Comments on: AN ACT concerning campaign finance; pertaining to unitemized contributions.

AN ACT concerning campaign finance; pertaining to unitemized contributions.

anastasiav — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:40:25 -0800

Metafilter's Own Sean Tevis ran for the Kansas State Legislature using the web as his main fund raising tool. His fund raising was spectacularly successful, raising in excess of $100,000 -- over 70% of which was in amounts lower than $50.00. The Republicans criticized this tactics, and he lost. Although he took no PAC or Lobbyist contributions, some in Kansas politics feel that he's not been transparent enough about who gave to him, so Republican Scott Schwab has introduced LD 2244 (.pdf) - informally known as the Sean Tevis Bill.

Currently, the law says that candidates are not required to report any personal information on donors who gave under $50.00. The proposed law would require candidates to report personal information on donors who gave any amount (including one cent) but only if that candidate raised over $1000 in small contributions.

By: DU

DU — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:47:07 -0800

Wait....why don't they already have to do this? If they don't collect personal information, can't I just donate $49.99 hundreds of times and never show up on any official report? Anyway, Republicans complaining because the candidate wasn't funded by 3 big local businesses at $50k each pretty much tells you all you need to know.

By: the cydonian

the cydonian — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:59:37 -0800

Soo.... basically, all Web 2.0 candidates will now be based in the cloud? :-)

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:11:47 -0800

Well, as much as I'd like to see wealthy urbanite liberals around the world band together and help turn Kansas (and Oklahoma) blue through the power of Web 2.0 - I think it's a bad idea for Democracy. It does work well though on a national scale.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:13:05 -0800

This doesn't make any sense. Aren't these contributions already public record? Is this law designed specifically to require the candidate to spend money keeping duplicate records of what's already public?

By: flippant

flippant — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:14:25 -0800

For the love of God. What sort of pull do you get with your candidate for $5? Not transparent enough?!

By: anastasiav

anastasiav — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:27:25 -0800

Aren't these contributions already public record? Is this law designed specifically to require the candidate to spend money keeping duplicate records of what's already public? The identity of donors who give under $50.00 are not public record. Most candidates already keep records on who their donors are, for fund raising and outreach purposes, but the identity of those donors is not required to be revealed to the public. Here, read this (its the same link as the last link in my post).

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:27:36 -0800

Wait....why don't they already have to do this? If they don't collect personal information, can't I just donate $49.99 hundreds of times and never show up on any official report? Um, no? All this campaign finance stuff is based on the aggregate total, not simply individual donations. If you tried to do that, you'd be breaking campaign finance law, just as if you gave multiple $1000 donations in different people's names. Secondly, what Sean Tevis is saying here is that if they're going to require this reporting, they ought to require it for people who raise less then $1,000 as well. Right now, the law is basically just targeting him.

By: orme

orme — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:28:04 -0800

I hope you kick their asses next time, stevis!

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:30:18 -0800

The Republicans are also pushing to make everyone who donated for the anti-gay bill in California to be identified right? Right?

By: enn

enn — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:31:14 -0800

I think it's a bad idea for Democracy. When Kansas's two senators representing a population of 2.8 million have the same two votes as my two senators representing a population of 12.4 million in Illinois — and when those senators get to fuck up my goddamned transit funding in our goddamned stimulus bill — I will interlope as I damned well please, thank you very much. What's bad for democracy is not having any and instead having this idiot system of apportioning votes according to the whims of 19th-century cartographers. Who were probably drunk at the time. Fuckin' New Jersey, man. Fuck.

By: IvoShandor

IvoShandor — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:32:40 -0800

Look at it this way. If this passes anyone in Kansas will now know exactly which of their neighbors support intelligent design in science classrooms, torture, illegal wiretaps and a host of other "conservative" causes. Here in Illinois I think it's anything under $200 doesn't have to be reported, $50 is already incredibly low.

By: Kid Charlemagne

Kid Charlemagne — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:39:13 -0800

Is there any way we can get the second part of Du's comment (way up top) on the front page of, well, every newspaper in Kansas?

