SCOTUS: Law that prohibits gifts, many thousands of $s of gifts, in exchange for political favors, may be unconstitutional

AROUND THE BLOCK

News with a Twist

Oral argument questions suggest Supreme Court will overturn Va. Governor corruption conviction

Lavish gifts to governor and wife in return for political favors deemed “routine” and “everyday”

The Washington Post reported that “Supreme Court justices seemed prepared to overturn the 2014 corruption conviction of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and perhaps make it harder for prosecutors to bring charges against politicians who provide favors for their benefactors.”

The Post went on to report, “Justices on both sides of the ideological divide expressed concern about federal corruption laws that could criminalize what they variously called “routine” or “everyday” actions that politicians perform for campaign contributors or supporters who have provided them with gifts.”

The case involved gifts and loans the governor and his wife accepted from Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the chief executive of a dietary supplement manufacturer, Star Scientific, including a Rolex watch, a $20,000 shopping spree, $15,000 in catering expenses for a daughter’s wedding and tens of thousands of dollars in private loans.

The jury found that McDonnell and his wife, in exchange for these gifts, promoted a Star Scientific  product, a supplement called Anatabloc, by hosting an event at the governor’s mansion, distributing samples of the product and encouraging universities to do research.

In a particular compelling piece of evidence, one which it is believed led directly to the jury’s vote to convict, Mr. McDonnell emailed Mr. Williams asking about a $50,000 loan, and six minutes later sent another email to his staff, requesting an update on Anatabloc scientific research.

In their questioning of the lawyers, the justices suggested the federal corruption law that led to the McDonnell indictment might be unconstitutional, questioned whether instructions given to the jury were proper and whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the convictions.

It has not been confirmed who sent the Tourneau Fine Watches package containing eight gold Rolex watches that was delivered to the Supreme Court mailroom on the morning of the oral arguments nor whether receipt of the watches would be considered “routine” or “everyday” actions by the justices.

On a side note, it was reported that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was very pleased by the justices questions and was eagerly looking forward to their decision, while Vermont senator Bernie Sanders was seen screaming incoherently about the "corrupt electoral finance system" and the need to get "money out of politics."

For his part, Republican presidential front-runner and businessman Donald J. Trump said, "Rolex watches are so passé. I mean everyone has one. If they're serious they should be giving them Patek Phillipe's at the very least."

Canada says Trump presidency will cause humanitarian crisis; works to make residency easier

AROUND THE BLOCK

News with a Twist

Trump 5-state sweep in the Northeast instigates major changes north of the border

Canada increasing number of consulates in the U.S. to accommodate anticipated rush of American asylum seekers

Following Donald J. Trump’s stunning sweep of the Republican primaries in five Northeast/Mid-Atlantic states – Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island – Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Mr. David MacNaughton, announced a major expansion of Canadian consulates in the United States.

“It appears to us that Mr. Donald Trump will most likely be the Republican nominee for the president of the United States in the upcoming 2016 election and, as such, will have a 50/50 chance to become president,” Mr. MacNaughton said.

Ambassador MacNaughton went on to say, “Given that possibility, I have, in consultation with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, recommended that  Canada appropriately prepare for the onslaught of Americans seeking asylum in Canada. Expanding our consulate network in America is one way to do that.”

There are currently 12 Canadian consulates in the U.S. – Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco and Seattle.

According to Mr. MacNaughton, in order to meet demand and to allocate resources where anticipated need will be greatest, second offices will opened in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Seattle, while two additional offices will be opened in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

In addition, new consulates will be opened in Portland (Oregon), Hartford, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Dover (Delaware), Burlington (Vermont) and Providence, while the consulate in Dallas will be moved to Austin and the Atlanta office will be closed.

Responding to reports that moving to Canada is more difficult than originally believed by Americans clamoring to leave, Mr. MacNaughton, commented, “That’s a question for the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. You’ll have to ask them.”

In that regard, Around The Block contacted Mr. Angus Michael “Moose” Campbell, spokesman for the Department of Immigration who said, “Yes, the requirements for permanent Canadian residence are difficult, particularly because we are concerned that a huge influx of people to the country will upset our world-class universal health care system. But, Canadians are a compassionate people and we see what’s going on in America, with the potential of a Trump presidency, as a humanitarian crisis.”

Mr. Campbell went on to say, “Therefore, in view of the situation on our southern border, we are adjusting our rules and requiring only two things for Americans seeking refuge: They must declare and affirm that they ‘believe that living in a country run by Donald J. Trump is detrimental to their mental health, physical health and over-all well being,’ and, at the time of entry, they must sing O Canada acapella in front of a panel of three Canadian immigration officers.”

When asked if the declaration of a humanitarian crisis was limited to potential Trump presidency, Campbell said, “The Department, in consultation with the prime minister’s office, is considering widening the new rules to include the possibility of a Ted Cruz presidency as well,” going on to say, “Of course, Mr. Cruz’s Canadian citizenry does complicate that decision somewhat.”

