OK, how do these things happen?
The superintendent of a 6,600-student south state school district has been suspended by the same board that gave him a salary about twice that of the guy who runs the nearby LA school system with about 10 times the number of students.
Trustees Centinela Valley Union High School District voted 5-0 to suspend Jose Fernandez pending an investigation of his $674,559 salary. Are they going to investigate themselves?
As superintendent, Fernandez oversees three high schools in the Los Angeles suburbs of Hawthorne and Lawndale. The campuses have a combined enrollment of about 6,600 students.
Los Angeles Schools Superintendent John Deasy, who oversees more than 1,000 schools with an enrollment of more than 640,000 students, is paid $393,106 a year. And, in case you're wondering, President Obama's annual salary is $400,000 (of course the president has to live in public housing).
In February the Torrance Daily Breeze published Fernandez's salary, prompting outrage from district parents and teachers. After the disclosure, Fernandez said he was willing to take a pay cut. He said he hoped to work that out at a school board meeting scheduled for next week.
"I'm just disappointed that I wasn't able to work out an agreement with them," he told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. He didn't say how much less he was willing to take and he wasn't any more forthcoming Friday when The Associated Press tried to reach him.
District trustees did the right thing -- finally -- but only after it was disclosed that they'd given Fernandez the breathtaking salary in the first place.
This takes us back to the original question: how do these things happen?
They happen when the public and press get lazy and stops watching and questioning authority.
It's the opposite of the old Ronald Reagan bromide, trust but verify.
Maddeningly unrealistic as Fernandez's salary obviously is, his is but the latest example of what can happen when public officials -- some, not all -- are left to their own devices. Just this week a Los Angeles Superior Court judge sent to prison the first of what likely will be a parade Bell city officials who milked that small city dry.
Angela Spaccia was sentenced 11 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $8 million in restitution to the city. Bell's former chief executive and five ex-council members await sentencing.
Spaccia, the city's assistant city manager, cornered a salary of $564,000 a year. In addition, she was found cashing out 26 weeks of vacation each year, effectively boosting her salary by 50 percent.
Bell, California has a population of 35,477, according to the 2010 census.
The Bell officials were convicted of corruption. Nobody is suggesting Fernandez broke any laws. What seems wrong here is an attitude of "it-ain't-our-money-so-who-cares?" on the part of district trustees and Fernandez's willingness to feather his nest at taxpayers' expense.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Making history fit your needs
For those who believe the study of history is wasted, consider former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.
Even by the willingness of some politicians to rewrite, misstate or just make up American history for their own purposes, DeMint is in a class all his own.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," the head of the Heritage Foundation said on the Truth in Action radio show last week.
"Unfortunately, there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people."
And then DeMint's red-meat line:
"So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God."
Any high school history student can punch holes in DeMint's skewered history, even the back-of-the-room slug who slept through half the class sessions.
To point out one of the more obvious errors, DeMint claims that the words "all men are created equal" appear in the Constitution. Perhaps DeMint should pull out the pocket-size edition of the document politicians of his ilk are fond of carrying. Those words are not in that document. They can be found in the Declaration of Independence, penned by the slave owner Thomas Jefferson.
Words that DeMint could find in the original Constitution if he would only look relegated some Americans to the status of three-fifths personhood, a dance-with-the-devil compromise fashioned to birth the nation. It was only after the Civil War that the document was amended (and it was nearly a century later that civil rights and voting rights for all citizens were codified by Congress).
Republicans love to call themselves the "party of Lincoln," a statement that ignores party realignment. Republicans of Lincoln's time were much different than those who belong to that party today. Where are the reddest of the red states today? The Deep South, a place where they love their history, especially when spun with a certain mythical turn that allows inconvenient truths to drop away.
That, perhaps, is why DeMint and others curl or ignore historical facts. Doing so makes it so much easier to rotate history for their own devices. In this case, DeMint tries to exonerate pro-slavery elements and make it seem they really wanted the pernicious institution to end.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano recently made the same claim, declaring that slavery was a dying institution and that Lincoln should have tried "purchasing the slaves and then freeing them."
Lincoln did offer "compensated emancipation" to the Border States that remained in the union "and any Confederate states interested," according to Columbian University's Eric Foner, one of the nation's foremost Civil War historians.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, "but not to his own facts.”
DeMint and Napolitano are among a notable group who never let facts get in the way of their opinions. That becomes a problem when they state their opinions as facts and then spin their yarns to a too often unsuspecting and gullible public. Studying a little history is one way to arm yourself against the myth-makers like DeMint.
