Wandering Reveries

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog provides an analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett. It’s a good analysis and summary of the case. I’m still reading the opinion, as well as articles on the ruling, but my first impression is: I’m dismayed that both the majority and minority opinions seem to accept the notion that private funds corrupt candidates (and government in general), whether it’s that subsidies fail to reduce corruption or that Arizona’s system would have succeeded. Perhaps, as a campaign hack, my sensibilities are offended by the idea that my candidate would be corrupted by a contribution (indeed, I’ve worked on campaigns where we have worked to avoid any appearance of corruption - even giving contributions back), but I’ve been reading a lot about campaign finance lately, specifically on the federal level and from what I have seen thus far, there is not much evidence for corruption as a rule with regard to private funding of campaigns. Does it occasionally occur? Sure; we can find the stories about it. We can also find examples where public financing has not stopped actual corruption. As such, I don’t believe that corruption should be accepted as a rule when it comes to private contributions. The other claim is that public financing increases competition. Fortunately, Arizona provides all of the information online about the participants in public financing, which then can be compared to election results and campaign finance reports. I am going to sit down today (I have some free time) and go through this information and work on a post. Overall, I have no ideological stake in this discussion - I want to keep an open mind about the free speech and constitutional issues at stake - but I am skeptical of the effectiveness of public financing of campaigns.

So, Craig James has a new three minute video out touting his conservative values and his biography (no mention of pay for play - odd). Seriously, it’s three minutes long. There has been talk of James running for Senate since last year when Sen. Hutchison talked about resigning to run for Governor. Who knows if he will run for Senate. There are going to be new Congressional seats in the DFW area, and IF Perry decides to run for President, there will be several statewide offices that begin to open up. The new organization certainly adds to the belief that James will run for office - and soon - regardless of what the office is. If he runs, he should probably stick to the Metroplex, because he’s more unpopular than Obama in Lubbock. All I can say is please, pretty please, someone hire me to dig into this guy’s past and find some evidence of his participation in pay for play. And just for laughs, there’s this, which I post gratuitously (that’s Craig on the left):

In a recent post, sfliberty tells the tale of “a real life Hank Rearden.” However, unlike Rearden, Mr Cola worked with a government funded institution - Ohio State University - to test his process, as well as develop new applications and improvements to the process (Source), which is something I doubt Mr Rearden would do (and perhaps something Students for Liberty would not endorse). While I am in general agreement with the post’s overall point, i.e., that central planning is ineffective (though I think Paul Omerod explained the folly of central planning much better in Butterfly Economics and Why Most Things Fail without going full Rand), I think it needs to be pointed out that Mr Cola does not fulfill Rand’s fiction. Mr Cola’s story is a great success story (and I think its inarguable this is revolutionary), but he’s not exactly a Hank Rearden.

The Los Angeles Times has a good article this morning on the increase in recall elections that we have seen throughout the United States, particularly in Wisconsin. In my opinion, recall elections undermine representative government rather than enhance it. Speaking of the attempt to recall the mayor of Omaha, David Nabity said, “A person should be evaluated on their public policy decisions and their ability to manage. If people lose faith in that person’s ability to manage the community, people should be given the option to recall him.” We already have a process which allows for that every 2-4 years, but as we see in the case of Omaha, the recall talk began immediately following the election, before any proper evaluation could be done. The LA Times also mentions a good blog on recalls which I recently started following: The Recall Elections Blog.

I’ve seen a little debate about the economic health of Texas today on Tumblr. Texas is now the 2nd largest state economy in the United States with GDP of $1.2 trillion, and Texas’ real GDP growth outpaced national real GDP growth (Source). I’m not an economist or fluent in economic theory, though I do try to understand it, and thus, have no deep thoughts to share in that regard, so I’ll focus more on the politics of this. With Gov. Rick Perry considering a run for the Republican nomination, this information will benefit him on the trail. Whether or not Gov. Perry can claim responsibility for this growth I will leave to others to debate, but these numbers do give the governor something the other candidates don’t have: an economic success story.

