Categories
life politics

Negotiate From A Position of Power

In 2020, a millionaire named Raj Bhakta purchased my alma mater and neighbor, Green Mountain College. He didn’t know what he’d do with the old girl when he purchased it (I had some ideas), but two years later, he has a better sense of things.

According to the development papers he recently submitted to our town, he now “seeks to turn the property into a regional destination for agrotourism, hospitality, small businesses, and post-graduate food and beverage education.” He imagines that “the campus will become the incubator for entrepreneurs developing new businesses who seek to locate in a dynamic and energetic work community.”

The estimated $100 million plan has three phases to be developed over the next decade:

  • Phase 1 (2023-2026) will convert existing college dorms into a 100-room destination hotel and twenty-three new condos, turn the college’s gym into a spa/fitness/wellness center, convert the main cafeteria into a convention center and the library into a “bulk storage tasting space,” and finally, construct a new “antique small craft distillery”
  • Phase 2 (2026-2028) will see the development of a brewery/tasting room, the addition of 40+ apartments, a sports complex, an equestrian center, and outdoor gardens
  • Phase 3 (2028-2030+) will include a post-graduate education center, a roastery, sports fields, improved trails, and a walking garden

The first part of the plan requires developing a significant number of new parking lots and some new road construction (to avoid traffic on the residential terrace beside the property). They hope to shield most of the parking behind three-foot-high brick walls (similar to the walls already on campus) with “dark-sky friendly” lighting. They hope to build enough parking for 549 vehicles (an increase of 412 from what the college had).

Finally, he would like to add a helipad to the circle in front of the college. Because the property anchors the west end of Main Street, the helipad would dominate the view on Main Street.

GMCTo attract investors to the project, Bhakta asked the town in March to stabilize his property taxes for the next ten years. He argued that he already pays more taxes than the college ever did (since the college was a non-profit educational institution), and he’s not asking for a tax waiver — just tax stabilization. He suggested in a presentation to the town that he would use “his current $100,000 tax bill as a base to which a surcharge equivalent to a quarter of a percent of the development’s gross revenues would be added.”

When he made the presentation, he added a veiled threat: a religious group had contacted him about purchasing the property, and if the town didn’t back his development plan, he might have to sell to them; as a religious institution, they’d be tax exempt, so stable taxes with him would be better than no taxes at all.

About a week after the presentation, the town voted to give the select board the power to explore a tax stabilization deal with Bhakta. Still, any agreement would be subject to the approval of the town’s voters.

The tax stabilization deal is perhaps the only leverage the town has over what happens at the former college. We learned the hard way that zoning, permitting, and democracy doesn’t work. Despite the zoning board and the town’s voters rejecting the construction of a Dollar General in town, the developer had deep enough pockets to fight it in court, and the town ran out of money to keep up our appeals. The Dollar General should open at the front gate of our town any month now.

Outside of the helipad (which I’m entirely opposed to from a noise pollution standpoint), I’m not opposed to Bhakta’s plan. It supports the goals of our official town plan, which seeks to “grow Poultney’s outdoor recreational economy, support existing businesses, and encourage new ones.” With a focus on agrotourism, the renovation of dorms into a 100-room hotel, and the conversion of other dorms into condos (I’m guessing for short-term rental purposes), it could bring the tourists every Vermont town needs to survive and thrive.

I have concerns about the destruction of the trees on campus and how the added parking lots will contribute to run-off pollution into the Poultney River. I hope regulations around Act 250, Vermont’s land use and development law, may help balance those concerns.

With all of that, the tax stabilization deal does give the town some leverage over Bhakta’s plan. One of my neighbors suggested the select board could use that leverage to ensure Bhakta hires a certain percentage of contractors, construction workers, and service industry folks from the local pool (however that gets defined). The town could also require he set aside a certain percentage of the 40+ apartments built in Phase 2 for low-income Vermonters. I support both of those proposals and encourage the town’s residents to brainstorm even more.

Bhakta said in his presentation that the town’s support of his development is vital to his success. If that’s true, let’s ensure (in writing) that his development contributes to the town’s success as well.

Categories
asides

The Right Has Its Own American Crisis

From The Right Has Its Own American Crisis:

Survey after survey shows the same result: Americans believe in a crisis of democracy, but they disagree on which one, and Republicans are more concerned than Democrats.

