Fanning the Flames

Schools and the 3 C's: College, Career, and Citizens

2011-05-18T13:14:00.000-05:00

Our nation’s schools are failing in their obligation to prepare America’s next generation for informed engagement in our representative democracy. According to the 2010 National Assessment of Educational (NAEP) in Civics, released recently by the U.S. Department of Education, less than a quarter of students of all grade levels performed at or above proficiency level in the subject. Moreover, fewer than five percent of graduating seniors leave high school with the ability to list two privileges of U.S. citizens, explain the impact of television on the political process, or summarize the views of Roosevelt and Reagan on the role of government.

Given these appallingly lackluster results, it should come as no surprise that our nation’s political discourse is callous and shallow, voter apathy outside of presidential elections is the prevailing norm, and public corruption permeates all levels of government. In an era of standardized testing that has served to narrow the curriculum and crowd out the social studies, our schools are tasked with ensuring that our students are career and college-ready. These obsessions have undermined schools’ original civic mission, for all graduating seniors must also emerge with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for lifelong exercise of their responsibilities as citizens.

Thankfully, Illinois has a cadre of schools who have acted as stalwarts to these troubling trends. Deemed Democracy Schools, nine Chicago area high schools have been accredited by the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition as exemplary providers of authentic experiences for their students in the rights, responsibilities, and tensions inherent in living in a representative democracy.

Seniors at Community High School in West Chicago’s American Government class participate in the “Legislative Semester,” an in-school simulation that recreates the structures and politics of the Illinois House of Representatives. Freshmen at Maine West High School in Des Plaines, meanwhile, take part in the SEEDS (Students Educating for Equity in a Diverse Society) program, which teaches students that they possess the power to affect societal change by asking them to pick an issue they care about, develop an action plan, and share their ideas at an open house.

These and other Illinois Democracy Schools are blazing the path to reverse our civic decay by proving that a commitment to their civic mission need not come at the expense of career and college-readiness, or standardized test scores for that matter. Indeed, best practices in civic education have been proven to foster skills and competencies transferable to the 21st Century workplace. In addition to basic reading and math skills, these include a basic knowledge of economic and political processes, media literacy, an ability to collaborate with a diverse group of people, positive attitudes about working hard and obeying the law, and creativity and innovation.

Picture political discourse that transcends partisan infighting, an informed electorate that holds public officials accountable for their actions in office, and an effective, efficient public sector that serves the interests of the people it serves, not the insiders working within. Our nation’s schools stand as the linchpin for civic redemption, and these appallingly low test scores should serve as a clarion call for the renewal of their civic mission. Let’s do our part in Illinois and commit to making every school in the state a Democracy School.

The Dumbest Generation

2010-03-29T13:04:00.008-05:00

It is common for older Americans to marvel at the technological capacity of Millennials, equating digital wizardry with higher intelligence. On the other hand, experts have long lamented declining test scores in math, reading, and science, not to mention successive generations who are culturally and historically illiterate. In terms of media consumption, they are in the words of David Mindich, altogether "tuned out." Clearly, these dueling conceptions of younger Americans compete with one another, and Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein grapples with this tension in his 2008 book The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Penguin, 236pp).

Bauerlein paints a portrait of a generation digitally connected to one's peers but isolated from both their elders and even the recent past. They are obsessed with constant affirmation from classmates who parted ways only hours ago via text messages and Facebook friends, yet couldn't be bothered by a newspaper, a book of any stripe (other than Harry Potter), or even art and classic music.

The author also suggests that we overestimate young people's mastery of the digital landscape, holding high "whiz kids" who are more outliers than the norm. We have rushed to integrate technology into all aspects of education, spending billions, but have yet to reap even incremental gains in knowledge. Students' use of the web for research purposes is likely to encompass a Google search, page clicks on the top three links, copying and pasting of text onto a Word document, adding a few transitional sentences, and handing into their teacher under their own name with no acknowledgment of the sources they consulted.

