Category: Politics

How can we have a democracy when the significant political parties control who can run for office?

The truth is that many people are so ingrained in their political beliefs that – no matter who is running for office – they will vote for their chosen political party. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi wins elections because the voters want her? Or is it possibly because the majority of the people in her district will only vote for a Democrat, and the Democrats won’t let a viable Democratic challenger run against her? I would bet that if the Democrats ran a centrist against Pelosi in a primary she’d be out of her job rather quickly.

But this is the sad political truth of our day: the Democratic party presents you with a select choice of candidates – a line-up that essentially assures their desired candidate wins. The 2016 presidential election was in some ways an excellent example; the Democrats ran Bernie against Clinton because they wanted Clinton to win, and could not fathom the voters choosing Sanders (they almost missed the mark on that one).

Another example is from a more recent election, where progressive democrat Levi Tillemann is running for congress. Representative Steny Hoyer (D, MD) spoke with Tillemann, and in a recorded conversation allegedly suggested that he drop out of the race for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (DCCC) preferred candidate, Jason Crow. How it this democracy, when the DCCC decides elections instead of the people?

It’s time that we stand up to our political parties and remind them that the power really resides with the people. Demand that political parties provide a representative selection of candidates in the primaries, and that the voters be allowed to select who will represent their party.

The hubris of politicians never seems to exceed our expectations. The latest example: Liuyba Shirley, who is running for Congress in the NY 2nd district, is using campaign money for childcare [Danielle Kurtzleben, NPR]. She has now asked the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to approve this use of funds.

Here’s the argument: Since she cared for her children herself prior to running, and has only begun to incur child care costs as a result of her campaign, she should be allowed to use campaign funds for childcare. In her interpretation of FEC rules (and, apparently, the interpretation of her attorney), any expense she did not have prior to her running for office is fair game for campaign fund use. Unfortunately, they are wrong.

The FEC rules are clear:

Commission regulations provide a test, called the “irrespective test,” to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.

Ms. Shirley had children by her own volition, and has a legal and moral obligation to care for them – including the costs of child care – irrespective of her run for office. It does not matter that she chose to fulfill that obligation with her own time and labor prior to the campaign, or that she has only had to pay for child care since she began her campaign. All that matters is that the obligation exists independent of the campaign. As a result she should be barred from using campaign funds for child care.

This hasn’t stopped her from attempting to tug at the heartstrings and perceived (but real) bias felt by women. The NPR interview cited above points out that women generally do more child care and housework than men, even in dual income families, and this limits the availability of women to run for office. I get that – but the answer is not to use campaign funds for child care; the answer is to encourage men to accept their fair share of housework and child-rearing responsibilities.

I hope the FEC has the common sense to refuse her request, and that the voters see through her ploy and send her packing. We don’t need any more people in Congress who can’t read and interpret clearly-defined rules, attempt to bend the rules to benefit themselves, or pull at heartstrings like master puppeteers.

The Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has decided via executive order to conditionally pardon some 35,000 parolees in New York so as to restore their voting rights before the end of their parole [Democrat and Chronicle] [Fox News]. He has done so after considering the substantial opposition he would have pushing a bill for this purpose through his own state assembly, effectively bypassing the will of the people as expressed by their duly elected representatives. In my opinion (and I imagine the opinion of others) it was a backhanded bit of electioneering meant to pander to potential New York voters, thereby improving the odds of defeating his democratic opponent in the next election.  It was pandering at its worst, and – sadly – it will probably work. But before you decide whether or not you agree with Gov. Cuomo, it would be wise to gain a basic understanding of the parole system.

People assigned to prison for a term can be released early on parole. Parolees are not truly free, however; the are technically still in the custody of the parole board [See Section 8003.1 General], but have been released into society under the supervision of a parole officer. Note that as a result they still have a significant loss of rights, as if they were still in prison. For instance, they can be held to or barred from specific activities, such as maintaining a job or avoiding the use of drugs or alcohol, and are subject to search at the whim of law enforcement to determine if all applicable parole conditions are being met. Once they have completed their full sentence, including parole, they are then freed from supervised release and are once again full members of society (subject to special provisions for specific crimes, such as sex offender registration). Only after they are released from parole have they completed their sentence as mandated by the court.

In this light, it seems appropriate to restore voting rights only once a sentence has been completed and the offender is released from parole. Prior to this they are still technically in custody, and allowing parolees to vote would be tantamount to allowing prisoners to vote. In the majority of states, and in most states where ex-felons retain the right to vote, felons must complete their sentence – including parole – before they re-acquire the right to vote.

I know that many of you will not be concerned that one party has likely picked up an additional 35,000 votes – no matter the source or methods – but I beg you to consider how such a blatant act of pandering can polarize our political system. It is actions like these that are fueling the current divisiveness permeating our political process. In addition, this action was not necessary because current New York law already restores the right to vote after felons complete their sentence (including parole). It simply has no purpose other than to pander to a specific voter.

Shame on you, Gov. Cuomo.