Categories
asides

Texas elections official faces attacks and pressure from partisan activists

From Texas elections official faces attacks and pressure from partisan activists:

Last week, Trump issued a public letter demanding an audit in Texas. Hours later, the Texas secretary of state’s office announced that it had begun a “comprehensive forensic audit” in four of the state’s largest counties: Dallas, Harris, Tarrant and Collin. Biden won three of the four.

Take a moment to think about this. Former President Trump demanded an audit in a state he won, and for some reason, despite being under no legal obligation to do so, the Texas secretary of state carried out the old loser’s orders. But he already won the state’s electors, so even if any irregularities are found and the corrected vote significantly increases his lead, his  campaign will still have won the same losing number of national electors.

But the story linked above doesn’t spend much time considering that. Instead (and more better-y), it focuses on the harassment of nonpartisan election administrators in counties where former President Trump won with as much as 81% of the vote.

[It]…represents the escalation of a wider push to replace independent administrators with more actively partisan election officials…and reflects a wider rift in Texas among different factions of the GOP…

It’s a good, deep read. 

Categories
politics

Post-Trump Politics

President Trump has been out of office for almost 160 days. During that time, I mostly paid attention to the actions of Congress. I focused on the COVID relief bills, the voting rights bills (federal and state), climate-related actions, and Supreme Court decisions. I also followed the lethal attacks on a woman’s right to control her body and an LGBTQ+ person’s right to define the terms of their existence. 

I paid too little attention to the COVID situation in South America, Africa, Europe, or Asia (excluding the death tolls in India and Brazil and a vague awareness of the Delta variant), and I paid zero attention to the COVID situation in Australia or the Pacific Islands.

Post-Trump, I’ve reduced my news intake considerably. I have, in terms of Voltaire, taken to cultivating my garden. I try to avoid “the three great evils [of] l’ennui, le vice, et le besoin” (though all things in moderation, I suppose) while also practicing gratitude and kindness (and too often failing at both).

In Candide, Voltaire’s “honest Turk” presumes “that they who meddle with the administration of public affairs sometimes perish miserably, and that they deserve it.” The more I ignore the nastiness of the narcissists in Washington D.C., the more I tend to agree with Voltaire.

Of course, it’s easy for me to ignore the goings-on in our nation’s capital. I’m a white, cisgender, heterosexual male with a full-time job, clear citizenship status, and a fixed-rate mortgage in a rural village in Vermont. 

I don’t have to worry about ending my unwanted pregnancy. My skin color probably won’t cause my untimely death at the hands of police officers, biased medical professionals, violent racists, or self-appointed vigilantes. I can leave my house without fear of unwarranted deportation. I can use a public restroom without risking my physical safety. I don’t have a greedy landlord who can jack up my rent. I live far from rising sea levels and in a region that (so far) has been lucky enough to avoid massive droughts, storms, and wildfires.

My ability to ignore Washington D.C. is, simply put, evidence of my privilege.

But it is also evidence of my age. At forty-four years old, I don’t have the passion for politics I once had. I still get mad at the lies and the lying liars who tell them, and I still get inspired by faithful public servants. But the reduction of our representative democracy to an idiotic, self-obsessed punditocracy has destroyed my ability to pay attention.

Add the Republican party’s decades-long nosedive into cynicism, anti-democratic fascism, and blatant white-supremacy to the Democratic party’s inability to pass crucial legislation like a $15 minimum wage or the For the People Act, and you’ll sympathize with my withdrawal from daily politics.

Thankfully, with President Biden in the White House and the Democratic Party (at least temporarily) in control of Congress, I don’t have to wake up terrified to read the headlines each morning. I don’t expect a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea, a national ban on Muslim travelers, or a federal boondoggle on behalf of fossil fuel companies. 

In our Post-Trump moment, instead of sparking my anxiety disorder with a daily deep-dive into all the ways our government is ruining the present and future, I choose to sit on my front porch, crack open a locally brewed beer, pick at my ukulele, and escape into a book of fiction. 

And for that, I am thankful.

Categories
politics

A Layperson’s Guide to H.R. 1

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, also known as the For the People Act of 2021. The bill aims “to expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.”