Even by the willingness of some politicians to rewrite, misstate or just make up American history for their own purposes, DeMint is in a class all his own.
 |
| Former Sen. Jim DeMint |
"Unfortunately, there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people."
And then DeMint's red-meat line:
"So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God."
Any high school history student can punch holes in DeMint's skewered history, even the back-of-the-room slug who slept through half the class sessions.
To point out one of the more obvious errors, DeMint claims that the words "all men are created equal" appear in the Constitution. Perhaps DeMint should pull out the pocket-size edition of the document politicians of his ilk are fond of carrying. Those words are not in that document. They can be found in the Declaration of Independence, penned by the slave owner Thomas Jefferson.
Words that DeMint could find in the original Constitution if he would only look relegated some Americans to the status of three-fifths personhood, a dance-with-the-devil compromise fashioned to birth the nation. It was only after the Civil War that the document was amended (and it was nearly a century later that civil rights and voting rights for all citizens were codified by Congress).
Republicans love to call themselves the "party of Lincoln," a statement that ignores party realignment. Republicans of Lincoln's time were much different than those who belong to that party today. Where are the reddest of the red states today? The Deep South, a place where they love their history, especially when spun with a certain mythical turn that allows inconvenient truths to drop away.
That, perhaps, is why DeMint and others curl or ignore historical facts. Doing so makes it so much easier to rotate history for their own devices. In this case, DeMint tries to exonerate pro-slavery elements and make it seem they really wanted the pernicious institution to end.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano recently made the same claim, declaring that slavery was a dying institution and that Lincoln should have tried "purchasing the slaves and then freeing them."
Lincoln did offer "compensated emancipation" to the Border States that remained in the union "and any Confederate states interested," according to Columbian University's Eric Foner, one of the nation's foremost Civil War historians.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, "but not to his own facts.”
DeMint and Napolitano are among a notable group who never let facts get in the way of their opinions. That becomes a problem when they state their opinions as facts and then spin their yarns to a too often unsuspecting and gullible public. Studying a little history is one way to arm yourself against the myth-makers like DeMint.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Balancing justice for famlies, taxpayers
Anybody who believes crime doesn't pay isn't paying attention.
The latest example comes from Los Angeles where a veteran building inspector sentenced to prison last month in an FBI corruption case will continue to receive his pension. His take: $72,000 a year. That's $6,030 a month plus a monthly health care subsidy of $1,469.
Samuel In, 66, last year admitted he took more than $30,000 in bribes while working as a senior inspector. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison but only after a federal prosecutor argued against leniency and mentioned his "substantial" pension.
How, you ask, can a convicted felon keep a public pension, especially if the charges stem from the person's discharge of his/her public duties?
Sometimes they can't, at least it's harder than it used to be. Two years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring public employees convicted of a felony to give up retirement benefits earned during the period when their crimes were committed.
That law doesn't apply in Los Angeles because it operates under a voter-approved charter and manages its own pension system. Some council members are making noise about changing the LA system, but In's attorney said his client "earned that pension" during his 37 years of public service and he did a lot of volunteer work.
Frankly, you have to ask how many other bribes he took while he was serving the public and volunteering.
The argument In's attorney made is the usual plea. That argument is often coupled with plea for leniency because without the pension the innocent spouse and children will be left destitute.
The innocent family argument surfaced most recently in the case of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, 51, who faced sexual assault charges involving a junior officer. Prosecutors urged the military judge to dismiss the general -- a move that would have sent a clear message through the ranks about the seriousness of the case. Sinclair's attorneys argued the general should be allowed to retire, so he could keep his pension (an estimated $831,000 if he lives to be 82). To do otherwise would punish his family, they said.
Sinclair was spared any jail time, was fined $20,000 (plus $4,160 restitution for unauthorized credit card use) and reprimanded. He said he plans to retire.
Moves are afoot, at least in the military, to protect innocent family members when a service member is convicted of a crime or is otherwise ejected from the military and loses pension benefits. Congress in January ordered the Pentagon to study the feasibility of providing "transitional benefits" to families in these cases. That study, due out next month, is to consider such issues as how long such benefits might last and who qualifies.
That's a start. Certainly punishment should not be visited on innocent family members. But certainly taxpayers should not be asked to pay the pensions of public officials when they stand convicted of crimes directly related to their public duties.