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:51:37 -0800

When Kansas's two senators representing a population of 2.8 million have the same two votes as my two senators representing a population of 12.4 million in Illinois — and when those senators get to fuck up my goddamned transit funding in our goddamned stimulus bill — I will interlope as I damned well please, thank you very much. Look at it this way: 2 in KS = 2 in IL > 0 in DC. AND all of the 100 senators have supreme ability to fuck up ~~our transit funding~~ anything they want in my city, and don't hesitate to do so. So you're still coming out ahead.

By: abc123xyzinfinity

abc123xyzinfinity — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:51:46 -0800

What's bad for democracy is not having any and instead having this idiot system of apportioning votes... What's bad for democracy is thinking that it serves your needs alone.

By: enn

enn — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:57:53 -0800

What's bad for democracy is thinking that it serves your needs alone. ..like all the Kansans who think they deserve a wildly disproportionate say in running the country? Or the residents, in general, of the 25 least populous states whose 18% of the population has 50% of the votes in the senate? Couldn't agree more.

By: DU

DU — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:00:11 -0800

If you tried to do that, you'd be breaking campaign finance law... But since they didn't take my personal info, this affects me or the candidate how? They aren't going to find me, right?

By: any major dude

any major dude — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:01:34 -0800

Progressives better get the fuck on this proposed law because republicans see internet fund raising as a massive threat to their existence. They knew they could always rely on big corporate donations to squash any progressive challenger in their tracks so this should be treated as an opening salvo in their attempt to restrict the ability to fund raise on the internet.

By: abc123xyzinfinity

abc123xyzinfinity — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:16:48 -0800

..like all the Kansans who think they deserve a wildly disproportionate say in running the country? Or the residents, in general, of the 25 least populous states whose 18% of the population has 50% of the votes in the senate? Couldn't agree more. This just sounds to me like you are playing the victim. No, it's not a real "democracy" we have. You might as well cry about the nine supreme court justices who have an even more wildly disproportionate authority concerning legal matters.

By: brneyedgrl

brneyedgrl — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:19:35 -0800

send Rep Scott Shwab an email about how you feel....scott@scottschwab.com...or... scott.schwab@house.ks.gov.

By: Mayor West

Mayor West — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:21:30 -0800

Secondly, what Sean Tevis is saying here is that if they're going to require this reporting, they ought to require it for people who raise less then $1,000 as well. Right now, the law is basically just targeting him. It's definitely a scummy bill, but I think it's going to end up working differently than he imagines it will. If you're collecting small donations and this passes, there's no way you can get away without recording donor info, because you have no idea when Digg or MeFi is going to pick up your story and 200 $40 donations are going to come flooding in over the course of an afternoon. If you don't keep records of everyone who gives you a dollar, you're setting yourself up for campaign finance violations, with or without this bill passing. What this bill is doing is more insidious. By forcing candidates to publicize the information about small donors (and by definition, if you're bankrolling your campaign with small donations, there have to be a lot of small contributors), they're creating more of a data management hassle for candidates whose organizations are (again by definition) very small, and they're insuring that the extra overhead is going to bankrupt them, or prevent them from using their resources anywhere nearly as effectively. How is that information going to be available? Does it have to be on a web site? Do you have to send out a bound list to anyone who asks? None of that is cheap, if done properly. Meanwhile, the three other guys, who have $50K rolling from local agri-business, and whose contributor disclosures fit on a 3x5" index card? They'll be fine. Awesome, Kansas. Without your shining example, we on the coasts would have no idea how much worse we could have it.

By: Jubal Kessler

Jubal Kessler — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:26:54 -0800

By forcing candidates to publicize the information about small donors [...], they're creating more of a data management hassle for candidates whose organizations are [...] very small, and they're insuring that the extra overhead is going to bankrupt them, or prevent them from using their resources anywhere nearly as effectively. Great opportunity for an opensource turnkey package for soliciting, tracking and generally bookkeeping campaign donations.

By: a3matrix

a3matrix — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:36:15 -0800

I wonder how many people shy away, or will shy away, from donating to avoid being put on a "list."

