August 16, 2007 by patrick.

In response to a term limits question from Billerica’s Mike Dempsey, only the most senior candidate (now in his 16th term at the State House) pledged to observe self-imposed term limits, presupposing of course that no other forces will do the imposing.

In Monday’s Democratic debate, candidate Barry Finegold answered that it’s important to realize that the next congressman will be “the low person on the totem pole.” His suggestion seemed to be met with unanimous, good-humored consent. At least two other candidates have used this very phrase “totem pole”, and even more echoed their perceived standing as 435^th out of 435. Finegold, in further response to the question of term limits, said, “I think the way things work in Washington, the more seniority you have, the more you can get done for your district.”

I think it is instructive that native Americans never intended totem poles to be hierarchical representations of people. Being at the bottom or top of the pole did not necessarily imply any distinction in status. So it was intended for Congress. Congressmen are elected to represent roughly the same number of people. If I did not believe that the people of my district should have an equal voice, if I believed that those citizens represented by a powerful chairman or more senior representative should have greater weight in the affairs of this country, I would be a very ineffective Congressman indeed. Instead, I will be one of 435 equal members, and in order to hurdle the legislative obstacles, the most active and vocal.

The point of term limits is less about electoral politics as the candidates suggested, and more about reforming the institution of Congress itself. With constant turnover, the very seniority Finegold cited would no longer be an issue. Frequent power shifts within the legislative body would force a fairer system in which to work. And rather than the sole concern of Congressmen being to keep their seat and benefits for as long as possible, they might actually try and get done, in the little time they have, as much as possible.

The Republican candidates last night were also asked about term limits. Both climbed out on the illogical limb of a qualified term limits pledge, complete with detailed formula. However, in a night filled with tortured reasoning, they said they will not keep their pledges unilaterally. Ignoring what that might mean for a moment, is it not worse to know what course you should take, and not take it—to wait and wait until a quorum has formed? Is this not a lack of leadership?

We need leaders who have some vision of where we ought to be going, and the ideas that would allow us to get there. You have my words. Here is my pledge: I will observe a four-term limit, honest injun.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 16, 2007 by patrick.

Monday’s Democratic debate proved that if there is one issue on which all parties may agree, it is that $170,000 is the right salary for a United States Congressman.  The current Congress, which has failed to end the war, raise environmental standards, put a dent in our national debt, reform health care and education or even campaigns, has managed to pick but just the right number when it comes to their compensation.  After a taxing three-day work week, they seem to say, hey, I’m worth it.

The question that makes most candidates uncomfortable is about campaign accounts—the amounts of money, and from whom it is raised.  Answers require a certain moral and linguistic flexibility that only members of the legal profession possess.  One well self-financed candidate who lives in the district claimed the most donations from people within the district.  Another received nearly a million dollars from family and friends and those who bagged groceries with him as a kid.  One knew nothing of what groups her campaign would not take money from—that being an absurd notion—only the organizations from which it did raise money, and anyway individuals can almost donate as much as lobbyists.  Another has essentially refused to take money from organizations that would not give it.  The last candidate, usually blunt and unequivocal in his remarks, was unsure of whether he had taken money from utility companies, and may have gone home that night to an unlit house and a cold stove.

He’d steal a red-hot stove, my grandfather George B. Murphy used to say of various public officials.  Himself an honest politician, he made headlines at the Lowell Sun when he exposed someone who had attempted to bribe him for a vote.  That sort of bribery has now been legalized.  Our Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that money was a form of political speech and the lobbyists haven’t stopped talking since: through political action committees (PACs), groups of donors, or through the more traditional bag of unmarked political speech hidden in the freezer.

Some candidates conceded this was a problem. One suggested a system of public financing, but this fails to control the ridiculous costs of campaigns. Another suggested equal TV time might give candidates outside the establishment a fairer platform.  These are nice sentiments, but by continuing to participate in such a flawed system, candidates who raise so much money, who believe they are entitled to so much more than the average worker, only ensure that the unholy trinity of wealthy corporations, media conglomerates and the political class continues to operate, as they have, in their own interests.

The only way to effect campaign reform is to reform how we run them now.  If we wait until we step onto the House floor, it is too late.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | 2 Comments »