The latest example comes from Los Angeles where a veteran building inspector sentenced to prison last month in an FBI corruption case will continue to receive his pension. His take: $72,000 a year. That's $6,030 a month plus a monthly health care subsidy of $1,469.
Samuel In, 66, last year admitted he took more than $30,000 in bribes while working as a senior inspector. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison but only after a federal prosecutor argued against leniency and mentioned his "substantial" pension.
How, you ask, can a convicted felon keep a public pension, especially if the charges stem from the person's discharge of his/her public duties?Sometimes they can't, at least it's harder than it used to be. Two years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring public employees convicted of a felony to give up retirement benefits earned during the period when their crimes were committed.
That law doesn't apply in Los Angeles because it operates under a voter-approved charter and manages its own pension system. Some council members are making noise about changing the LA system, but In's attorney said his client "earned that pension" during his 37 years of public service and he did a lot of volunteer work.
Frankly, you have to ask how many other bribes he took while he was serving the public and volunteering.
The argument In's attorney made is the usual plea. That argument is often coupled with plea for leniency because without the pension the innocent spouse and children will be left destitute.
The innocent family argument surfaced most recently in the case of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, 51, who faced sexual assault charges involving a junior officer. Prosecutors urged the military judge to dismiss the general -- a move that would have sent a clear message through the ranks about the seriousness of the case. Sinclair's attorneys argued the general should be allowed to retire, so he could keep his pension (an estimated $831,000 if he lives to be 82). To do otherwise would punish his family, they said.
Sinclair was spared any jail time, was fined $20,000 (plus $4,160 restitution for unauthorized credit card use) and reprimanded. He said he plans to retire.
Moves are afoot, at least in the military, to protect innocent family members when a service member is convicted of a crime or is otherwise ejected from the military and loses pension benefits. Congress in January ordered the Pentagon to study the feasibility of providing "transitional benefits" to families in these cases. That study, due out next month, is to consider such issues as how long such benefits might last and who qualifies.
That's a start. Certainly punishment should not be visited on innocent family members. But certainly taxpayers should not be asked to pay the pensions of public officials when they stand convicted of crimes directly related to their public duties.
Monday, April 7, 2014
NSA challenge needs to ripen
The Supreme Court on Monday declined an attempt to short-circuit the appeals process and consider a challenge to the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' telephone records.
It would have been highly unusual for the court to take the case this early. It also would have been highly unwise.
In December conservative lawyer Larry Klayman convinced a Washington, D.C. judge that the NSA's bulk vacuuming of phone date likely violates the Constitution's prohibition of unreasonable searches. The judge, as they generally do, put a hold on his decision to give the government time to appeal.
Just days after Klayman's case was decided, a federal judge in New York reached an opposite conclusion in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. That district judge, William H. Pauley III, upheld the NSA operation as an effective "counterpunch" to terrorism.
OK, that hardly addresses the constitutional question. Searching every car traveling through Stockton on Interstate 5 would be an effective "counterpunch" to drug and arms trafficking not to mention drunken drivers. That doesn't make it constitutional.
Still, the debate over the NSA's data collection, not to mention the court cases it is spawning, are not far enough along for a full Supreme Court test. Cases generally don't get to the high court without a full airing at the circuit court level and then most often only if there are conflicting decisions coming out of the appeals courts. That serves the purpose of more fully developing the issues and the arguments around them.
As we wait, President Barack Obama has called for ending the government's control of the phone data, leaving it in the hands of the service providers. He also ordered intelligence agencies to get permission from a secretive intelligence court before accessing the records.
Obama's efforts, of course, are eye wash. The history of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been to pretty much act as a rubber stamp for the government.
According to CNN, there were 1,856 applications in 2012 to the FISC for electronic surveillance and physical searches for "foreign intelligence purposes," the Justice Department said. None were denied, but 40 were modified to some extent. Only one such request was withdrawn by the FBI.
Clearly this is an area deserving public debate and, eventually, intervention by a court operating at least partially in public.
It would have been highly unusual for the court to take the case this early. It also would have been highly unwise.
In December conservative lawyer Larry Klayman convinced a Washington, D.C. judge that the NSA's bulk vacuuming of phone date likely violates the Constitution's prohibition of unreasonable searches. The judge, as they generally do, put a hold on his decision to give the government time to appeal.Just days after Klayman's case was decided, a federal judge in New York reached an opposite conclusion in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. That district judge, William H. Pauley III, upheld the NSA operation as an effective "counterpunch" to terrorism.