This is a monumental bill, but it has little hope of passing the Senate, thanks to their insistence that our democracy bow to the will of the minority; however, if enough Americans push their Senators to support the wisdom of the bill, maybe, perhaps, a supermajority will win out.

To that end, here’s a detailed summary of what the For The People Act will do.

Voting & Elections

It requires states and/or local governments to build websites where individuals can register to vote, and for individuals who do not have access to the Internet, an automated-telephone system that allows them to register.

It mandates that states create an automatic voter-registration system that defaults to registering any eligible voter who is identified by a state-run system (e.g., if the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles has enough information to prove a person is eligible, then the state must register that person to vote, even if the person didn’t request it). Under this automated system, eligible voters must opt out of being registered, rather than opt in. Thankfully, the bill protects individuals from being held accountable if the automated system makes any errors on their behalf.

It authorizes $500 million to be appropriated from the Federal coffers to help states implement the above mandates. 

It mandates that states allow same-day voter registration at each polling place. 

It protects registered voters from being removed from a state’s voter rolls incorrectly, and it requires any de-registrations to occur no later than six months prior to the next election, allowing voters ample time to correct the record.

It mandates that each state provide a wide variety of voter-registration statistics to Congress in the first quarter of each year to ensure that each state continues to promote its voter registration efforts.

It authorizes $25 million to be granted to states that encourage their minors to participate in public-election activities, including (but not limited to) expanding their use of the pre-registration process and modifying high-school curriculums to promote civic engagement. 

It prohibits individuals from corrupting or hindering the voter registration process or from corrupting or hindering any individual who is trying to aid another in the process.

It requires states to allow individuals who are older than 16 but younger than 18 to register to vote. While the bill does not give 16 year olds the right to vote, it does expand voter registration efforts while also making it easier to expand the franchise in the future.

It mandates that states allow individuals with disabilities to vote by absentee ballot and to deliver absentee ballots to those individuals by default.

It prevents states from removing voters from the rolls using “voter caging lists.”

It prevents anyone from formally challenging an individual’s right to vote, unless the challenger has personal knowledge of the voters ineligibility and their claim is supported by written documentation. The challenger has to be willing to make their challenge under the penalty of perjury. If it is election day, it prohibits anyone other than a state official from making the challenge.

It makes it illegal to lie about someone else’s endorsement of a candidate, and it instructs the Attorney General to submit a yearly report of all allegations of deceptive practices to Congress and the public.

It restores voting rights to all individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offense but who are no longer serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution. 

It requires that all states use an “individual,  durable, voter-verified paper ballot” that counts as the official ballot in cases of recounts or audits. It mandates the paper ballots be counted by hand during recounts and audits, and that the paper ballots supersede any electronic vote tally as “the true and correct record” of the vote. It also requires stipulations for individuals with disabilities to ensure those who are blind or who don’t have the manual dexterity to make their mark have equal access to a “durable” ballot. Finally, it provides $5 million in grants for the development of technological systems that assist in this effort.

It extends protections to the handling of provisional ballots.

It mandates that all states allow early voting: States must accept ballots at least 15 days before the election. It also ensures that early-voting polling places stay open for at least ten hours a day during those 15 (or more) days, and that at least some of those hours are before 9am and after 5pm.

It mandates that all early-voting polling places be within walking distance of a stop on a public transportation route or (for rural areas) in communities that provide the greatest access.

It reduces impediments to voting by mail by forbidding states from imposing any conditions on the eligibility requirements for absentee ballots: if a registered voter requests a mail-in ballot, they get a mail-in ballot — end of story. Furthermore, if a voter requests a mail-in ballot, the state must assume they will always want a mail-in ballot, which effectively legalizes mail-in voting for all future elections. States must also develop websites and automated telephone systems to allow the requests to be made at a distance. Finally, it mandates that each state allow a wide variety of ways for the absentee ballot to make its way back to election officials, including through volunteer-driven ballot-harvesting operations. 

It provides special instructions to protect the right of military personnel and overseas citizens to vote, as well as the rights of their family members back stateside.

It forbids states from forcing mail-in voters to pay for postage.

It provides grants to states for poll-worker recruitment and training, pegging the amount of the grant to each state’s percentage of the nation’s voting-age population.