According to Bauerlein, uninhibited use of the web results in highly inefficient use of precious instructional time. Students are likely to dabble with the URL's supplied by their teacher, but probably check their email, make evening plans, and catch up on celebrity gossip along the way.

Research suggests that the Web fundamentally transforms the way we encounter information. True, its scattered paths may compliment brain synapses, but we only skim text, rarely read top to bottom, and avoid verbiage written above a fourth-grade level. True to form, PDF files equate to hitting the print function, if opened at all. Video games may immerse the mind in complex, real word decision making contexts, but fail to develop the communicative skills necessary for upward occupational mobility.

Rather than listing technological tools as the cause of informational ignorance among young people, Bauerlein considers them mere enablers. He departs from the education cultural critics of decades past, William Bennett, E.D. Hirsch, and Diane Ravich among them, in his non-ideological tenor, yet blame is assigned to the New Left. A generation of intellectuals who challenged traditional structures during the 1960's and 1970's, these scholars still read the great texts in order to critique them. In the process, however, Bauerlein claims that abstinence followed, and with it a dramatic decline in societal wisdom.

Respect for traditional authority fell alongside "great books," as "student-centered learning" replaced the traditional teacher as "sage on the stage." Educators are now trained as "guides on the side," and the author finds this transformation of the student-teacher relationship misguided, for young people, more than anything else, need structure and must sometimes be compelled to read Shakespeare or employ the Pythagorean Theorem.

Bauerlein's work is certainly a compelling read and his assemblage of data impressive. He admittedly does a better job of delineating the problem than detailing a solution, for a complete retreat to past practices is at best impossible, and probably not desirable anyway. His call for us to challenge young people to appreciate the past and develop a love of learning that will last a lifetime is worthy of acceptance, but from my own personal experience I would add that it is wrong to treat our students as empty vessels, for they bring diverse life experiences and broad collective knowledge into the classroom.

I would also suggest that it is wrong to dismiss the instructional potential of technology. The dearth of immediate gains is arguably attributable to the rush to integrate technology into schools for the sake of doing so rather than any appreciable ties to knowledge acquisition and skill development. Technology, like other learning tools, is a means to an end and not an end itself.

Bauerlein's work reminds the reader of Neil Postman's earlier work, Amusing Ourselves to Death. Whereas Postman's culprit was the TV set, Bauerlein's is the computer. The latter is by no means an inferior contribution to this critical field of work. The Dumbest Generation also echoes Cass Sunstein's Republic.com, where the Web allows us to create our "Daily Me" and avoid any information outside of our own peer bubble. Like Sunstein, Bauerlein charts the correlation between cultural literacy and self-governance. Both are on life support, and Bauerlein begs us to change course before it is too late.

State of the News Media Circa 2010

2010-03-18T11:00:00.000-05:00

The contemporary economic model for journalism remains broken and the industry continues its desperate search for answers according to a report released by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism this week. Titled "State of the News Media 2010," the annual study documents advertising revenue declines across media platforms. Only cable news dodged the double-whammy of the Great Recession and an antiquated business model.

Newspapers continue to headline the hardest hit, and the web has failed to emerge as the panacea. A full 90% of newspaper revenues remain tied to their print versions, and online advertising actually fell. The study suggests that only 21% of online readers actually click on adjacent ads, yet 62% of news consumers access the Internet for at least a portion of their news. Online newspaper readership grew by 14% in 2009.

The report references Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute, who estimates that newspapers have lost $1.6 billion in reporting and editing capacity since 2000, down 30%. Even as the economy stabilizes and shows signs of recovery, he expects continued cuts in 2010.

Print circulation continues its free fall, down another 10.6% in 2009. Daily circulation has dropped 25.6% in the last decade. Only the Wall Street Journal advanced in the last year, passing USA Today as America's largest daily newspaper.

Contrary to popular wisdom, however, newspapers are not going extinct. Closures and printing cutbacks have mostly centered on two-newspaper towns, and newspaper stocks have stabilized.

New journalistic models have proliferated in this vacuum. Jan Schaffer of J-Lab estimates that $141 million of nonprofit money has poured into commercial, nonprofit, public, and university-led news ventures, yet this accounts for a mere 10% of what has been lost over the last decade.