OK, that hardly addresses the constitutional question. Searching every car traveling through Stockton on Interstate 5 would be an effective "counterpunch" to drug and arms trafficking not to mention drunken drivers. That doesn't make it constitutional.
Still, the debate over the NSA's data collection, not to mention the court cases it is spawning, are not far enough along for a full Supreme Court test. Cases generally don't get to the high court without a full airing at the circuit court level and then most often only if there are conflicting decisions coming out of the appeals courts. That serves the purpose of more fully developing the issues and the arguments around them.
As we wait, President Barack Obama has called for ending the government's control of the phone data, leaving it in the hands of the service providers. He also ordered intelligence agencies to get permission from a secretive intelligence court before accessing the records.
Obama's efforts, of course, are eye wash. The history of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been to pretty much act as a rubber stamp for the government.
According to CNN, there were 1,856 applications in 2012 to the FISC for electronic surveillance and physical searches for "foreign intelligence purposes," the Justice Department said. None were denied, but 40 were modified to some extent. Only one such request was withdrawn by the FBI.
Clearly this is an area deserving public debate and, eventually, intervention by a court operating at least partially in public.
Friday, April 4, 2014
GM's internal investigation far from enough
General Motors' chief executive Mary T. Barra didn't have time to take in the museums during her trip to Washington this week. She was too busy spouting platitudes and non-answers during two days of questioning on Capitol Hill. And when she finished she was hustled away, no doubt glad to be done with it.
Of course she and the nation's No. 2 automaker aren't done with anything, least of all questions about the company's handling of ignition switch problems being blamed for accidents that killed at least 13 and injured many more in dozens of accidents. The faulty switch causes the engine to shut off, disabling power steering, power brakes and the front air bags.
Internal documents indicate GM knew about the defect for more than a decade and years ago passed on a fix because economically it wasn't worth it. The cost of the part involved: 57-cents.
By the time Barra, 51, took over the GM in December she already had 33 years with the automaker. She climbed through the company ranks with a combination of smarts and corporate tenacity. But when she testified this week, she was curiously ignorant about much that goes on in the company she now heads. She said she didn't find out about the ignition problems until weeks after becoming CEO.
And maybe she didn't. Maybe she's being thrown under the bus. That possibility didn't alleviate the frustration of her questioners.
"You don't know anything about anything," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., bristled.
The whole matter is the subject of an internal GM investigation Barra said. That should be completed in 45 to 60 days.
We've seen what internal investigations look like. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie just released one exonerating him of any knowledge of Bridge-gate, the scandalous, political get-even rush-hour closing of the George Washington Bridge into New York City.
In the case of GM, the company has known about the defect since 2001 and it did nothing to protect its customers. It wasn't worth it, the company decided.
Barra's dodge and dance performance this week frustrated members of Congress. It should outrage consumers, and not just because American taxpayers bailed the company out but also because it is a pattern among so many companies claiming to be good corporate citizens. When news gets out they are less than stellar citizens, the public relations campaign begins (Pacific Gas & Electric is running ads today to convince customers it is taking care of is natural gas pipelines, some of which have blown up in recent years.)
Indeed, GM is doing the same thing. Thursday the automaker confirmed it had hired crisis manager Jeff Eller, a one-time Clinton administration official who went on to represent Firestone in its massive tire recall in 2000. He joins attorney Kenneth Feinberg who specializes in compensation claims from disaster victims, including those of 9/11 and the BP gulf oil spill, and former U.S. attorney Anton R. Valukas, who is conducting GM's internal probe.
We will see if, as Barra alleges, this is the new General Motors. One test will be whether the company accepts responsibility for those killed and hurt in accidents before GM filed for Chapter 11 protection. As it stands now, the company is immune from litigation over crashes that occurred before it reorganized in bankruptcy court.
A second test will be if Valukas probe names names -- those responsible for the decisions about the ignition switch problems -- or if weeks from now we're treated to corporate pabulum about the need to change the company environment.
Companies have been getting away with this kind of shuffle for years. The routine is to cover up and when caught to pay up, the cost of which eventually falls back on customers and shareholders, without even having to admit fault. Almost never -- the lack of jailed investment bankers who helped trigger the Great Recession is an example -- do those corporate officials responsible face criminal charges.
And that's the real crime.
Of course she and the nation's No. 2 automaker aren't done with anything, least of all questions about the company's handling of ignition switch problems being blamed for accidents that killed at least 13 and injured many more in dozens of accidents. The faulty switch causes the engine to shut off, disabling power steering, power brakes and the front air bags.
