently quite an unfavorable depiction of the Presidential hopeful. Citizens United intended to distribute the film as an on-demand pay-per-view on DirecTV. The commercials which supported the film were deemed an "electioneering communication" by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and the film was not shown. Citizen United is a non-profit 501(c)4 corporation which has special non-profit status in that, unlike standard non-profit 501(c)3 charitable corporations, they can participate in the political process via lobbying and and campaigns. If this sounds complicated already, then welcome to the world of campaign finance in the United States.
This decision set up the Supreme Court battle which was decided on January 21. In what appears to be a unique decision, the Court decided 5-4 in favor of Citizens United overturning precedent in previous cases and ruling parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as unconstitutional. The effect of this decision is that corporations (and unions) may now use unlimited funds directly from the general treasury to engage in electioneering communications. However, such funds (still) may not be used to contribute directly to candidates or to other political committees (political parties and political action committees known as PACs). Further, contribution limits and regulatory disclosures are left unchanged in the decision.
An electioneering communication is one that clearly advocates the support or defeat of a particular candidate (follow the link above to get a complete definition) before an election. Corporations and unions were previously prohibited from such communications, but no restriction existed for individuals or various groups such as political committees or "527" groups. This nuance is essentially what led the Court to its 5-4 decision. They felt that Citizens United should not be prohibited from electioneering communications as it restricts free speech and argued that any relaxation of the prohibition must lead to the sweeping decision they ordered.
Justice John Paul Stevens authored the dissent. He lambasted the majority on two key points. First, he felt that the majority overstepped its bounds in the tradition of the Court by providing such a sweeping decision which essentially overturned two previous decisions and a major piece of recent Congressional legislation. Second, he felt that the consequences of allowing corporations to engage in unlimited spending on electioneering communications would be detrimental to democracy and inconsistent with the Founders' vision. Justice Antonin Scalia offered a concurring opinion which focused largely on a rebuttal to the dissent's view of the Founders' intent.
There is a lot of big money in politics. Certainly, the electorate is aware and skeptical of how big money can lead to big corruption. It will be interesting to see how this ruling will change the political landscape of the 2010 elections. The fear expressed by those who disagree with the Court is that this will lead to more corruption and allow corporations to dominate the political discourse. A more philosophical opposition to the decision is on the nature of corporate personhood.
I am not going to devote a lot of effort here to the debate on corporate personhood. However, briefly, we must recognize that corporations engage in contracts, can litigate, pay taxes, and are subject to criminal, civil, and financial liability. Also, corporations are ultimately comprised of individuals. This allows for an interesting tangent of debate which I will not pursue. I will point out that limiting the free speech of media corporations or even non-profit corporations would seem to be anathema to most. I would find it difficult to objectively draw that line to prevent large for-profit corporations from exercising free speech.
Money gives power in many aspects of society. There is no doubt to that. Corporations have a lot of money and thus have a lot of power. Power in the political discourse allows for views and opinions to be expressed, candidates to be laud and vilified. Exercising power also comes with a price. While most of the electorate will be unlikely to monitor great sites like OpenSecrets.org to determine who is paying for campaigns and ads, the disclosure requirements of the FEC enable such organizations to educate and inform. The media, advocacy groups, and interested individuals are empowered more than ever by the internet to report perceived improprieties and report on the relationship between money and politicians.
Our system is not perfect and democracy is a dirty business. Corruption will always exist, but it is the duty of the electorate to be informed and educated in a functional democracy. We cannot force this upon voters, but that should not force us to restrict free speech. This may lead to more corruption or at least the perception thereof, so interested opponents should take steps to counter this.
Be active and hold your elected officials and candidates responsible for their actions. Vote with your dollars if you disapprove of a corporation's political activities. Sell their stock. Boycott their products. Tell others to do the same. Last, but not least, be an advocate for better representation in government. Members of the House today represent about 700,000 citizens on average. Increasing the size of the House would lead to greater accountability, more equitable representation across the States, and less money involved in each race. This would be a far better remedy than restricting free speech.
In the 2008 election cycle, a group called Citizens United produced a film called Hillary: The Movie which was apparently quite an unfavorable depiction of the Presidential hopeful. Citizens United intended to distribute the film as an on-demand pay-per-view on DirecTV. The commercials which supported the film were deemed an "electioneering communication" by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and the film was not shown. Citizen United is a non-profit 501(c)4 corporation which has special non-profit status in that, unlike standard non-profit 501(c)3 charitable corporations, they can participate in the political process via lobbying and and campaigns. If this sounds complicated already, then welcome to the world of campaign finance in the United States.
This decision set up the Supreme Court battle which was decided on January 21. In what appears to be a unique decision, the Court decided 5-4 in favor of Citizens United overturning precedent in previous cases and ruling parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as unconstitutional. The effect of this decision is that corporations (and unions) may now use unlimited funds directly from the general treasury to engage in electioneering communications. However, such funds (still) may not be used to contribute directly to candidates or to other political committees (political parties and political action committees known as PACs). Further, contribution limits and regulatory disclosures are left unchanged in the decision.
An electioneering communication is one that clearly advocates the support or defeat of a particular candidate (follow the link above to get a complete definition) before an election. Corporations and unions were previously prohibited from such communications, but no restriction existed for individuals or various groups such as political committees or "527" groups. This nuance is essentially what led the Court to its 5-4 decision. They felt that Citizens United should not be prohibited from electioneering communications as it restricts free speech and argued that any relaxation of the prohibition must lead to the sweeping decision they ordered.