It prohibits “chief state election administration officials” from taking an active part in any political campaign affected by a Federal election (e.g., the Secretary of State of Florida would no longer be allowed to concurrently serve as the co-chair of a presidential candidate’s statewide election effort).

It mandates that institutions of higher education designate a “Campus Vote Coordinator” who will notify students of the location of polling places, explain various methods for getting to those locations, and provides links to voter-registration websites. It requires participation in the automatic voter-registration system for any educational institution that, in its normal course of operations, affirms a student’s citizenship. It also creates grants for institutions that can demonstrate excellence in their voter registration efforts.

It sets up minimum notification-requirements to ensure states give a voter whose polling place has changed enough time and opportunity to make a plan.

It requires states with voter ID laws to accept, for purposes of registration and voting, “a sworn written statement, under the penalty of perjury,” attesting to the voter’s identity and their ability to vote in the election. It also requires states to provide a pre-printed version of the statement at each polling place for use by any voter.

It provides accommodations to voters residing in Indian lands by relaxing controls around ballot pickup and collection locations and requiring multilingual voting materials.

It establishes a national toll-free hotline where concerned and aggrieved voters can receive answers to their state-based questions, file complaints against officials, or report intimidation tactics or any other information to the Attorney General about any problems they faced while voting or registering to vote.

It requires each state provide a sufficient number of voting systems, poll workers, and other election resources to ensure that no individual waits longer than 30 minutes to cast their ballot.

It protects the right of voters who have arrived at a polling place before it closes to cast their vote.

It ensures that all polling places in a state keep the same hours, give or take two hours. 

It requires that every county in every states provide “in-person, secured, and clearly labeled drop boxes” at which individuals may drop off an absentee ballot at least 45 days before the date of an election and up to the time the polls close on election day. It mandates that counties include at least one drop box for every 20,000 registered voters and station the boxes where they are the most accessible.

It protects the right of individual jurisdictions to allow curbside voting and prohibits states from imposing any restrictions on an individual in that jurisdiction from casting a ballot by such method — if one voter in a jurisdiction can curbside vote, then all voters in a jurisdiction can curbside vote.

It require states to develop contingency plans for holding elections during a state of  emergency, a public health emergency, or a national emergency, especially in the cases of natural disasters or infectious diseases.

It makes the Federal Election Assistance Commission permanent and removes the limit on its budget.

It expands voting protections to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Election Integrity

It commits Congress to finding a way to restore the protections in the Voting Rights Act of 1964 that were gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court.

It reconfirms Congress’ desire to admit the State of Washington, D.C. to the United States and to shrink the seat of the Federal government to the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, the National Mall, and the other principal Federal monuments and buildings.

It creates a Congressional task force aimed at providing full and equal voting rights to the residents of U.S. territories, including voting rights in Congress.

It federalizes control of the redistricting process under Title 1, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution and under the 14th Amendment, and mandates that each state create and follow the plan of an independent redistricting commission, which it also provides the guidelines for. For some reason, Iowa alone is exempt.

It creates ethical guidelines determining who can and cannot sit on an independent redistricting commission.

It provides protections for ethnic, racial and language minorities in the redistricting process and forbids the favoring or disfavoring of political parties. 

It requires the entire redistricting process be transparent and subject to public input and comment. The commission’s final vote approving the plan must also be held in public.

It empowers a three-judge panel to develop a redistricting plan if a state’s legislature fails to act on the commission’s plan.

It gives states $150,000 per Representative to which the state is entitled to fund the independent redistricting commission, excluding states (such as mine) that only get one member. 

It prevents a state from removing the name of any registered voter from the official list of voters unless the state verifies, on the basis of objective and reliable evidence, that the resident is ineligible to vote.

Election Security

It appropriates $1 billion from the Federal coffers in 2021 (and $175 million for each election year between 2021 and 2028) to provide grants to the states to increase election security measures, especially as it relates to voting machines and cybersecurity, with all kinds of stipulations around what the states need to do to qualify for the grants.

It makes the Secretary of the Homeland Security a member of the Board of Advisors of the Election Assistance Commission.

It appropriates $20 million a year for the years 2021-2029 to fund the research and development of election security technology through grants to higher-education institutions (include historically Black colleges and universities), non-profits, and for-profit organizations, associations, and companies, including small businesses. 