News consumers navigate an increasingly fragmented media environment. A little more than a third (35%) identify a favorite news destination and a mere 19% would continue to visit a news site that constructed a "pay wall." Yet 80% of web news traffic targets a mere 7% of sites, 67% of them "old media" outlets. 13% offer news aggregation, and only 14% produce original online-only content through reporting, not mere commentary.

The news organizations themselves are increasingly becoming niche operations, with more focus and necessarily narrower ambition. News, in a sense, has become "unbundled," as we no longer rely upon a single source.

New media outlets offer significant promise, but still depend upon their older peers for original content. 80% of blogs link to "U.S. legacy media." "Pro-am" partnerships like those explored by the New York Times may illuminate the path ahead.

As mentioned earlier, the only growing segment of the media is cable news, and their fortunes are tied to a retreat toward partisanship and an elevation of edge and opinion in place of objective journalism.

Network news is not on life support, either. The report contends that erosion continues, yet the 22.3 million Americans who tune into network news broadcasts each evening eclipse the cable news audience times five. However, network newsrooms have not been spared from industrywide cuts.

Local news outlets are experiencing accelerating audience declines beyond that of their networks, as have the network's morning news programs, long a source of strength.

Magazines have been perhaps hardest hit. Their very place in the 24-hour news cycle remains in question. Newsweek's focus on opinion-centered journalism is indicative of an industry in search of a sustainable path forward.

In sum, the 2010 State of the News Media survey suggests a continuation of ongoing trends for coming year. Doomsday predictions of extinction are probably overblown, individual casualties aside, and promising alternatives lie in the wake. However, a fundamental disjuncture remains: information wants to be free, and journalists need to eat. The path forward in 2010 and beyond depends upon resolving this perplexing revenue disparity for the good of democracy.

First Amendment A Lonely Star in Texas

2010-03-12T10:07:00.007-06:00

Yesterday, the First Amendment lost an opportunity for a preferred place in Texas state education standards. A proposal by Mavis Knight, a Democratic member of the State Board of Education, would have required that students study the reasons the Founders "protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over others."

It speaks specifically to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and admittedly carries ideological baggage. While liberals hide behind a "wall" of separation between church and state, conservatives suggest that government endorsement of religion passes constitutional muster so long as it is not directed toward any one denomination. In short, one would sanitize the public square and the other would decorate it with religious ornaments. As usual, reality probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Public schools have long served as prime battlegrounds in our nation's culture wars. They serve an incredibly heterogeneous student population and are too often tasked with resolving an infinite number of societal failings. It should come as no surprise then that the Texas Board of Education is grappling with policies that encapsulate our remarkably polarized political system. The stakes are high given that the Lone Star State is surpassed only by California in terms of population, textbook publishers cater their offerings to these state standards, leaving schools in smaller states with their imprints.

While Knight's First Amendment foray failed, her conservative counterparts successfully pushed through standards addressing the impact of taxes and regulations on private enterprise and the importance of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Religion also received a nod in that US History students are required to explain the "laws of nature and laws of God."

The ideological bent of each of these requirements, Knight's included, raises eyebrows over objectivity concerns, but a qualified educator can brush these aside. The larger point is that there is value in formal instruction of civics, government, US History, and law as demonstrated in the Illinois Civic Blueprint. Moreover, discussion of current and controversial issues of public concern takes center stage in every engaging social studies classroom.

Knight's First Amendment-centered proposal is also supported by researchers Kenneth Dautrich, David Yalof, and Mark Hugo Lopez in their 2008 book titled The Future of the First Amendment. According to their ongoing study, "...Those high school students who take classes with First Amendment or media and society are more likely to support the exercise of free expression rights." They find that student support for First Amendment rights is surprisingly lower than that of their teachers and administrators, but that their sentiments for the five freedoms grow stronger in application, such as music censorship, prior review of student newspapers, and perhaps a debate over religion's place in the curriculum.

The Texas State Board of Education would therefore be wise to put politics aside and stand behind teaching the First Amendment. It knows no ideology or party and has served us all quite well since its adoption in 1791. Its freedoms are foundational and should therefore form the bedrock of a solid social studies education.
Slide 5

No Apology

2010-03-03T13:40:00.006-06:00

One could argue that Governor Mitt Romney's reprisal to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 rose from the ashes of his failed 2008 bid and the loss of his chief rival Senator John McCain to current president Barack Obama that November. In the interim, Romney has raised money prolifically for other Republican candidates, served as the voice of the party in media interviews, and offered terse criticism of the man who occupies the office he still covets. His new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, sets the stage for a second run, offering dense policy analysis in the 309-page volume.

In an era where politically-polarizing tomes pepper book stores and cater to partisans on both extremes, allowing them to feed their heads in self-perpetuating echo chambers, No Apology is a departure of sorts. While the title is crafted as a direct refutation of President Obama's perceived apologies for what Romney considers "American exceptionalism," the former Massachusetts Governor offers more than caricatures of his opponents, and his well-articulated national agenda checks the appropriate conservative boxes, yet offers a level of detail that transcends a political culture premised on talking points.

Whereas President Obama devoted a scant amount of verbiage to foreign policy in his recent State of the Union Address, No Apology leads with a call for a return to muscular national defense. Romney also delves into a number of domestic policy domains, defending the near-universal health care system he helped pass in Massachusetts, while at the same time rejecting comparisons to the Democratic bills currently circulating in Congress. His prescriptions move beyond the obstructionism of his fellow party members in Washington, but he does embrace their calls for tort reform and interstate competition among insurance companies.

Romney also writes about education policy and laments the relative decline in America's competitiveness, embracing standardized testing, merit pay, mechanisms to remove incompetent educators, charter schools, school choice (though he questions its political viability), and distance learning. He reserves terse words for teacher unions, bodies he considers detrimental to requisite educational reforms.

His energy policy relies on alternate energy sources including nuclear power, natural gas, clean coal, even hydrogen. He holds solar and wind power as promising complimentary energy sources, but doubts that either represent a panacea. In an early bid for support in the Iowa Caucuses, he touts his support for ethanol subsidies and production. Romney is highly critical of the cap and trade legislation passed by the House last year, and also dismisses the wisdom of a more direct carbon tax. However, he does tout the potential of a carbon tax coupled with reciprocal tax offsets in sales or payroll taxes.

No Apology is a serious work that departs from standard campaign biographies. Indeed, its closest parallel is arguably Obama's Audacity of Hope. Romney intersperses brief biographical footnotes throughout, but its policy-orientation reigns. While he shares anecdotes from his failed 2008 presidential run, he avoids ex post facto analysis, and also strays from foreshadowing a future run for the nation's highest office. This means there is no dissection of how his Mormon faith proved an obstacle among conservative Christian voters, or his repositioning on major social issues that led many to conclude that he was a "flip-flopper" of convenience. He does make several references to his faith, and reaffirms his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

The irony is that Romney's 2008 campaign largely trumpeted social and military issues, peripheral to his core competency as an economic turn-around agent. In No Apology, he takes the opportunity to press the reset button, recasts himself as a more centrist, pragmatic technocrat, and lays the groundwork for a repeat presidential run during the most devastating economic times since the Great Depression.

Governor Romney will make his only Chicago appearance on Wednesday March 24, 2010, at the Chase Auditorium (10 S Dearborn) in Chicago at 6pm in an event sponsored by the McCormick Freedom Project, in partnership with Chicago Young Republicans, the Illinois Policy Institute and WLS 890 AM Radio. Join us for an insightful discussion about our First Amendment freedoms, a re-emerging conservative movement, and Governor Romney’s solutions for rebuilding industries, producing jobs, improving education, and restoring the military. General admission tickets are on sale here for $25. The price includes a signed copy of No Apology.

"Who is a legitimate journalist?"

2010-02-25T09:39:00.002-06:00

The National Enquirer, derided by most journalists as a tabloid rag, exposed John Edwards’ infidelity and love-child long before the former senator and vice-presidential candidate acknowledged his affair and many months before other news media grabbed hold of the story.
Eager to be recognized for its journalistic chops on that scoop and for work uncovering other scandals, the Enquirer campaigned last month for consideration in this year’s Pulitzer Prize competition.
After some hemming and hawing by Pulitzer officials on technicalities, Huffington Post blogger Emily Miller reported last week that the Pulitzer Prize Board has quietly agreed to accept the Enquirer’s submission for the Edwards story.
Another milestone reached in changing the definition of what we call journalism.
Several months back, the issue came up in another context: A U.S. Army general talked about embedding reporters with military units in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decision over who gets priority in going to the front line, he said, isn’t always so simple.
“Who’s a legitimate journalist?” the general asked with a fraction of frustration.
He was referring the many freelancers and bloggers, some of whom paid their own way to the war zones, and been accredited to cover the American military effort.
The decision isn’t so hard if journalists are from well-established institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, from NBC and Fox News, or from CNN or another cable news outlet. But what if the choice on whom to embed is between an inexperienced reporter from a small, recognized newspaper versus a combat-experienced blogger who contributes to a half-dozen websites, or just to his or her own blog?
Does the institution or the work confer legitimacy? How do we define journalism?
The question also goes beyond political or military reporting and involves the Congress, the U.S. court system and even how journalists view themselves.
First Amendment protections apply, of course, to every American. But are bloggers, freelancers, students and others who call themselves journalists protected from revealing sources under “shield laws” adopted in more than 30 states?
A federal shield law offering that protection has been stalled in Congress for years. Last spring, the House approved a broad definition covering anyone who makes a portion of their living as a journalist. The Senate version, however, is much more restrictive, identifying and limiting those considered “legitimate” journalists to those who are salaried employees or independent contractors for an established outlet.
The Obama administration has been working with Senate leaders on a compromise formula to find common ground between the House and Senate versions, but it has remained on the back burner since last fall.
It seems self-evident that many freelancers and bloggers adhere to all the traditional values of journalism, but that professionalism is not evident to all.
For years, journalists from traditional print and broadcast institutions (aka mainstream media) questioned whether to consider bloggers as colleagues. An article for the Society for Professional Journalists in as late as 2006 framed it this way: “The controversy with Webloggers lies with accountability, accurate reporting and fair access to information. Some in the mainstream media question the truthfulness of blogging reports, while the bloggers themselves maintain they are an unheard, ubiquitous voice that filters missed opportunities by bigger media outlets.”
Occasions to rethink journalism and legitimacy follow one after another. Last weekend the Polk Award, one of journalism’s most cherished honors, was given for the anonymous video of the death of Neda Aghan-Soltan, who died during last year’s protests in Iran.
The idea of honoring the valor of a person in a crowd for using a cellphone camera to record an iconic news photo is unprecedented in the 61-year history of the awards, along with the category of “videography”. The image of the dying protestor was sent to at least two news organizations and quickly went viral on the Internet.
As more news organizations accept such “user-created content” in their reports, should so-called citizen journalists have the same access to press conferences, courtrooms and other meetings with elected officials?
Do they represent the public? Certainly many do and in an era of severe cutbacks in traditional media outlets, the public will need more and more information from fellow citizens operating as watchdogs of government and business.
But what if the citizen journalists represent a personal or perhaps hidden interest?
That question came up when a contributor to a suburban Chicago newspaper edition wrote an article praising the election campaign of a local candidate. The piece was printed, but days later the paper discovered the writer was also the candidate’s campaign manager. The paper created a policy insisting that citizen journalists must voluntarily declare if they have or might have a vested interest in the topic they are writing about.
