Lay Politika has Moved!

Lay Politika is over here now.

McCain on Personal Use of Campaign Funds

Earlier today, Politico's Jeanne Cummings wrote about how the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 over the last month on wardrobe items and salon expenses for Palin and her family. When asked about it, the McCain campaign issued a statement basically brushing off the question and saying that there are more important issues to be spending time on right now than Palin's wardrobe expenses. In essence, the McCain campaign is trying to tell us that this incident does not matter.

But does it? The John McCain of 1993 certainly would have told us that it did. In fact, he did so very convincingly during a speech on the Senate floor regarding the abuse of campaign funds. The Daily Kos shares McCain's speech here.

One major reason the public does not approve of Congress is that they believe we are isolated and nonresponsive, and we, of course, do not want to maintain a policy that encourages the Congress to be even more separated and disconnected from the people.

If we in Congress learned one thing from President Clinton's $200 haircut last week, it should be that the public does not approve of its elected officials being treated as royalty. We should be no different.

The solution to this problem is simple; restrict the use of campaign funds solely to campaign purposes.

...

I point out these abuses, in my view what are abuses, because they are certainly not what the average contributor intends for their funds to go to.

Perhaps the real question should be why McCain no longer believes that personal use of campaign funds ought to be a serious issue.

What Exactly Will the President Do?

In this Politico article, Andrew Glass details the powers that the framers of our Constitution granted our President and it contains a brief but good discussion of the powers that the President will and won't have. He writes,

Once in the White House, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain will have the capacity to raise or lower taxes. Under the Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. The new president will need to negotiate with that body, which almost certainly will be under firm Democratic control.

Similarly, neither presidential candidate will have absolute power to appoint members of his Cabinet or other top agency heads, Supreme Court justices or other federal judges. To serve, all such nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.

The Constitution also gives the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties hammered out by the president and his entourage. Over the years, many treaties have died in committee or have been withdrawn by the president rather than face an ignoble defeat. There’s no reason to believe this would change in an Obama or McCain administration.

He goes on to explain that for these reasons, the thing that we really need to be looking for in a President is someone with good judgment - someone who can assemble sources of solid counsel on to advise him on current and potential crisis situations, and someone who will be able to elect competent members to assist him in the executive functions.

This is exactly the reason why I believe that in the big scheme of things, this race is not about issues. If we are honest with ourselves, we'd admit that most of the issues that we get so worked up over today are very important - but important as they are, they are not issues that the next President has much power to alter or impact in law. That does not mean that the issues are irrelevant. On the contrary, a candidate's position on the issues - and his or her ability to articulate the position and rationale behind the position - tells us a lot about his or her ability to reason clearly through the issues.

Obama's Campaign Finance Machine

Recently, we learned that Obama was able to raise $150 million in September alone and this article by Jeffrey Ressner at Politico describes how a large portion of that money came from California.

In this article from The Atlantic, Joshua Green describes how Obama was able to capitalize on the Silicon Valley and new technology to mobilize the general public in conducting the largest fundraising effort yet in American history.

In a sense, Obama represents a triumph of campaign-finance reform. He has not, of course, gotten the money out of politics, as many proponents of reform may have wished, and he will likely forgo public financing if he becomes the nominee. But he has realized the reformers’ other big goal of ending the system whereby a handful of rich donors control the political process. He has done this not by limiting money but by adding much, much more of it—democratizing the system by flooding it with so many new contributors that their combined effect dilutes the old guard to the point that it scarcely poses any threat. Goren­berg says he’s still often asked who the biggest fund-raisers are. He replies that it is no longer possible to tell. “Any one of them could wind up being huge,” he says, “because it no longer matters how big a check you can write; it matters how motivated you are to reach out to others.”

There is some irony in the fact that the architect of the most recent campaign-finance law also happens to be the Republican presidential nominee. John McCain likely views all that has happened with considerable trepidation. Contrary to the widespread assumption at the time the McCain-Feingold Act became law (The Atlantic published an article on the legislation titled “The Democratic Party Suicide Bill”), it has not hurt the Democratic Party. Neither has it clearly benefited Republicans; McCain in particular has little to show for it. He raised $15 million in March, only $4 million of it over the Internet. His small-donor base is virtually nonexistent. When challenged about his staunch support for the Iraq War, McCain likes to say that he’d be willing to sacrifice the White House for principle. Nobody asks about campaign-finance reform. But that, and not Iraq, may wind up being the principled stand that does him in.