It compels the Department of Homeland Security to provide timely threat information regarding elections to chief state election officials, and allows state election officials to receive a security risk and vulnerability assessment from Homeland Security.

It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to submit a joint report to Congress on foreign threats to elections in the United States.

It mandates the Executive branch create a national strategy and implementation plan to protect democratic institutions “against cyber attacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and other activities,” and creates a commission in the Legislative branch empowered to conduct hearings and investigations in an effort to strengthen those protections.

It strengthens the certification process of election hardware and software by requiring the machines and the software to be tested no later than nine months before every general election.

It requires chief State election officials to submit a report no later than 120 days before a general election detailing the state’s plan for voting system usage.

It creates an “Election Security Bug Bounty Program” that is voluntary to the states and which will reward individuals and organizations for finding bugs in the state’s elections security efforts.

It mandates that all voting machines used in a Federal election be manufactured in the United States.

Campaign Finance

It requires members of political committees and campaigns to notify the FBI of any reportable foreign contacts within one week of making the contact and a summary of the circumstances with respect to the contact, and creates a penalty of not more than $500,000 or not longer than five years in prison for anyone who violates the requirement, and up to $1 million for anyone who conceals or destroys evidence of the contact.

It closes loopholes that have allowed foreign nationals to spend money on U.S. elections, including through PACs and Super-PACs.

It prevents Corporate PACs from allowing a foreign national be a decision-maker in regards to the use of the fund.

It requires an audit after each Federal election to determine the influence of illicit foreign money in each election cycle.

It prohibits contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with ballot initiatives and referendums.

It makes it illegal for individuals and entities to establish corporations for the purpose of concealing election contributions and donations by foreign nationals.

It sets up transparent reporting rules for any corporate donations above $1,000.

It provides rules for judicial review of campaign finance laws.

It mandates transparency around the source of funding for any political ad, expands coverage of transparency regulations to modern technologies (i.e., online ads, satellite networks, etc.), and forces the ad or communication to make the statement “in a clear and conspicuous manner.”

It creates a public, online repository of every request to purchase a qualified political advertisement online made by a person whose total requests exceed $500, and it mandates that any online platform that exceeds 50 million unique American visitors per month report political-advertising purchase requests to the public repository.

It requires television, radio, satellite, cable and online platform companies take reasonable efforts to ensure that foreign nationals do not purchase political ads on their platform.

It mandates a report from the Federal Election Commission on the media literacy of Americans, particularly as it relates the consumption of online political content by voting-age Americans. 

It requires the creators of political advertising to stand by their message by conspicuously revealing either the individual who created the ad or the top five funders of the organization that created the ad (in case of radio ads, the top two funders). This is basically a strengthening of the of “I am [blank] and I approve this message” regulations. It also extends the regulations to include prerecorded telephone calls.

It forbids campaigns from sharing nonpublic campaign information with foreign nationals, including sharing that information with a non-campaign-affiliated U.S. citizen who, in turn, will share it with a foreign national.

It makes any foreign national who attempts to interfere with an election deportable from or and/or inadmissible to the U.S.

It mandates that the F.E.C. notify a state if it determines a foreign national is engaging or has engaged in a disinformation campaign in that state.

It prohibits the use of “deep fakes” and other media manipulation techniques in election campaigns.

It requires the Comptroller General to assess the implications of exemptions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Lobbying Disclosure Act and how revisions to those acts might reduce the influence of foreign government money on elections and the political process.

It requires shareholders of any entity on a national securities exchange to register their preferences for the disbursement of the entity’s funds on behalf of a political campaign (i.e., any political donations from publicly-held entity must be in accordance with its shareholders’ wishes).

It regulates the financing of inauguration committees to prevent corporations and foreign nationals from donating to them, to make public any donor whose donation exceeds $1,000, and regulates the conversion of inauguration funds for personal use.

It makes some bold statements about the Supreme Court’s “misinterpretation of the Constitution” as it relates to the Court’s Citizens United decision, and calls for a Constitutional amendment that will allow Congress and the states to regulate campaign financing methods and prevent artificial entities such as corporations “from spending money to influence elections.”

It creates a pilot program that will provide $25 (in increments of $5 vouchers) to voting-age individuals in three states who can use the voucher to donate to qualified candidates for election to the House of Representatives. It also requires the beneficiary states to submit a report to the F.E.C. about the operation and effectiveness of the program.