In any event, municipalities all over Canada are making preparations for an influx of Americans, none more so than Cape Breton Island.

Cape Breton, which famously started the “move to Canada” drive with a website, “Cape Breton if Donald Trump Wins” in late 2015, is now doubling down on its efforts as the once unthinkable becomes closer to reality.

According to Mike “Mussels” Musselman, a spokesman for the Cape Breton Island Chamber of Commerce, the community is going all out to make the island as comfortable as possible for Americans. In that regard, it has changed the name of its two Tim Horton donut shops to Dunkin’ Donuts and has gotten every restaurant, café and diner on the island to “significantly increase the size of their portions to take into account American tastes and appetites.”

It's not just the campaign finance system Bernie -- it's the whole electoral process.

AROUND THE BLOCK

Opinion with a Twist

Our electoral system is completely broken

ATB asks: Is this the United States of America or the Banana States of America? 

A friend told me she and her kids worked on a delegate election ballot event to select delegates from her area in California.  She said, “We listened to speeches, counted votes, etc. But it’s a bit of an illusion that it is democratic since there are so many other delegates who do not get democratically elected by the general voting public.  It’s absolutely controlled by the parties and the party rules.” 

My friend asked me what I thought. Here’s how I responded:

First, great that you guys are participating in the process. Unfortunately, the process you’re involved in is seriously broken.

I agree with Bernie Sanders that our campaign finance system is corrupt. And clearly, Citizens United needs to be overturned. But even more important, our entire electoral process is seriously flawed and overdue for a complete overhaul.

It is so flawed, in fact, that I fear that we are might no longer be the United States of America but are moving closer to becoming the Banana States of America.

The following is my observations on what's wrong with the process and some fixes we should be seriously considering.

       The Primary system is inconsistent state-by-state and, as I wrote in an earlier Around the Block, by-party-by-party-by-state-by state. If there is one consistency in the process it’s that it’s consistently undemocratic.

I wrote about California in an earlier post quoting an article in my local newspaper, the Marin Independent Journal:

"In California, the Republican candidate who wins the most votes in each congressional district will get all three of that district’s delegates. Each district is allotted three delegates regardless of how many Republicans are registered there.

"This means that the 2nd Congressional District, which includes Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte and parts of Sonoma County and has fewer than 111,000 registered Republicans, can deliver the same number of Republican delegates as the 48th  Congressional District, which spans Orange County and has more than 541,000 registered Republicans.

"Put another way, a voter in the 2nd District has almost five times the clout as a voter in the 48th."

And for California Democrats:

“CA has been allocated 546 (could change + or - 1 or 2) which includes 71 Superdelegates (Gov Brown, Senators Boxer & Feinstein, House members and DNC Members which includes the Chair & Vice Chair of each State Party), 317 district level delegates distributed in each of the 53 congressional districts (4 to 9 per district), then there are 158 total allocated statewide. If candidate A gets 55% of the state vote then that candidate would get 87 and candidate B would get 71. CA also gets 40 Alternates for a total Delegation of 586 and with spouses, partners, over 1,000 going to Philly.”

Wait, what?

How about Pennsylvania?

In Pennsylvania, which has 71 Republican delegates, 54 are unbound so no matter how the public votes, these folks cast their vote for whomever they want. In this primary then, more than 75% of the delegates are not actually part of the primary process, which begs the obvious question — why have a primary? 

And, while the ballot lists the names of the delegates, it does not indicate whom their supporting. 

I heard today that one potential delegate has spent over $30,000 in his campaign to BECOME a delegate - he told reporters that he's a Trump supporter but voters at the polling place wouldn't necessarily know that. 

Another potential delegate said she was voting for Cruz in order to represent the Cruz voters in her district, even if Cruz gets only a handful of actual votes in that district. 

Unbelievable!

And Indiana?

In Indiana, delegate selection is extremely complicated as detailed in Chapter 10 of the 47-page “Rules of the Indiana Republican State Committee.” I didn’t have the patience to sort through exactly how it works.

And a Republican operative from West Virginia said on MSNBC that state's primary rules are, believe it or not, "the most complicated" in the country. As much as I wanted to, I didn't comb through the Mountain State's Republican rules to vet that statement

Whether Trump’s allegations that delegates are being stolen from him (Louisiana is a case in point), or he just doesn’t know the rules, there’s a problem with the rules if one candidate receives the majority of the popular vote but gets the minority of the delegates. 

On the Democratic side, roughly 15% of the delegates are appointed superdelegates, who have the potential to swing the outcome despite how the people vote.

There are more injustices but I think the point is made.

The national presidential election is inherently undemocratic due to the Electoral College system and (predominately) winner-take-all state-by-state rules.

Have you heard about the concept of one man (woman), one vote? The Electoral College system thoroughly undermines that concept.

  

State voter suppression laws disenfranchise significant segments of the voting population and have been put in place for purely political purposes, not to address real voting problems or irregularities.