Internal documents indicate GM knew about the defect for more than a decade and years ago passed on a fix because economically it wasn't worth it. The cost of the part involved: 57-cents.
By the time Barra, 51, took over the GM in December she already had 33 years with the automaker. She climbed through the company ranks with a combination of smarts and corporate tenacity. But when she testified this week, she was curiously ignorant about much that goes on in the company she now heads. She said she didn't find out about the ignition problems until weeks after becoming CEO.
And maybe she didn't. Maybe she's being thrown under the bus. That possibility didn't alleviate the frustration of her questioners.
"You don't know anything about anything," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., bristled.
 |
| Is the company really only sorry it got caught? |
We've seen what internal investigations look like. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie just released one exonerating him of any knowledge of Bridge-gate, the scandalous, political get-even rush-hour closing of the George Washington Bridge into New York City.
In the case of GM, the company has known about the defect since 2001 and it did nothing to protect its customers. It wasn't worth it, the company decided.
Barra's dodge and dance performance this week frustrated members of Congress. It should outrage consumers, and not just because American taxpayers bailed the company out but also because it is a pattern among so many companies claiming to be good corporate citizens. When news gets out they are less than stellar citizens, the public relations campaign begins (Pacific Gas & Electric is running ads today to convince customers it is taking care of is natural gas pipelines, some of which have blown up in recent years.)
Indeed, GM is doing the same thing. Thursday the automaker confirmed it had hired crisis manager Jeff Eller, a one-time Clinton administration official who went on to represent Firestone in its massive tire recall in 2000. He joins attorney Kenneth Feinberg who specializes in compensation claims from disaster victims, including those of 9/11 and the BP gulf oil spill, and former U.S. attorney Anton R. Valukas, who is conducting GM's internal probe.
We will see if, as Barra alleges, this is the new General Motors. One test will be whether the company accepts responsibility for those killed and hurt in accidents before GM filed for Chapter 11 protection. As it stands now, the company is immune from litigation over crashes that occurred before it reorganized in bankruptcy court.
A second test will be if Valukas probe names names -- those responsible for the decisions about the ignition switch problems -- or if weeks from now we're treated to corporate pabulum about the need to change the company environment.
Companies have been getting away with this kind of shuffle for years. The routine is to cover up and when caught to pay up, the cost of which eventually falls back on customers and shareholders, without even having to admit fault. Almost never -- the lack of jailed investment bankers who helped trigger the Great Recession is an example -- do those corporate officials responsible face criminal charges.
And that's the real crime.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Political money spigot opened more
Evisceration is what Justice Stephen G. Breyer called it. Breyer was being too kind.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Wednesday added to the obscenity of the court's 2010 Citizens United decision -- also on a 5-4 vote -- by expanding even more the influence of the moneyed few on the American political process.
In latest assault, the court freed wealthy donors to give even more money to congressional candidates. In doing so, the court's conservative bloc struck down Watergate-era aggregate limits barring political donors from giving more than $123,000 a year in total to candidates for federal seats in the House and Senate.
As in the Citizens United ruling, the court's conservative majority shrouded its decision in the McCutcheon case language of First Amendment protections.
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the 1st Amendment protects,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in his majority ruling. If it protects “flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
That rationale gives the non sequitur a bad name.
For now, donors must still follow rules that prevent them from giving more than $2,600 per election per candidate. For now. But the court's trajectory is clear. Any doubts about that were removed by Roberts.
“We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others,” Roberts wrote.
Of course, the effect of McCutcheon is to enhance the influence of the moneyed few over the majority of Americans. And it's not like the moneyed don't already have elected officials on their speed dial list.
If a case comes to the court challenging even the $2,600 limit, a safe bet would be for it to be upheld as this court moves the country ever closer to a plutocracy. Justice Clarence Thomas would like to help it along even more. In his concurring McCutcheon opinion, he said he would end other campaign limits as well.
At some point you have to ask how much is enough? During 2011 and 2012, the Federal Election Commission said, federal candidates, parties and committees reported raising and spending more than $7 billion.
Reaching that level was aided in no small part by the 2010 Citizens United ruling that opened the spigot for campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. McCutcheon opens that faucet even more.