I’m sure we’ve all seen the blitz about Ron Paul winning this straw poll or that straw poll. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post elaborates on what I’ve been saying for weeks (here and here, for example), noting the irrelevance of straw polls to actual electoral dynamics and why Paul has so much success winning them. Mr Cillizza also notes that Paul ultimately finished behind John McCain in Iowa, even though the Senator never really campaigned there, and behind Tom Tancredo in the Ames Straw Poll. Essentially, when it matters, Paul underperforms.

The Election Law Blog, which is a good blog to follow for election law news, has provided this Congressional Research Service report on how to perform basic legislative history. For those of us who are interested in politics, this is a good guide for how to perform the research for the background information on the legislation we’re interested in.

This about writing to your Congressman, but it applies to any politician. Most of the advice is pretty good, although I would disagree with the author’s claim that e-mail is best for non-urgent and/or less important issues. E-mail can be just as effective as a letter; just use the same rules. As someone who has worked in a legislator’s office, I have seem some ridiculous letters (and kept copies of the most ridiculous ones), so let me offer some advice from someone who has received mail rather than sent it.

1. If you are writing about a specific piece of legislation, please include the bill number or the bill’s author. It doesn’t help anyone if it can’t be determined what legislation you want action on.

2. If you are not writing about legislation, clearly state your problem or need, so that the proper state or local agency can be directed to address it.

3. Do not send a handwritten letter (unless you’re in prison and they don’t give you computer access - yeah, I’ve seen those), because inevitably they are difficult to read.

4. Be polite. Even if you’re writing to disagree, be civil and state your case calmly (don’t type in all caps); it at least guarantees that you’ll be taken more seriously.

The hatred for Abraham Lincoln seems to blind some people the actual facts of history. For example, evilteabagger writes the following:

The Civil War was unconstitutional, he suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval, he incarcerated and deported members of Congress and the Supreme Court that question the legitimacy of his presidential power among many other atrocities.

Lincoln never incarcerated or deported any member of Congress or member of the Supreme Court. I have addressed this bunk before, but let me address it again, because our understanding of history is incredibly important, and it’s important to dispel myths.

The myth of Lincoln arresting sitting Congressmen is based on the arrest of Clement Vallandigham, who was not a member of Congress at the time of his arrest and deportation. Vallandigham - who was defeated for re-election in 1862 - was arrested in 1863 - well after he had completed his term - by General Burnside under his issued order - General Order #38. Vallandigham was then tried by a military tribunal and convicted. A federal court upheld the conviction. He was sentenced to 2 years confinement in a military prison. This sentence was changed by Lincoln, who then had Vallandigham taken to Tennessee; he later returned to Ohio after the war. (Source).

The false belief that Lincoln incarcerated and deported a Supreme Court Justice is based on the disputed arrest warrant for Chief Justice Robert B. Taney (Source). Purportedly, Lincoln issued a warrant, but it was never executed, so Taney was never arrested, nor was he ever incarcerated or deported. Even such a virulent opponent of Lincoln as Thomas DiLorenzo notes that the warrant was never executed.

Lincoln committed enough unconstitutional and illegal acts without resorting to distorting the facts to make some acts seem worse.