It creates a public-financing source — the “Freedom from Influence Fund” — for Congressional elections that provides funds equal to 600% of the candidate’s small-dollar contributions (contributions of less than $200). This will allow candidates who are not wealthy or not connected to a network of wealthy individuals to be financially competitive during an election cycle. It also requires candidates who received money from the Freedom from Influence Fund to amass over 1,000 individual contributions and raise over $50,000 before they can qualify for the fund. It also limits candidates from using over $50,000 of their personal money if they elect to go the public-financing route. Finally, it prohibits candidates from retaining any unspent funds following the elections. 

It increases the public funds made available to candidates for presidential elections to 600% of the candidate’s small-dollar contributions.

It allows candidates from minor and new parties — i.e., parties other than the Democratic or Republican Parties — to receive the same publicly-funded, 600% match of their small-dollar donations up to $250 million.

It allows candidates to use public funds for some personal uses (specifically, childcare, elder care, and similar services, as well as to cover health insurance premiums) in order to help “ordinary Americans” run for office.

It makes it easier for political parties to support candidates through coordinated small-dollar donation funds. 

It reduces the membership of the F.E.C. to five and limits the party-affiliation of the members to no more than two members per party. It also restructures the commission’s voting process to allow a simple majority to rule, prohibits members from being engaged with or employed by any other business during their service, and adjusts a number of rules governing the commission. 

It stops Super PACs and candidates from coordinating their efforts, and treats coordinating efforts as political donations, with all the regulations thereof.

It requires campaigns to file various reports with the F.E.C. before an election takes place so that voters have all the information they need to make an informed vote.

Ethics

It mandates the creation of a code of conduct for Federal judges.

It requires the Attorney General to create a unit within the counterespionage section of the Department of Justice to enforce the regulations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, and gives the unit a budget of $10 million a year.

It ensures government officials disclose anything of financial value that was given to them by a foreign agent, including favorable regulatory treatment or anything that provides an indirect financial benefit.

It mandates the creation of a publicly accessible electronic database of the above disclosures.

It expands the scope of individuals and activities subject to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Individuals who provide counseling services are now subject to the act. It also reduces the threshold the determines when individuals have to register as lobbyists. 

It prohibits individuals who receive compensation for lobbying activity from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments who engage in gross violations of human rights, as determined by the President.

It requires lobbyists to identify themselves as lobbyists whenever they make contact with an official from the executive or legislative branch, and they must identify the client on whose behalf the contact is made.

It forces officials or employees appointed by the President to recuse themselves from any matter in which a party to that matter is the President, the President’s spouse, and/or an entity in which the President has a substantial interest.

It establishes a clearinghouse in the Department of Justice through which members of the public can search and sort registration information related to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938.

It cleans up restrictions on private sector payments to members of the Executive branch.

It slows the revolving door between the private sector and government officials and prohibits government officials from participating in matters concerning their former employers or clients.

It forbids government procurement officers from accepting employment with government contractors or subcontractors, divisions, or affiliates of a government contractor for at least two years after they leave government service. It requires procurement officers to also disclose any job offers made to their relatives. Finally, it forbids procurement officers from participating in awarding a contract to a former employer for at least two years after they left the employer. 

It extends restrictions on the lobbying efforts of former senior officials from one year to two years.

It requires the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to issue guidance on ethical standards applicable to unpaid employees in the Executive Office of the President and the White House.

It prohibits federal funds from being used to procure goods or services from any business that is owned or controlled by certain government officials or their family members. The government officials include the President, Vice-President, the head of any Executive department, or an individual occupying a Cabinet-level position.

It requires Presidents and Vice Presidents to divest of all financial interests that pose a conflict of interest within 30 days of taking office and to place all of those finances in a blind trust. It also requires Presidents and Vice Presidents to disclose the names of their business partners and the value, identity, and category of each asset and liability with a value of $10,000 or more.

It forbids officials from receiving funds for the payment or reimbursement of legal fees or expenses except through a legal defense fund that has been certified by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics. It also ensures that the legal defense fund receives its monies from more than one person and forbids lobbyists, foreign agents and governments, state governments and agents, anyone who has business with the official’s agency, or anyone in the Executive branch from contributing to the fund.