By: rusty

rusty — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:50:28 -0800

If you collect political donations on any scale, you already collect and keep records of each and every person who gives you money. As someone above pointed out, all the laws and limits are cumulative -- you have to keep records so you know when John Doe gives more than $X and triggers a reporting requirement. And you can't know beforehand who John Doe might be. So this changes nothing for anyone as far as collecting that information. The extra data management hassles are minimal as well. Chances are you already have a PAC record keeping system in place. All you have to do is send the right form to the Sec of State of someone. You don't have to give this list to anyone else. It goes to the state election authorities. So you have 1,000 more names to report? It's software. It doesn't care. The problem is entirely what Sean Tevis points out: the arbitrary $1,000 trigger limit. That makes reporting requirements unequal and serves no political transparency purpose. It solely ensures that only candidates that aim to raise a lot of their funding through small donations will be affected by this law. It won't, when all's said and done, likely even matter much. It's just smallminded and petty punishment for a threat to the entrenched system. All donations should be public, period full stop end of discussion. That's what Tevis is saying here, albeit you get the sense he'd rather small donations stay private. But he seems perfectly willing to go with "maximize transparency," so good. If we're going to make some donations public, make them all public and end the bullshit games.

By: Miko

Miko — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:50:47 -0800

..like all the Kansans who think they deserve a wildly disproportionate say in running the country? Or the residents, in general, of the 25 least populous states whose 18% of the population has 50% of the votes in the senate? Yeah, the founders noticed this issue too, and in response they created the House of Representatives. I mean...you knew that, right?

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:51:58 -0800

So you're still coming out ahead. No, the Senate's being able to directly fuck up your city does not put enn ahead.

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:58:20 -0800

This doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Should it?

By: Leon

Leon — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:04:26 -0800

I imagine it's a prelude to "80% of his donators don't even live in the state. Close ranks against the outsiders!"

By: Leon

Leon — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:07:25 -0800

donors. damn it. english, not good do.

By: enn

enn — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:11:04 -0800

Yeah, the founders noticed this issue too, and in response they created the House of Representatives. I mean...you knew that, right? What good does that do me? Everything's still got to get through the senate. At best it gives the majority the power to veto the minority, while allowing the minority to veto the majority in the senate. Allowing for the filibuster, we have a situation where you need senators representing, not a majority or a supermajority, but a near-unanimity of the American people to get anything even remotely controversial through. The founders, incidentally, were hardly of one mind, and many favored proportional representation in both houses of congress as per the Virginia Plan.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:19:22 -0800

Someone in this thread asked whether any potential donors would shy away from contributing because of public disclosure. Without getting into the merits of Prop 8, after I saw the google map of all donors and the pitchfork mentality that ensued, I made a mental note to never donate to any political campaign. I'll stick to charities that allow anonymous donations over a public villification any day. Bills like this only support my view that using money to further a political opinion has become extremely dangerous (and possibly life threatening).

By: roystgnr

roystgnr — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:26:36 -0800

Well, as much as I'd like to see wealthy urbanite liberals around the world band together and help turn Kansas (and Oklahoma) blue through the power of Web 2.0 - I think it's a bad idea for Democracy. Probably. But are small donations from people in other states any worse than large donations from often-interstate (if not multinational) corporations? That seems like a worse idea. And all the proposals I've heard for getting money out of Democracy entirely have been cures far worse than the disease. Well, all the complete proposals have been full of worthless unintended side effects, anyway. "Use X to convince voters to make fair and complete evaluations of all candidates regardless of advertising expenditures" would work pretty well, if we could only figure out X. So far all I've come up with is "magic pixie dust".

By: anastasiav

anastasiav — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:28:12 -0800

This doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Should it? I think its inequality in the bill that's the real issue here: To quote Mr Tevis: The Problem The $1,000 threshold creates an unequal protection of privacy. If you donate $1 to a candidate, you can expect that your personal information will remain private. If that candidate, however, crosses the arbitrary $1,000 threshold, which is beyond your control, then suddenly your reasonable expectation of privacy that other small donors enjoy is stripped from you. For example: • John gives $1 to Candidate A • Mary gives $1 to Candidate B • Candidate A *does not* raise more than $1,000 in small donations. • Candidate B becomes very popular and she raises more than $1,000 in small donations. The effect of this is that: John's personal information is safe. Mary's personal information is not safe. Why should Mary be stripped of the same opportunity for personal privacy that John enjoys? Either all small contributions should be public or they should all be private. This "they're only public if you raise more than $1000 from them" is weird and wrong.

By: cjorgensen

cjorgensen — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:47:16 -0800

I wrote Obama and sent him $5 to buy an intern a coffee, sent $1 to Hillary, and $1 to McCain as well. These were included with jokey letters, and I got no responses from any of them. I was hoping the cash would somehow obligate them to respond. It didn't, and they didn't. I also wasn't holding out much hope, but it's my hobby. The thing I hate about this sort of stuff (reporting) is that the information that ends up online includes way too much identifying information. I don't mind the idea of candidates having to report where their support is coming from, but I do mind citizens' support being reported. It's a quandary. I mean I like Kusinich, and supported him in the 2004 primary, but I wouldn't want that to be public record.

By: crapmatic

crapmatic — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:54:38 -0800

Does this mean there might be some merit in meticulously picking apart the details of Scott Schwab's campaign funding? Turnabout being fair play, etc.

By: Miko

Miko — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:07:07 -0800

What good does that do me? Everything's still got to get through the senate. At best it gives the majority the power to veto the minority, while allowing the minority to veto the majority in the senate. Allowing for the filibuster, we have a situation where you need senators representing, not a majority or a supermajority, but a near-unanimity of the American people to get anything even remotely controversial through. Exactly.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:14:11 -0800

a3matrix : I wonder how many people shy away, or will shy away, from donating to avoid being put on a "list." This strikes me as a matter for positive marketing. You want to be on the list! You know who gets into the club by skipping the line? People on the list! You know who gets the donor organs and are given the opportunity to adopt kids? People on the list! Clearly being on the list is where all the cool kids want to be.

By: enn

enn — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:18:49 -0800

Exactly. Sure. It's a great system if you're a drown-government-in-a-bathtub type, not so great if you favor progressive reforms with broad public support but no chance when a small wealthy elite can block everything. Obviously what people think of it depends on their ideological leanings. One thing it isn't, though, is democratic — to me, at least, the idea of votes counting equally is fairly fundamental to democracy. At any rate, this is why I don't see anything wrong with outsiders funding progressive candidates in states with less progressive electorates. Here in Chicago, Tom Geoghegan (previously) (who has, in his books, made many of the points I attempted to make above, though, of course, he does a much better job) is running a congressional campaign largely supported with money raised online from small, non-local donors, and I think it's great — how else is a progressive candidate going to be able to compete with business-backed candidates? (In the interests of disclosure I should note I've been phone-banking for the campaign.)

By: showbiz_liz

showbiz_liz — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:20:34 -0800

Exactly. Yes, it's gotten us this fa- oh wait our infrastructure is crumbling and children are dying of treatable diseases while we spend all our money on the military. Sorry, for a second there I confused us with a functional country.

By: stevis

stevis — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:26:44 -0800

Let me tell you a little bit more about small donation reporting. The State Governmental Ethics Commission requires that I have to keep the names and addresses of *everyone* no matter the size. They get to audit my records whenever they like, just to make sure everything is on the up and up. So they see, for example, the guy's name and address who donated 31 cents. He's a nice guy, too. I emailed a few times with him over the campaign. He's an unemployed veteran, has never donated to anyone before, but feels rather passionately that it's wrong for blind people to get free hunting licenses in Kansas. True story. But the 31 cent guy isn't listed on a public report. That's just for those donating $50 and over. I believe it is in the public's best interest to know the big donors, but for the 31 cent guy, not so much. My problem isn't with the reporting levels, however. I just want to play by the same rules that everyone else does and this bill creates an unequal playing field.

By: batmonkey

batmonkey — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:58:01 -0800

I truly don't understand why people wouldn't want to be associated with the things they support enough to give them money. It baffles me.

By: ben242

ben242 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:06:21 -0800

Dear Sean Tevis, Please move to Brooklyn so we can send you to congress.

By: patricio

patricio — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:23:12 -0800

"I truly don't understand why people wouldn't want to be associated with the things they support enough to give them money. It baffles me." For the same reasons the secret ballot exists?

By: briank

briank — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:36:45 -0800

Tevis For President in 2016!

By: anastasiav

anastasiav — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:55:36 -0800

"I truly don't understand why people wouldn't want to be associated with the things they support enough to give them money. It baffles me." Fear of retribution?

By: rusty

rusty — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:06:13 -0800

The secret ballot exists to allow you to make your actual vote in private. To have a say, you must vote. That's why it's secret. If you support something, but are afraid or unwilling to support it vocally, go vote for it in the secret ballot and don't tell anyone how you voted. If you're not afraid to support it vocally, then do so. "Vocally," here includes giving money to it. That is an effort, by you, to publically sway the outcome of the vote. If you don't want to speak out publically, don't. It's your right not to, and to keep your choice secret forever. But if you do want to speak out publically, don't whine that your speech was public. I don't think anyone should get to put money in in order to influence a vote, and still keep that fact secret. I recognize that people are wary of "being on the list," and that kicking in $10 hardly amounts to much in the way of influence. But the principle remains. I don't see any justifiable excuse for someone wanting to influence an election secretly. And from what we've seen in CA, the main excuse for it is "I want to be a bigot without letting anyone know, because even I realize it's shameful." Screw that.

By: garlic

garlic — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:31:01 -0800

But the ballot didn't used to be secret. Was it slate or the newyorker that had the article going over the evolution of the ballot? Is there any sort of link between Freedom of Speech and Right to Privacy?

By: jabberjaw

jabberjaw — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:01:01 -0800

I'm guessing Sean's opponents couldn't even muster $1,000 in small donations. What does that say about them? But there is definitely a Constitutional equal protection / 1st Amendment issue if they are going to arbitrarily make some $1,000 baseline. It makes no rational sense.

By: stevis

stevis — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:06:30 -0800

@rusty "I don't think anyone should get to put money in in order to influence a vote, and still keep that fact secret." Here are two examples where some level of non-public disclosure is probably good: Government workers. There were two people who live in my area who sent donations for $10 and $25, respectively. They both work for a government agency. They were aware of the threshold and donated small amounts because they report to an elected council and feared some level of retribution. The small amount allowed them to participate without that fear. Journalists I know one who isn't allowed to donate or disclose publicly who he supports for fear of reflecting on the larger media organization. As a profession, they don't enjoy the same freedom to participate in our direction that others do. There may be others in the same boat, too. It's worth some thought.

By: markkraft

markkraft — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:22:02 -0800

"Meanwhile, the three other guys, who have $50K rolling from local agri-business, and whose contributor disclosures fit on a 3x5" index card? They'll be fine." ...of course, this leaves those three other guys open to "grassroots assistance", with thousands of individuals nationwide mailing them in a penny each to help out their illustrious campaigns. ;-)

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:32:47 -0800

"Sure. It's a great system if you're a drown-government-in-a-bathtub type, not so great if you favor progressive reforms with broad public support but no chance when a small wealthy elite can block everything. Obviously what people think of it depends on their ideological leanings. One thing it isn't, though, is democratic — to me, at least, the idea of votes counting equally is fairly fundamental to democracy." Well, we do have a republic-style democracy. Passing legislation should probably not be done through something like direct proportional representation at all stages. It sort of tilts to populism more than it should, which is also damaging. There do need to be checks and balances which balance the idea of states having their own internal governments and also being represented at the federal level. If you want a more direct system, we would probably need to rethink the whole republic idea, and I'm not sure that will happen without a complete revolution, scrapping what we have and starting over.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:34:21 -0800

"At any rate, this is why I don't see anything wrong with outsiders funding progressive candidates in states with less progressive electorates." What about the opposite, where conservative outsiders fund conservative causes or candidates, as happened with Prop 8 in CA?

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:37:23 -0800

"Journalists I know one who isn't allowed to donate or disclose publicly who he supports for fear of reflecting on the larger media organization. As a profession, they don't enjoy the same freedom to participate in our direction that others do." Isn't that part of the territory, though? I mean, isn't that a sacrifice you make as a professional journalist? I don't see that as a problem.

By: abc123xyzinfinity

abc123xyzinfinity — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:06:16 -0800

Sorry, for a second there I confused us with a functional country. Yes, America is broken. I'm pretty sure that cash in your wallet it worthless. You should give it away. Preferably to me. not so great if you favor progressive reforms with broad public support I feel like progressive reform somehow inherently lacks broad support. It's kind of the definition of progressive.

By: roystgnr

roystgnr — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:09:05 -0800

But if you do want to speak out publically, don't whine that your speech was public. Would it be public enough if you call yourself "Publius"? If not, then "Cato", "An Englishman", "A Federal Farmer", or "Candidus" might also be good names to publish under. Eh, but why would we want to live in a country that was influenced by whiners like them?

By: Miko

Miko — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:57:58 -0800

But the ballot didn't used to be secret. Was it slate or the newyorker that had the article going over the evolution of the ballot? Yep, that was a great piece by Jill Lepore, Rock, Paper, Scissors: How We Used to Vote. There was no secret balloting designed into the electoral system. Isn't that part of the territory, though? I mean, isn't that a sacrifice you make as a professional journalist? I don't see that as a problem. Yes, it's a completely common ethical recommendation for journalists and, at some outlets, it's policy. But it's not a 'denial of freedom' - it's not even something most journalists I know see as a sacrifice, but more as an honor and a responsibility to the field. They can still vote (though some don't), and they can still have some of the most informed political dinner-table discussions you'd ever want, but they're conscious that being a visible advocate for a particular political person or party calls their own fair reporting into question and endangers their organization, as well.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:51:08 -0800

The Republican party, and especially its representatives, just fuckin' hate the common man. The problem is entirely what Sean Tevis points out: the arbitrary $1,000 trigger limit. That makes reporting requirements unequal and serves no political transparency purpose. Sean, I suggest you make a big public stink about how you AGREE with this idea and, in fact, are fighting hard to set the limit to ZERO dollars. Insist that this is a move in the right direction, that what we all want is OPEN PUBLIC GOVERNANCE! That'll scare the bejeezus outta the creeps. The very last thing they want is openness.

By: enn

enn — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:11:58 -0800

I feel like progressive reform somehow inherently lacks broad support. It's kind of the definition of progressive. 65% of Americans favored single-payer healthcare even before they started getting laid off in earnest last year and this year. 69% percent of Americans thought government should "guarantee food and shelter for all" even before their ARMs started resetting and foreclosures spiked. Somehow I don't think those numbers are lower now than in 2007. The so-called centrist, neoliberal consensus is not any consensus at all. It is the reactionary viewpoint of an obstructionist minority given outsize representation in our government and consequently in our media and policy discourse. If you want a more direct system, we would probably need to rethink the whole republic idea, and I'm not sure that will happen without a complete revolution, scrapping what we have and starting over. Certainly, it won't happen. That's why I stay close to our northern border and hope Canada gets to feeling expansionist one of these days.

By: jock@law

jock@law — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:33:49 -0800

Yes, please, by all means you whiney bad-at-math ultraliberal idiots. Lets give Texas and Georgia and Florida more power at the expense of Delaware and Vermont and Rhode Island. I mean, if you wanted to abolish the Senate, that'd be one thing. But nooooooo, you want to keep the expensive infrastructure and get rid of its principal benefit. Idiots, the lot of ya.

By: jock@law

jock@law — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:43:40 -0800

Okay, now that I'm done ranting, I looked at Sean Tevis's website, and it's pretty sweet. And I wish I could have donated.