Particularly in Republican-controlled states, barriers to voting are disenfranchising multitudes of voters -- younger, elderly, people of color -- for no other reason than they are more likely to vote Democratic.

Citizens United has turned elections into a fight not for votes but for money from oligarchs and special interests

This is exacerbated by the advertising this money buys — unregulated and not verified for content veracity like product advertising is. 

So, what’s a democracy advocate to do?

       Completely overhaul the presidential primary system

• Within each party, make the rules the same state-by-state (Yes, I know states rights people will recoil in horror, but remember, these parties are private enterprises so states rights are not relevant).

• Make the outcomes completely proportional, based on the actual vote with no winner-take-all rules, no allocations by district, no unbound delegates and no superdelegates. If Candidate A wins 52% of the vote, Candidate B wins 35% and Candidate C wins 13% so if there are 100 delegates in play, A gets 52, B gets 35 and C gets 13.

• Make the number of delegates by state based on population with no additional delegates based on mysterious, inexplicable rules. For example, Indiana has more than its share of Republican delegates because “Indiana has been good to the Republican party."

• Eliminate caucuses as they are inherently undemocratic for so many reasons:
• Small percentages of the voting public participate;
• They take more time than voting, further suppressing participation;
• They have arcane, inconsistent rules;
• They subject voters to peer pressure at the caucus site - imagine a general election where candidate advocates stand by you as you place your vote; those signs that say “No Electioneering Within 50 Feet of the Polling Place” are there for a reason.

• Shorten the process. January to June for primaries plus another month or so until the conventions is simply too long. 

• Bundle primaries, a la Super Tuesday, 10 or so at a time and get the entire thing finished in two months. Make-up those bundled primary days with dissimilar states so there’s as little as possible regional/demographic momentum.

• Consider plurality vs. majority to win at the national conventions
• This is a tough one and I’m not sure if it’s doable. The problem is, with majority-wins rules, the potential is that all of the above would be irrelevant as the nomination would then be thrown to delegates with no allegiance to the actual primary voting results.
• But, there is some electoral precedent: Bill Clinton won the ’92 presidential election with a plurality of the vote; Al Gore lost the 2000 election with a majority of the vote. (Oh yeah, that nasty Electoral College — more on that below).

In the national presidential election, eliminate the Electoral College or, alternatively for Electoral College “the United States is a republic, not a democracy” advocates, keep the Electoral College but eliminate winner-take-all and have the votes in each state allocated to electors on a completely proportional basis.

• Proportional voting is inherently democratic — it’s the essence of one man (woman)/one vote. As a side benefit, a Democratic vote in California and a Republican vote in Texas would finally mean something in a presidential election governed by a proportional allocation system.

• With a direct vote and/or proportionally selected electors, the specter of a presidential election thrown into the House of Representatives or, horror of horrors, the Supreme Court, would be much less likely.

Voter suppression takes so many forms — Voter ID laws, limitations on voter registration, limiting voting hours and polling places, cutting poll workers and other resources, etc. — that articulating a comprehensive fix is impossible in this space, so I’ll limit my comments to the two ideas and one wish that I believe must be fundamentally achieved.

• Voter ID laws are not going away, at least as long as the other inhibitors to voting are in place, inhibitors resulting in Republican-controlled states setting the rules and gerrymandering districts, resulting in a self-perpetuating cycle. 
• So, I’d advocate consideration of a National Photo ID. 

• Yes, I know a national ID cards conjure up visions of fascist, totalitarian states (“your papers please, Fraulein”), but isn't that really a “red herring? Which is worse, a universal ID or inconsistent, unfair, rigged state ID laws that disenfranchises citizens who might not support the party making the rules?

• Standardize the rules across the country for registration, voting hours, voting forms, polling places, etc., at least for presidential elections. Yes, yes I know — states rights. Oh, those pesky states rights. But really, is the concept of states rights more important than a citizen’s fundamental right — the right to vote? 

• After instituting standardized rule for presidential elections, establish that standardization at the state and local election level as well, a move that might break that self-perpetuating cycle described above.

• Finally, elect a Democratic president, take the senate, reload the Supreme Court and reinstate all the rules of the Voting Rights Act.
• Or, at least confirm Judge Garland.

Current campaign financing regulations subvert democracy and the will of the people. 

• Elect a Democratic president, take the senate, reload the Supreme Court and overturn Citizens United.
• Or, at least, confirm Judge Garland.

• I’m not an expert on how to limit the influence of money on elections, but consider going back to some sort of public financing, limit/eliminate PACs and Super PACS allowing candidate only spending and re-visit McCain-Feinberg, review what worked and what didn’t and pass a new, better law.

• Establish a “ceiling” on any candidate’s spend in a market (based on some combination of population and media costs/media efficiency) and nationally.

• Establish a review board that vets all political TV and radio ads for content veracity and reject all ads that don’t pass board scrutiny.