Thirty-eight years ago, in the wake of the Watergate scandal that ended the Nixon presidency in an era of political reform, the high court enunciated the difference between campaign donations and spending in the Buckley v. Valeo case. Spending, the court say, was tantamount to political speech and speech deserves greater First Amendment protection. Donations, on the other hand, were deemed potentially corrupting and therefore subject to regulations.No more. Not with this court. And that's the real corruption.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Wednesday added to the obscenity of the court's 2010 Citizens United decision -- also on a 5-4 vote -- by expanding even more the influence of the moneyed few on the American political process.
In latest assault, the court freed wealthy donors to give even more money to congressional candidates. In doing so, the court's conservative bloc struck down Watergate-era aggregate limits barring political donors from giving more than $123,000 a year in total to candidates for federal seats in the House and Senate.As in the Citizens United ruling, the court's conservative majority shrouded its decision in the McCutcheon case language of First Amendment protections.
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the 1st Amendment protects,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in his majority ruling. If it protects “flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
That rationale gives the non sequitur a bad name.
For now, donors must still follow rules that prevent them from giving more than $2,600 per election per candidate. For now. But the court's trajectory is clear. Any doubts about that were removed by Roberts.
“We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others,” Roberts wrote.
Of course, the effect of McCutcheon is to enhance the influence of the moneyed few over the majority of Americans. And it's not like the moneyed don't already have elected officials on their speed dial list.
If a case comes to the court challenging even the $2,600 limit, a safe bet would be for it to be upheld as this court moves the country ever closer to a plutocracy. Justice Clarence Thomas would like to help it along even more. In his concurring McCutcheon opinion, he said he would end other campaign limits as well.
At some point you have to ask how much is enough? During 2011 and 2012, the Federal Election Commission said, federal candidates, parties and committees reported raising and spending more than $7 billion.
Reaching that level was aided in no small part by the 2010 Citizens United ruling that opened the spigot for campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. McCutcheon opens that faucet even more.
Thirty-eight years ago, in the wake of the Watergate scandal that ended the Nixon presidency in an era of political reform, the high court enunciated the difference between campaign donations and spending in the Buckley v. Valeo case. Spending, the court say, was tantamount to political speech and speech deserves greater First Amendment protection. Donations, on the other hand, were deemed potentially corrupting and therefore subject to regulations.No more. Not with this court. And that's the real corruption.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
'Noah," it's a movie and that's all
Some Christians are atwitter these days about the movie "Noah." It seems, in their view, the movie does not follow the Biblical story of the great boat builder as laid out in Genesis.
One irritant surely is that Russell Crowe doesn't look 600 years old as it says in Genesis 7, verse 6. He doesn't even look like Charlton Heston. Oh and there's hot rain and castration and incest and all manner of events that outrage some evangelicals (not that the Old Testament isn't ripe with
disquieting episodes).
Some say they won't see "Noah" because of what they view as the perversion of the Biblical story. That's fine. But lost in all the breathless criticism of the movie, a cross between "Titanic" and "Gone with the Wind," is one undeniable fact: it's a movie.Hollywood doesn't make films to be viewed in Sunday School. It makes movies to make money. Period. All the talk about art is just so much eyewash if the numbers don't pencil out. You make money by attracting audiences. If you want an accurate reading of the Bible, the great voice actor Alexander Scourby has beautiful one available on-line. The whole book. And there's no need to buy a movie ticket.
Of course, the Bible isn't the only subject with which Hollywood routinely takes a certain license. "Based on fact" movies about historic events come in for revision all the time. Does anyone think "The Butler" was a true depiction of actual events? OK, there were (and are) African American house staffers in the White House. And there were some really bad things going on in America during the period the action takes place. But that's about it The rest of the story was fudged, as they say, for "dramatic effect."
Film makers have been doing this since the beginning, often without any warning to audiences. That leaves it to viewers to try to separate fact from fiction, assuming we not talking the likes of "Star Wars, which -- spoiler alert -- was all fiction.
The "based on fact" and "based on real events" movies, especially those arching toward history, present their own problem. Because Americans are so ill informed about their own history, such films easily play into our high school history understanding of events and our various biases. D.W. Griffith's 1915 obscene ode to the KKK, "Birth of a Nation," was the first motion picture shown in the White House. It allegedly prompted Woodrow Wilson, so far the nation's only president with a doctorate, to say, "It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."
The authenticity of the quote is questionable. That the film reinforced widely held prejudices is beyond question.
The only safe position for viewers, then, is to treat movies as entertainment, storytelling, and not documentaries.
In the case of "Noah," it is the story of a boat builder, a big boat with a big mission, but just a tale about a boat builder nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)