As usual, another gross generalization of the views of the Founding Fathers, who were far more diverse in their views than suggested in this article and a misrepresentation of the beliefs of Alexander Hamilton. The author mentions avoiding war with France and England, but does not address our wars with the Indians and our expansionist policy on the American continent which included the conquest of foreign nations - the American Indian Tribes. Furthermore, in his interpretation of the Founders as anti-war, he ignores many of the political considerations which were involved in the suits for peace with the British, as well as the voices which were opposed to peace. In another example of avoiding political considerations, the author mentions Adams denial of a standing army to Hamilton, which was a result of Adams dislike/suspicion of Hamilton more so than an opposition to standing armies. And then there is the characterization of Alexander Hamilton, who certainly argued for, and attempted, expanding executive power, but was just as committed to avoiding war with France and Britain as Adams and Jefferson - e.g., Hamilton was crucial to the Jay Treay, which is heralded by the author (yet Hamilton is the evil imperialist to Jefferson the pacifist). Whenever people attempt to co-opt the Founders in support of their particular ideology it sticks in my craw, because they inevitably ignore the complexity of history in order to paint their romantic, ideological vision of the Founders.

An interesting piece in today’s Texas Tribune: some students from Texas A&M are attempting to restore fairness to the redistricting process in their studies. A couple of quibbles with some of the comments in the article.

“As a citizen, I’d say that people don’t believe in the redistricting process. It doesn’t feel legitimate,” said Craig Welkener.

As a citizen, polisci grad and political hack, I would say that people - in general - pay very little attention to the redistricting process (Source). Furthermore, redistricting has not impacted the perceived fairness of the American political system. Even a perusal of Tumblr doesn’t reveal much discussion of redistricting, because Anthony Weiner’s social media life is so much more important. Most people are probably not aware that Weiner might be redistricted. Indeed, the only people who seem to care about the “fairness” of redistricting are the partisans on both sides of the aisle who have an interest in the redistricting process, i.e., incumbents and political parties. There are rules for the redistricting process, and if those rules are not followed, then the maps will be litigated. It’s is a messy process, no doubt, and personally, I don’t see a bi-partisan, or non-partisan, commission ever being created in Texas (at least, not in the foreseeable future). These commissions could make races more competitive, but they’ll likely not have any impact on the perceived fairness of the American political process or the public’s perception of redistricting in general.

While perusing one of the political forums I lurk on, I saw this op-ed from the New York Times posted for discussion. There wasn’t much discussion on the topic, but I had some thoughts on the op-ed.

The author of the editorial has placed a lot of emphasis on race, but race is only incidental (more minorities support Democrats); I think anyone would be hard pressed to prove race as the cause for these proposals. The real issue is partisanship and a genuine, if mistaken, belief in the abundance of in-person voter fraud.

A couple of other quibbles with the op-ed: 1) I haven’t heard of efforts in other states to reduce early voting, nor does the author produce any, so it hardly seems there is a well-coordinated effort across the country; and 2) there was never really a period when people wanted more people to vote (incumbents generally don’t like high turnout). Indeed, early voting may depress voter turnout.
 
Further complicating the author’s argument is that one of his sources - the Early Voting Information Center - actually praises the Georgia early voting legislation - Georgia improves its early voting system - saying that “it reduces any possibility of inequities in access to the ballot based on a county’s wealth, geographic size, or population.”

My own state - Texas - was an early pioneer in early voting. And with each election the number of early voters goes up. In the past several elections, the number of Republicans who have been showing up to early vote has been growing as well, particularly in the last election cycle. However, the overall turnout has not increased. From my own experience, Texas Republicans have done a fair job of encouraging their voters to show up at the polls during early voting.
 
With all this in mind, the only actual obstruction to voting would appear to be voter identification requirements, because restricting the early voting period would not appear to have a negative impact on voter turnout (considering that early voting itself may depress turnout). At this point, I do not believe we have had a sufficient number of elections and data to determine the effect of voter ID requirements. See also this study from the Election Law Journal: “Modeling Problems in the Voter Identification—Voter Turnout Debate”. The author of the editorial is making several bold claims - all of which are lacking in evidence.

Good article from the New York Times about how population shifts are effecting legislatures throughout the country. It’s a phenomena that has been occurring in Texas for quite some time and will keep occurring as this year’s redistricting maps have shown. Multi-member districts and other tactics helped preserve the strength of rural areas for many years, but those props were steadily removed over time (Source).