by Ali-Asad
Joseph R. Biden Jr. got into politics for one issue: civil rights. When he reached the senate, the Voting Rights act had already been passed and the country was set on a new path towards racial reconciliation. Once in the senate, Biden turned his attention towards another issue he deeply cared about - campaign finance reform (CFR) - the idea that money should be separated from politics by having the government finance all political campaigns. If legislated, CFR would level the playing field and allow political campaigns to be about ideas and policies, and not dependent on incumbency and fundraising. But Biden never got very far; warned by his colleagues that no one in congress would support an idea that eliminated the advantage of incumbency, Biden dropped the issue.
Now, Joe Biden has a boss who in theory likes the idea of campaign finance reform but in practice almost broke the back of CFR supporters. After securing the Democratic nomination, then-senator Obama broke his pledge an opted out of he public financing system for presidential candidates - which McCain abided by - in order to take advantage of his superior fundraising machine, and the fundraising abilities of the candidate himself. This decision allowed Obama to safely secure his victory over the Arizona senator on election night, 2008. Now, President Obama does not appear interested in delving into an issue which greatly concerns his deputy - the issue remains absent from the whitehouse's list of important policies. Though a possible second term issue, achieving CFR requires great popular consensus, dedication and political will. While this issue does not garner as much attention - or vitriol - as abortion or healthcare, the ideological divide remains vast.
CFR raises a fundamental constitutional issue as to what constitutes free speech - does money equal speech? Many liberals argue no on the basis that wealthy is distributed unequally across society. The ultimate exercise of free speech, participating in an election, follows the principle of one man, one vote. But wealthy individuals wield disproportionate power in terms on wealth, and so have a lock on so called 'money speech'. So, the idea that money equals speech does a disservice to the first amendment and possibly violates equal protection and due process guaranteed therein. Most conservatives argue that separating money from politics violates first amendment rights in terms of freedom of speech and expression - everyone has an inherent right to express what policies and candidates they support, and the constitution in no way prohibits the use of a person's wealth to further those goals. Also, allowing the government to restrict how individuals can express their political views creates a slippery slope towards the further curtailing of civil liberties such as expressing unpopular opinions. So, the ability for individuals to use their own resources for political expression serves as a bulwark against governmental tyranny.
With such a huge ideological divide, congress has muddled through the issue with the Federal Election Campaign act of 1979 and McCain-Feingold in 2002 which accepts money's role in politics but with government regulations imposed. As with all compromises, neither side is happy and both sides have used lawyers to no end finding loopholes in the laws.In the current session, some members of congress have introduced a bill - the Fair Elections Now act (FEN) that would further rewrite the rules on on money in politics. This proposed legislation would bring us closer to a publicly financed system by setting up a 'Fair Elections' fund. Candidates, who qualify by demonstrating statewide support, would have the option of joining the fund, which guarantees a fixed sum of money for campaigning. Although it's only optional, this legislation would give challengers to congressional incumbents, who rarely lose, a shot at competing.
In Joseph R. Biden Jr., the proponents of CFR have a stealthy supporter in the white house. It's unclear whether the Vice President has made his concerns clear to the President. He should, by appealing to this President's visionary inclinations - the impact of CFR will only be felt many many years after it is signed into law, when money and corporations will no longer have a stake in individual parties or candidates. The Vice President knows how urgent an issue this is - will his conscience allow him to stay quiet? And for how long? We'll get an indication if and when the whitehouse turns its attention to, and openly supports, the Fair Elections act.
And that's jus' the tip.
' agrees. In a lecture she gives at Google, Dr. Mednick outlines her research on why naps help increase productivity and can help supplement regular night sleep. This lecture is on youtube and is attached below. I've summarized her main points and the corresponding segment in the video:
