Terri Lynn Opinion Prevents Transparency

Last week, Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn issued a tentative consent allowing political advertising to conceal the supporting donors. This just a few months after the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and other big money interest can spend as much money as they deem necessary on political advertising.

Come election time it is important to know where everyone stands on the issues so that the voter can make an informed decision. Lynn’s decision will prevent transparency in the voting process.

Knowing where public officials stand on the issues is important. But, that extends beyond government and politics. It also extends to every individual and group in the community that takes a public stand. Sometimes the motivation for advocating for or against an issue is not just the belief that it will help the community, it could also be a monetary or personal benefit.

With the recent Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and other groups to spend as much as they want to support political issues, the political arena has changed. Justice Antonin Scalia, who stood with the majority in that decision, supports transparency with an opinion in another case by saying, "You can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known." Much more money will now be spent on issues and candidates than ever before. With the secretary of state ruling that donors in support of issues can be kept secret, it will violate the concept of transparency in politics. The voter needs to know all the facts about an issue including who supports it.

The Secretary of State Terri Lynn was wrong to issue a tentative opinion supporting the privacy requests of the Chamber of Commerce. In the final decision, she needs to reverse that opinion. If not, the legislature of the state needs to take immediate action to keep our elections transparent.

Aaron Burr and the Car Bomber in New York

“They are equivalent to a proclamation of impunity to every traitorous combination which may be formed to destroy the Union."

Those are the words of Thomas Jefferson, speaking about the turn of events at the Aaron Burr trial that later acquitted him of high treason. In short, Burr was accused of conspiring with political allies, army officers and the British government to form a separate nation in America’s heartland. Britain at the time was an enemy of the young country. Those that accused him of treason said he raised money, troops and resources in his attempt. The most high profile person to accuse him was the President of the United States at the time, Thomas Jefferson, who had taken personal interest in the case.

Just about everyone involved in the case; prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and a host of other people on both sides were associated with the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution against Britain, the writing of the Articles of Confederation and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Whatever interpretation we may apply to the meaning of the rights that are part of the constitution, these men would have known them intuitively because they imbedded them in the constitution both expressly and implicitly.

Aaron Burr was a citizen of the United States. He was accused of conspiring with an enemy state. Never was he taken to a military prison and held without bail. Never was he denied a defense by competent attorneys. (In fact, his attorneys were high profile lawyers that were well aware of the Burr’s constitutional rights). Never once was it suggested that his citizenship should be taken away.

Today, Faisal Shahzad stands accused of plotting with enemies of the United States and other subversive activities just like Aaron Burr. He is the primary suspect in the attempted car bomb attack in New York’s Times Square recently. There are those that want him taken off to a military prison and tried in a military court. Other high profile government officials have also demanded that he not be read his Miranda rights before he is interrogated. Senator Joe Lieberman, if he was in charge, would take away his citizenship.

How is it that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and signer of the Constitution, didn’t ask for Burr’s citizenship, did not deny him a civil trial nor imprison Burr without counsel, yet Lieberman thinks that is just what should be done with Shahzad?

Fighting terrorism is serious business. As a community we need to take every action we can to provide for a safe and secure environment. But we can’t forsake the very thing that has made this country strong, the rights Jefferson did not take away from the most celebrated person accused of plotting against the United States.

-----

Petition Drives have No Expectation of Privacy

You are in a hurry with kids in tow. As you get out of your car and walk over to the post office a woman approaches. She asks you to sign a petition for a citizen’s initiative that supports marriage. Without reading the statement as focused as you should on the official looking form, you sign your name in a rush so that your kids won’t run out in traffic.

Two weeks later, you get a call from a stranger. She asks if you signed a petition that requested the state to place a measure on the ballot demanding a roll back on domestic partner benefits. You are surprised that someone called you.

Did you think that you would have some privacy when you signed the petition?

It is hard to believe anyone’s privacy could be maintained in this situation. When you signed the petition you could see all the other names on the list. Someone could have been casually watching while you signed. The workers that earn money from every name they get on the list could have made photocopies of the petitions. This would insure that they have proof of their income. When the lists are collected for formal presentation to the state, there will be copies made. Finally, the petitions are presented to the state in an open forum.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this question April 28 in a case from Washington. Gay rights groups are asking for the names to be released on a petition for Referendum 71. It is a ballot measure aimed at rolling back domestic partnership rights for same sex couples. State law in Washington requires the release of names on petition drives. Some people in the state fear reprisals from the gay rights groups.

The names should not be kept secret because people must be able to trust a citizen’s initiative. They are started by people that would like to ask the voters of a state if they think something should be changed. If enough people think the same way, the issue gets on the ballot. The people that sign the petition must be real and registered voters along with various other requirements depending on the state. If those names on the petition can’t be challenged how does anyone know they are real people?

A similar issue to this came up in the last national election. An organization was registering people to vote. If was found, by people making challenges to the names on the list that some were not eligible. Now the organization that did that, as well as other things, no longer exists. ACORN has closed its doors, partly because of the challenge.

Responsible communities must operate in the open so that everyone can trust the process. Keeping names on a petition drive private only builds mistrust.

The Answer to Thursday's Trivia Question

Here is the Answer to Thursday’s trivia question.

Who Said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have?”

Gerald Ford said it to a joint session of the Congress on August 12, 1974.

“(the people) know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Source: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/quotes.asp

There is an email floating around that uses the statement to build mistrust of government. There is also a bumper sticker using it on cars that might also sport a Palin or Tea Party sticker.

It is hard to believe that anyone would disagree with the statement, but some may object to the implications. The statement is used by conservatives to give reason to the small government concept.

But no matter who uses the statement, at least get the facts straight.

The CRA is not the reason for the mortgage meltdown

While the mortgage melt down is now a couple of years out, it is still producing zombies. In a couple of articles about Goldman Sach’s grilling in Washington, the CRA was brought up as if it was the reason for the meltdown.

People are just looking for easy targets to explain the problems.

One of the easy targets in the mortgage debacle is the Community Re-investment Act (CRA). The legislation requires banks to make mortgages available to people living in the communities they service, or the branch assessment area. But, the act made it clear that banks were not required to loan the money if it would place the institutions in jeopardy.

There were two reason for the CRA. First, it is an attempt to keep banks from taking deposits from low income areas and investing the money in mortgages in high income areas. It was also designed to get more people in homes they own. If people own a home in a community they will take a greater role in its developed.

It is suggested that since the people that received the CRA mortgages were not worthy of the credit extended to them, they began to default. It was this mass defaulting on these mortgages that made the mortgage backed securities sold to Wall Street firms nearly worthless. This, according to the zombie legend that won’t go away, created the mortgage crisis that nearly bankrupt the system.

The reality is something very different according to research released by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. Only a small percent of the subprime mortgages made to low income borrowers, about 9%, were made by the banks that fell under the CRA. The remaining 91% of the subprime mortgages to low income borrowers were made by independent mortgage companies or by banks from outside of the assessment area. The CRA did not have any effect on independent mortgage companies and did not direct banks to make loans outside of their assessment area.

Once the mortgage banks not under CRA control made all the mortgages they could by regulation, they sold securities back by their mortgages to Wall Street financial institutions. By clearing the inventory of mortgages they were then allowed to seek more.

Then, mortgages began to default. The CRA mortgages failed no worse than the national average, about ten percent. The mortgages that had the worse default rate were those not from banks under CRA control.

This was where the melt down began.

Providing mortgages in a bank’s assessment area, is a great way to get people invested in their communities. The CRA has been successful at that. But the Harvard Study illustrates that it wasn’t the CRA mortgages that created the crisis. Those mortgages were no worse than the average at defaulting. It was the mortgages from the other banks not under CRA control that defaulted at a high rate.

The CRA zombie lives on, despite the passage of time and research available. Let’s hope the Harvard Study is its death knell.

Who Said, "A government big enough...

Thursday is poltical trivia day.

Who Said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have"?

Going Backwards Because of Immigration

In 1787 The United States Constitution was adopted. Before that, the country was operating under the Articles of Confederation. The reason the Articles of Confederation was replaced because it wasn’t working. States had all the power to create their own laws without regard to other states or the national interest.

Last year there was 222 laws and 148 resolutions passed by state legislatures governing immigration. This doesn’t include all the laws that were already in place. Many states are taking a hard look at immigration and devising their own plans in an attempt to address the problem. All of this because the elected officials of the national government have not been able to find consensus on the issue.

This is beginning to look like the Articles of Confederation again.

States do have the right and responsibility to enact legislation that will provide for their citizens. But state laws should deal with issues that are local or state wide in scope and not national issues. National issues are the responsibility of Washington. This is especially true for an issue like immigration that effects each and every citizen in some way in America.

With each state developing its own laws to deal with immigration there is going to be a very wide set of rules and regulations. This will create an incredible amount of confusion in the country. Legal workers and immigrants that move from state to state will be unsure of what documents they may need to prove their status. Employers that hire workers across many states will need to developed employment policies for each state. Virtually every private and public service agency; local, state and national; will need individual sets of procedures to just do their job.

Immigration is a national issue and states need to stay out of it. But, they are acting because the federal government is not. It is time for the federal government to act.