Justice John Paul Stevens authored the dissent. He lambasted the majority on two key points. First, he felt that the majority overstepped its bounds in the tradition of the Court by providing such a sweeping decision which essentially overturned two previous decisions and a major piece of recent Congressional legislation. Second, he felt that the consequences of allowing corporations to engage in unlimited spending on electioneering communications would be detrimental to democracy and inconsistent with the Founders' vision. Justice Antonin Scalia offered a concurring opinion which focused largely on a rebuttal to the dissent's view of the Founders' intent.
There is a lot of big money in politics. Certainly, the electorate is aware and skeptical of how big money can lead to big corruption. It will be interesting to see how this ruling will change the political landscape of the 2010 elections. The fear expressed by those who disagree with the Court is that this will lead to more corruption and allow corporations to dominate the political discourse. A more philosophical opposition to the decision is on the nature of corporate personhood.
I am not going to devote a lot of effort here to the debate on corporate personhood. However, briefly, we must recognize that corporations engage in contracts, can litigate, pay taxes, and are subject to criminal, civil, and financial liability. Also, corporations are ultimately comprised of individuals. This allows for an interesting tangent of debate which I will not pursue. I will point out that limiting the free speech of media corporations or even non-profit corporations would seem to be anathema to most. I would find it difficult to objectively draw that line to prevent large for-profit corporations from exercising free speech.
Money gives power in many aspects of society. There is no doubt to that. Corporations have a lot of money and thus have a lot of power. Power in the political discourse allows for views and opinions to be expressed, candidates to be laud and vilified. Exercising power also comes with a price. While most of the electorate will be unlikely to monitor great sites like OpenSecrets.org to determine who is paying for campaigns and ads, the disclosure requirements of the FEC enable such organizations to educate and inform. The media, advocacy groups, and interested individuals are empowered more than ever by the internet to report perceived improprieties and report on the relationship between money and politicians.
Our system is not perfect and democracy is a dirty business. Corruption will always exist, but it is the duty of the electorate to be informed and educated in a functional democracy. We cannot force this upon voters, but that should not force us to restrict free speech. This may lead to more corruption or at least the perception thereof, so interested opponents should take steps to counter this.
Be active and hold your elected officials and candidates responsible for their actions. Vote with your dollars if you disapprove of a corporation's political activities. Sell their stock. Boycott their products. Tell others to do the same. Last, but not least, be an advocate for better representation in government. Members of the House today represent about 700,000 citizens on average. Increasing the size of the House would lead to greater accountability, more equitable representation across the States, and less money involved in each race. This would be a far better remedy than restricting free speech.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thoughts on Scott Brown
I suppose I wouldn't be much a of a political blogger if I didn't comment on the Scott Brown election. It's certainly the hottest topic in politics today and will have implications on policy and action in Washington until November. In order to take a closer look at the real story behind the election, I'll turn to the data. Rasmussen Reports conducted exit polling last night and I've broken down some of the results in the table below.
Source: Rasmussen Reports
I heard on the radio this morning that health care was the most important issue to voters in Massachusetts last night. We've all heard the talk the Brown's election will likely lead to the end of the currently contemplated health care legislation. This is pretty much true. But, interestingly enough, Coakley had a seven point edge over Brown amongst voters who cited health care as the most important issue. This translates to 30% of the electorate voting for Coakley because of health care and 26% voting for Brown because of health care.
It is more interesting to me that Brown held a five point advantage for voters who believe the economy is the most important issue. This is a marked difference from the 2008 election where Obama dominated McCain 61% to 36% for the 63% of voters who named the economy as the most important issue (visit the link, select Massachusetts as the region and issues for vote preference).
Given that Brown voted for and supports the existing state health care plan in Massachusetts, it seems to me that the economy is the big deal here. (By the way, Brown did a pretty solid job of explaining his views on health care on the Today show this morning.) Brown also had a landslide victory over Coakley amongst the 11% of voters who said that either national security or taxes was the number one issue. Notably, his edge from this small constituency alone accounts for his overall margin of victory.
I see this as a true indication that Obama's support on economic issues has horribly deteriorated. He spent a large amount of political capital on bailouts and stimulus. He has attempted to claim success on the basis of stock market gains and modest GDP growth in Q3. Wall Street and the talking heads care about this; Main Street does not care. Most Americans see huge debt burdens, foreclosures and unemployment. To them, Washington has failed and Massachusetts has sent the message.
Source: Rasmussen ReportsI heard on the radio this morning that health care was the most important issue to voters in Massachusetts last night. We've all heard the talk the Brown's election will likely lead to the end of the currently contemplated health care legislation. This is pretty much true. But, interestingly enough, Coakley had a seven point edge over Brown amongst voters who cited health care as the most important issue. This translates to 30% of the electorate voting for Coakley because of health care and 26% voting for Brown because of health care.
It is more interesting to me that Brown held a five point advantage for voters who believe the economy is the most important issue. This is a marked difference from the 2008 election where Obama dominated McCain 61% to 36% for the 63% of voters who named the economy as the most important issue (visit the link, select Massachusetts as the region and issues for vote preference).
Given that Brown voted for and supports the existing state health care plan in Massachusetts, it seems to me that the economy is the big deal here. (By the way, Brown did a pretty solid job of explaining his views on health care on the Today show this morning.) Brown also had a landslide victory over Coakley amongst the 11% of voters who said that either national security or taxes was the number one issue. Notably, his edge from this small constituency alone accounts for his overall margin of victory.
I see this as a true indication that Obama's support on economic issues has horribly deteriorated. He spent a large amount of political capital on bailouts and stimulus. He has attempted to claim success on the basis of stock market gains and modest GDP growth in Q3. Wall Street and the talking heads care about this; Main Street does not care. Most Americans see huge debt burdens, foreclosures and unemployment. To them, Washington has failed and Massachusetts has sent the message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