It tightens ethical regulations within the White House, strengthens the job security of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, and provides instructions on ethical training procedures and compliance for government officials.

It forbids Federal funds from being used for improper travel expenses, and requires a report to be filed every 90 days detailing the direct and indirect costs of Presidential travel, the travel of the President’s immediate family members, and the travel of senior-level officials.

It cleans up rules regulating conflicts from political fundraising.

It improves transparency and ethical guidelines for Presidential Transition Teams.

It forces all appointees in an executive agency to sign an ethics pledge that clarifies the various ethical requirements that the American people expect them to live up to during their tenure, under penalty of law.

It prohibits federal officials from using federal funds to travel on a non-commercial, private, or chartered flight.

It requires member of Congress to reimburse the Federal treasury for any settlements or awards made under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 in all cases of employment discrimination.

It prohibits members of the House of Representatives from serving on the boards of for-profit entities.

It forbids employees in the Legislative branch from using their position to further their pecuniary interests or the interests of their family members.

It forces campaigns to disclose to the F.E.C. if any of their senior officials are registered lobbyists.

It requires the creation of an online portal where members of the public can access (for free) electronic copies of every congressionally mandated report, except those that are exempt from public disclosure and with any necessary redactions completed.

It mandates reports by the Senate and House Ethics Committees on any outside compensation earned by Congressional employees.

It requires every Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate from a major party to submit their 10 most recent tax returns to the F.E.C. within 15 days of receiving the nomination of their party, and to continue to release their tax returns while serving their term. It also forces the F.E.C. to make those returns public.

Conclusion

As you can see from 116 items above, nothing in this act benefits candidates from one party over another, and each items deserves to be made the law of the land. I urge you to contact your Senators to encourage their support of the For The People Act of 2021

Categories
politics

The Mob Has Always Been A Part of Democracy

Let’s not overdo this.

Yesterday, an outgoing, one-term President continued to feed the anxieties, fears, and anger of his most committed followers and directed them to take their grievances to the Capitol building, where our elected representatives were following their constitutional duty to certify the election of a new President-Elect. 

In response, the crowd of mostly white Americans marched from their rallying point towards the Capitol carrying flags celebrating their “dear leader” and the lost cause of defeated traitors, where one can only imagine they expected to be stopped by a strong show of force from the Capitol police, the District police, and the National Guard.

Instead, some of the police opened the gates. While some drew their weapons to protect the House chamber once the Capitol had been breached, other police officers chose to pose for selfies or chose to help older members of the mob with the building’s difficult steps.

Did Trump’s mob expect to breach what should have been one of the most secure locations in the United States? How could they have? The Capitol police is made up of more than 2,300 officers and civilians and has an annual budget of roughly $460 million, which is more than the entire city of Atlanta. Additionally, the media had reported earlier in the week that the Mayor of Washington D.C. called in almost 350 members of the National Guard to provide crowd support. And then of course, you had the District police, and while they’re not responsible for protecting the Capitol, they are responsible for maintaining order in the city.

As they marched toward the Capitol, members of the mob should have rightly expected to run into some resistance.

But they didn’t. So they kept walking, scaled walls, broke windows, wandered the halls, and took selfies on the floor of the Senate. Civilians and police officers were injured in the chaos, and at least four people died, including one by gunfire [UPDATE 1/8/21: With the death of Capitol Police officer, Brian Sicknick, the death toll of Wednesday’s insurrection has risen to five]

Had the Capitol’s security forces done their job, this would have been just another example of an assembly of citizens standing outside of the institutions of their democratically-elected government seeking redress for their grievances (grievances based on a mass delusion, but grievances nonetheless). 

Instead, we had a mob damaging and looting the People’s House, and acting to influence the policy of our government by intimidation.

Everyone involved should be held accountable for their actions. The President should be removed from office immediately for inciting an insurrection against the authority of the United States and giving comfort thereto. The Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate and the Chief of the Capitol Police should be fired for incompetence. The DoD officials who “denied a request by [the D.C. Mayor]” for the National Guard to restore order in the Capitol ought to be charged with causing or attempting to cause “disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by any member of the military of the United States.

But as I said at the beginning, let’s not overdo it. All government officials who had a hand in this insurrection ought to be held accountable. All identifiable members of the mob ought to be held accountable.