Whether working for a recognized institution or striking out on their own to disseminate news and information, pairing the word legitimate with journalist has been a perplexing one. Back in 1996, Vigdor Schreibman was the first Internet-based journalist to apply for, and be denied, credentials to the Congressional press galleries. In 1995, Garrett Graff became the first full-time blogger to get White House press credentials. In both cases, the press associations were involved in the administration’s decision.
Merely writing for a newspaper, or appearing on television or radio does not mean the person is a journalist. Yet people commonly use the label freely, suggesting that anyone who reports or repeats some bit of news may consider himself or herself a journalist.
There is not, after all, any test to take, no licensing exam (at least not in this country) to pass, no government council (as there is in Britain and Australia) or private body to determine whether the person is reporting responsibly. There was consternation, for instance, when the FCC decided to describe Howard Stern as a journalist. Whatever their sympathies, I suspect that most reporters and editors oppose a government authority deciding who is or is not a journalist.
Writers and photographers without accreditation from any institution may be among the best journalists by their desire to discover and disseminate the truth. After working for the networks for several years, Kevin Sites took his own video camera to document wars around the world. After becoming a one-man operation for both words and images, Sites found a home for his work called the “Hot Zone” on Yahoo.com and picked up numerous journalism awards along the way.
Yes, there are standards and ethical practices that journalists learn either on the job or at school. There are many journalism and/or communication schools in the nation’s public and private universities and enrollment there, despite the decline the newspaper industry, is blooming. (Full disclosure here, I am also a lecturer at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.)
The best guarantee of good journalism is not only the writing but the editing or vetting of a story before it is published or aired. Traditionally, or at least the tradition of the last 100 or so years, has been verifying or testing the facts and events. That came to the news industry in search of some credibility after the age of “Yellow Journalism,” when media barons used their newspapers to support one political cause or another.
Despite more recent political howling about bias on one side or another, the practice of journalism during much of the Twentieth Century was to seek independent verification of events and test observations with multiple sources.
That is the kind of work done not just in the news pages but even among opinion writers such as Thomas Friedman in The Times who are journalists employed to use their own reporting ability and experience to provide informed opinion.
Of course, there are also columnists whose opinion is not based on journalism principles but on political sympathy. Appearing on the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page, for instance, former adviser to President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, writes his heavily politicized commentary. I would no more call him a journalist than I would use that word to describe Garrison Keillor, the leftist humorist and usual Democratic supporter, who’s syndicated column appears regularly in the Chicago Tribune.
Brian Williams of NBC maintains a traditional position within the mainstream media, but Lou Dobbs, formerly of CNN, was a journalist who gradually turned into an advocate for restrictive immigration policy and possibly will become a political candidate. He is a journalist no longer.
Two stalwarts of the print media co-authored a book back in 2001 titled “The Elements of Journalism,” echoing the name of the classic book on good writing “The Elements of Style”. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel aimed at setting out some pretty basic principles of journalism.
The pair stayed away from repeating words such as “fairness” and “balance,” along with the other overused journalistic words, “objective” and “neutral.”
Instead, Kovach and Rosentstiel came up with these nine principles:
1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must keep the news interesting and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
A discussion of what each of those principles entails would be worth having in every journalist’s newsroom and classroom. Just take the “discipline of verification” and see that verifying or checking it out is the basis for fair reporting.
Applying those principles to the general’s question of “Who is a legitimate journalist,” may be a better, if not an easier, method of coming up with an answer. Good journalists don’t need an institution to define them. The best reporting is based more on a reputation of honesty and the continuing work of the individual for truth-telling.

