Category: Political Reform

2022 Election, Political Reform, Politics

2022 Nationalist Voting Index – Political Reform

Bob Claude |

Longtime followers of this site will remember the American Nationalist Voting Index developed during the 2020 election to compare the two main presidential candidate’s positions on key issues. This series of posts will attempt to craft a similar list of nationalist issues for the upcoming midterm elections. 

We begin with the one most dear to Theodore Roosevelt himself – preserving and broadening our democracy to  give the average American an effective voice in Washington.  At a time when the durability and even the legitimacy of American democracy has been questioned, political reform is not merely desirable, but critical to insuring our strength here at home and our credibility as a champion of freedom abroad.

Freedom to Vote Act

This bill started out life as the “For the People Act” and proposed significant and important reforms in campaign finance, voter registration and rights, lobbying rules, election integrity and congressional ethics.  You can see more of my analysis of it under the “Politics – Political Reform “ tab on the website. Thanks to Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the bill was amended to eliminate many of the more overreaching provisions. Unfortunately, congressional ethics reform was one of the casualties of the process. However, as I discussed here, the Manchin compromise incorporated the best of the other reforms and deserved support from American nationalists.

Sadly, while the bill passed the House in February of this year, it failed in the Senate.  Your House member’s vote on it can be found at this link (ignore the reference to a NASA appropriation. If you click on the bill number, it will take you to the Freedom to Vote Act:

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/20229 

In the Senate, a motion to bring the bill to a vote failed and your Senator’s position can be found here

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00420.htm

Ban Congressional Stock Trading

Insider trading by corporate and securities elites has been unlawful for decades, but recent revelations have shown the current rules to prevent similar profiteering by congress members are largely toothless. Several bills to ban stock trading by members of Congress were introduced, but the Democratic leadership in both houses prevented them from coming to a floor vote.

Thus, the only record of congressional support for this reform is the identity of the co-sponsors of those bills. Here is the list of co- sponsors of the House bill (HR 6678, the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6678/cosponsors?r=43&s=1

A similar bill was introduced in the Senate (S 3494, the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act) and the list of co-sponsors can be found here

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3494/cosponsors

If your House representative or Senator is not on these lists, you may want to ask them what they’re trying to hide.

Electoral Count Act

The horrifying January 6 attack on the Capitol during the 2020 presidential election certification highlighted the weaknesses of the nineteenth century law governing that critical process.  One of the pretexts for the attack was the theory that Vice-President Pence had the unilateral power to reject the results of the election.  This bill clarifies that the Vice-President has no such power. It also prevents frivolous challenges by providing that any objection to a state’s electors must have the support of one- third of each house of Congress. 

This should have been non-controversial. However, it only passed the House and never came up for a vote in the Senate. You can see the results of the roll call vote in the House here at

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022449

A list of the co-sponsors of the companion bill in the Senate can be found at

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4573/cosponsors

Conclusion

TR spent much of his New Nationalism speech attacking the influence of special interests on the political process, comparing its importance to the fight against slavery in the Civil War.  If we are to avoid the modern-day civil war many observers fear, we must reinvigorate our own commitment to democracy to insure it works for all Americans, not just a narrow elite.

Nationalist Theory, Political Reform, Politics, Uncategorized

Who Lost America – A Guest Column

Bob Claude |

https://jamesstrock.substack.com/p/who-lost-america?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

Through my membership in the Theodore Roosevelt Association, I have had the pleasure of corresponding with James Strock, one of the TR Association’s advisory board members. He hosts a blog on the Substack platform named “The Next Nationalism”, which also promotes TR’s philosophy in the present age. I can heartily recommend his well-written articles and thought-provoking podcast interviews.

One of his recent posts combines beautiful writing and a sharp perspective to deliver a biting assessment of the state of our current politics. However, it also points out that we have been here before as a nation and always overcame similar internal crises through deepening our commitment to our democratic values and our own national community. It is a long piece and, at the same time, the best summary of what is wrong with current American politics and why American nationalism is the cure.

Political Reform, Politics

For the People or the Elite? -The Trojan Horse of Internet Contributions

Bob Claude |

Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess, it becomes foolishness.

Theodore Roosevelt

Several years ago, my computer was hacked at the Denver International Airport. Shortly afterwards, I started receiving emails addressed to “Ricot Claude” (not anywhere near my name or nickname) from Democratic party campaigns and affiliated groups hounding me for contributions.  Many of them came through a super-PAC called ActBlue.   The experience exposed a major problem in campaign finance regulation that could be a source of the same kind of “dark money” targeted elsewhere in the For the People Act.

The fundamental flaw of the current system is that it brands the contributors, not politicians, as the culprits who need regulation. At the same time, the Federal Election Commission has almost no resources to chase down and enforce violations by errant contributors.  Campaigns and PACs need only use their “best efforts” to determine whether a contribution is legal, which is defined as only requesting the basic identifying information required by disclosure reporting. See 11 CFR 104.7.  The committee can rely solely on the representations by the contributor and no independent verification of the source of the contribution is required. The only exception is the presidential campaign matching fund program. See 11 CFR 9034.2. Candidates may only receive matching federal funds for contributions evidenced by a “written instrument”.  This is specifically defined as a check, a credit card accompanied by a signed transaction slip or, in the case of an Internet contribution, an electronic record transmitted by the cardholder with a copy of the credit card number and the name of the cardholder. Thus, the candidate automatically has sufficient independent information to verify the identity of the contributor.

In 1995, the FEC ruled in Advisory Opinion 1995-9 that contributions via the Internet were subject to the lax reporting standards applicable to most committees and did not need to be independently verified (see the answer to Question No. 4).  This may explain why so few presidential candidates use matching funds anymore and rely so heavily on Internet contributions instead. This opinion also authorized the use of outside financial contractors to solicit and manage the contribution process.  Since then, a cottage industry of third party vendors unregulated by the FEC has arisen to solicit, raise and manage contributions on behalf of political committees (see this example of Paypal’s service). Only these vendors have the information about the credit card or other source of a contribution.  They have no obligation to cross-reference the name on the credit card or Paypal account or other source against the name reported to the committee or report any discrepancies to the committee.  

Thus, I could have used the system to make illegal contributions under the name “Ricot” with very little likelihood of consequences.  A corporation or foreign national could have done the same.  The potential for abuse was documented in a forensic audit of ActBlue’s contributions by former Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline, who reported that fully 48% of ActBlue’s contributions came from the unemployed while its Republican counterpart WinRed had only 4%.  It also showed how gift cards can be used to game the system. 

This loophole needs to be plugged before it becomes a floodgate of foreign and other dark money into political campaigns.  One way would be to impose on all political committees the documentation and verification rules required under the presidential matching funds program.  In the alternative, the FEC should have the power to regulate outside vendors that manage contributions for committees and impose the same kind of verification rules applicable to the private sector.  A model for such a program can be found in the Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Prevention Rules, which require certain creditors to check transactions against red flags of identity theft.  In the absence of congressional legislation, the FEC should require political committees to use such mechanisms to verify the source of the contribution or require their vendors to have such a system and actively audit the vendor to insure it is enforcing the program.

Internet contributions have been hailed as the average American’s answer to the influence of corporate contributions and dark money.  As Theodore Roosevelt said, we should not let that optimism cause us to repeat the mistakes of the Trojans in the Iliad and unwittingly unleash the same kind of abuses we want to prevent.  The For the People Act or any similar campaign finance reform should be amended to control against this threat.  Otherwise, we may find that the plugging of one dark money loophole will simply cause it to spring up in a more corrosive and damaging form.