But this is not the end of the Republic. Insurrections have happened before. They will happen again.

And our democratic government still stands.  

Categories
education

Democratizing Justice in the Schools

My school has a judicial committee comprised entirely of students (and advised by a staff member). The judicial committee is charged with enforcing the rules of the school. It acts upon reports submitted by both staff and students, which allows students to settle their differences without the interference of a staff member (outside of the advisor, who doesn’t get a vote). The rules of the school, in their turn, have been determined by a congress comprised of both staff and students, with each member of the school receiving an equal vote, regardless of age, grade, or employment status.

In theory, this sounds great, but I fear that somewhere along the line, the adults in this relationship made a mistake.

I am a radical democratist: I put my faith in other people. I believe that all people have it within them to act faithfully and good, and that what people need more than almost anything else is to be heard. People who have a voice are people who want a choice, and putting people together in a room and asking them to be faithful and good is the best way to lay all of the available choices on the table.

When implementing our ideal judicial system at the school, us adults made (and continue to make) a mistake. While we allow the students to adjudicate issues related to minor annoyances, we shield them from the most serious issues facing our community. When there is a serious infraction against the community in our school, we don’t ask our students to deal with it themselves (advised by a staff member, of course); instead, we take it upon ourselves, imagining the students to be too delicate to handle any of our community’s “real” problems.

A case in point. At least once or twice a year, we have to evacuate a building because a student’s behavior threatens to turn violent. When this happens, the offending student’s consequences are determined by a team of staff members, and the students are asked to just go on their merry way.

Except of course, they don’t. They internalize the notion that their school is a place where violence can always happen, and that when it does, it will be dealt with by someone else, and that despite their own concerns and interests, no one will ever consider their ideas or opinions on the matter.

If that isn’t horrible training for life in a democratic society, then I don’t know what is.

Imagine a school where even the biggest issues are brought to the students to deal with, not in terms of a shame circle or anything like that, but in terms of [restorative justice](https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/restorative-justice-overview/), which asks offenders to repair their harm to the victim and to the community. Schools should not hide a whole level of learning and wisdom from their students, one that forces them to face their community’s real situations and to work them through together.

A challenge to this approach comes from the concept of privacy. At what point does an individual’s privacy outweigh the loss of the community’s ability to represent itself in all things? Consider a case where a student reports an unwanted sexual advance made by another student in the form of a digital photo sent via text (e.g., the unrequested sending of a “dick pic”). In this example, the recipient of the photo does not feel comfortable addressing the problem alone, and so seeks out a teacher for help.

Should the teacher encourage the recipient to “write up” the offender, forcing the latter to face (at the very least) a small panel of their peers? Or should the teacher take it upon themself to address the problem (in whatever way that might be), thereby saving both the recipient and the offender from having to talk about the issue in front of their peers?

If the latter, doesn’t the teacher 1) encourage the spread of rumors, and 2) invite the students to deal out justice on their own terms, with no guidance from the wisdom of our entire species’ history of justice systems (as understood by the school’s Congress)?

There is a question of legal privacy as well, but do accused students have the right to prevent their peers from determining the right course of action? What if every student attending the school (and every guardian representing them) signed off on a policy saying that all who are accused should expect to face a jury of their peers?

In the case of the “dick pic,” both the offender and the recipient would have to face a small panel composed of three students selected at random from a congress of their peers (serving on the panel is akin to jury duty). The recipient would state their case; the accused would declare themselves guilty or not guilty, and the panel would take it from there (again, in terms of restorative justice).

The mistake we continue to make is that, for all of the real issues, we restrict the judicial panel to a team of staff members and all of the students know it…just as they know how to tell us what we want to hear. How much more powerful would it be if every offender had to face their victims, recognize their offenses, and work to restore justice to the community?

We’re sometimes too afraid of our students, too afraid of young people in general, not trusting them to act faithfully and good. But if we don’t teach them to face their problems head on, in all of their complex reality, then what kind of adults are we teaching them to be?

Future generations are going to be here long after us adults are gone. If we want to continue our species’ long journey out of the wild anarchy of nature, we better make sure our kids know how to act faithfully in the name of justice, and to do so regardless of the complexity of the issue. Not every adult (and not every student) in my school will agree with me, but I think it’s a debate worth having.