Interestingly enough, the piece of campaign-finance legislation that paved the way for this new opportunity in political fundraising owes much of its success to McCain. Clearly, he did not foresee the effect it would have on the campaign finance landscape, however, and did not alter his finance strategies in anticipation of the change.

Powell's Statement on Supporting Obama

This was what Collin Powell had to say about supporting Obama. It is an extremely cogent statement and I think he makes a great point about the failure of the Republican party to demonstrate inclusiveness with regards to being Muslim in America.

Can the Next President Overturn Roe v. Wade?

We've already noted earlier that Palin has switched the focus of her attacks on Obama to his position on abortion today. This CNN article reports a bit more on her comments today.

In reading this CNN article, however, I just realized how her statements regarding Obama's position that he would uphold Roe v. Wade seems to contradict statements she made earlier to Couric as described on this site here. In that interview, she said,

"But, you know, as a mayor, and then as a governor and even as a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."

The "those things" she was referring to above were Supreme Court decisions which she does not agree with or support. In today's speech in Pennsylvania, however, she says of Obama,

"A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate that we deserve and that we need on this issue of life," she said. "Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life."

Obama opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." He did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.

She implies here that the next president would have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade via 1) nominations of more conservative justices, 2) or via constitutional amendments.

I find it misleading to suggest that the next president would be able to do very much to overturn Roe v. Wade.

1) Article V of the Constitution makes it clear that the amendment process is in the hands of the legislative, not the executive branch.

Regarding the possibility of a constitutional amendment, Article V of the Constitution states,

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This means that an amendment must be proposed either by Congress or a national convention requested by the states. As described here in Wikipedia, an amendment is deemed "proposed" by Congress when the proposal is agreed upon by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate. In the case of a national convention, "two-thirds of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments." Once proposed, the amendment can not be accepted until it has been ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Clearly, Article V indicates that the constitutional amendment process is largely controlled and dictated by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. It is not within the president's authority to personally institute a constitutional amendment.

2) The president may nominate justices but these nominations must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate and once nominated, the president does not have influence to dictate what these justices decide.

Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate justices, who can then be appointed with the "advice and consent of the Senate." So clearly, the president cannot himself appoint anyone to the Supreme Court but he can nominate people who can be appointed with the agreement of a majority of the Senate.

Once a justice is appointed, Article III dictates his or her tenure according to "good behavior," which basically means that the justice will serve for life unless impeached and convicted by a congressional vote. As such, the justice cannot be removed from tenure by the president and is under no obligation or pressure to decide cases in a way that the president would prefer.

Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, I think that the president has very little power to overturn Roe v. Wade, or any other Supreme Court decision for that matter.

With regards to the two points Palin describes, I think she was more correct during her interview with Couric and her current attacks appear misleading.

McCain Calls for Condemnation of Georgia Democrat's Comments

Rebecca Sinderbrand of CNN reports about comments that Rep. John Lewis, a democrat from Georgia, made today. In reference to attacks made by the McCain-Palin ticket this past week regarding Obama's associations with Ayers, Lewis said,

"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse," Lewis said in a statement.

"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama," wrote the Democrat.

In response, McCain issued a statement saying,

"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Gov. Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale," he said in a Saturday afternoon statement released by his campaign.

"The notion that legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama's record and positions could be compared to Gov. George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

"I call on Sen. Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."

McCain had previously named John Lewis as a person whom he respected and would seek advice from as president. The Obama campaign issued a statement soon after saying,

"Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies," Burton said. "But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for president of the United States 'pals around with terrorists.' "

I agree with Obama's reaction and am glad that he took the opportunity to make the point that McCain's attacks have not been merely "legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama's record and positions" as McCain claims above. Examples of what Obama is addressing in his response can be found on this site here, here, and here.