Game Change

2010-02-22T09:00:00.018-06:00

Even the most tried and true political junkie would have a hard time arguing that the 2008 presidential election demanded one more post mortem analysis. Yet journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin deliver just this in their recently released 436-page juicy collection of largely rehashed tidbits of the soap opera that yielded the historic victory of Barack Obama. They elevate Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin as the co-stars of this made for TV event, but one could argue that the media itself should garner nominations for their role as supporting actors.

A gripping page-turner even if the story lines are all too familiar, Game Change (2010, Harper Collins) is also all that is wrong with contemporary journalistic coverage of politics. True, we learned of candidate Obama's mettle and John McCain's meltdown in the midst of financial crisis, but we also delved deep into the marriages of the Obamas, McCains, and yes, the Clintons once more. We sifted through the savory details of John Edwards' own "bimbo eruption," along with his deranged vision to serve first as Obama's VP, and later his Attorney General. Altogether, Game Change elevates the horse race aspect of politics to its pinnacle, ignoring candidate resumes and policy positions for their gravitas on the trail.

The first 267 pages are devoted to the two horse photo finish between Democratic contenders Obama and Clinton . The current president comes off as cool under pressure, while Clinton seemingly fell victim to a poorly managed campaign and a self-destructive husband whose late game antics bordered on race-baiting. So much for Bill Clinton's reputation as the "first black president." Hillary was both unable and unwilling to reign her husband in, but she is painted as a sympathetic figure who would have served capably as chief executive.

The Republican primary, remarkable in its own right, garners a mere 50 pages. Perhaps the most interesting anecdotes relate to McCain's decision to bet the entire race on his support for the Iraq surge and New Hampshire town halls. Also interesting was the Republican field's mutual dislike for Governor Mitt Romney, the early favorite for the 2012 nomination. An awkward pre-debate bathroom scene paints the picture of a candidate who couldn't even connect with his party rivals.

Perhaps most illuminating is the authors' portraits of the vice presidential selection process by both candidates. For Obama, after a meticulous screening, it came down to Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, and the ultimate selection, Delaware Senator Joe Biden. The verbose statesman agreed to stick to the script as a condition of joining the ticket, and a late race slip aside, he mostly accomplished what many considered the impossible.

McCain, on the other hand, pursued a by the seat of his pants strategy typical of his personality. He favored crossing the aisle and selecting Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman as his wingman in a double-down national security team. This may have even included a one-term promise to make certain that control of the presidency wouldn't change parties in the case of his death in office. Concerns about further alienating the conservative base led his selection team away from the losing 2000 VP candidate. The safe option was Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (a prospective 2012 candidate in his own right), but the unknown son of a truck driver from a blue state didn't represent the "game change" McCain sought, and probably needed to pull off the upset.

He then shocked the world by elevating first term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the VP perch. She was a late entry who impressed McCain's selection team with her steely nerves, but damaging details surfaced almost immediately as the press "discovered" the 49th state, Troopergate, and Bristol Palin's pregnancy. She delivered a stunning speech at the Republican convention, but it was all downhill from there, punctuated by her successive slayings in national interviews by Charlie Gibson, and especially, Katie Couric.

It's an understatement to say that Palin's portrayal in the media throughout the campaign and in the 15 months since Election Day has been disastrous, but Game Change delivers yet another devastating blow. She was clearly in over her head, surrounded by stacks of notecards containing factoids that should have been old hat to any candidate aspiring to stand a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Her debate preparations for her single standoff were startling in their elementary nature. She refused to even eat, and some in the campaign feared that she might have to at minimum cancel, or even withdraw from the race entirely.

Only a late flight to McCain's Sedona ranch and a reunion with her family boosted her spirits. Palin somehow survived her exchange with the seasoned Biden as both played gently and spared the race of yet another "game change." Her endurance aside, even Palin's most devoted fans would have a hard time believing that she remains presidential timber, at least at this juncture, after encountering this troubling account.

The authors selected an apt title for this best-selling volume, but it probably should be reworded in the plural. The thesis isn't premised on a single game change, but several. What they put forth is a campaign narrative constructed by the media. Whenever this script is altered, a "game change" supposedly surfaces.

Obama's Iowa win made him the inevitable candidate until Clinton came back in New Hampshire five days later. The former Illinois Senator had the nomination wrapped up in February after a string of post-Super Tuesday wins, yet Clinton found traction once more with wins in Ohio and Texas. Obama's "race speech" stood as a defining moment until Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary. Obama sealed the deal with a victory in the North Carolina primary and a narrow defeat in Indiana on the same day, but Clinton won the West Virginia primary by a stunning 40 points. To quote Yogi Berra, this race wasn't over until it was over, no matter how many times the talking heads told us so. And this was just one side of the coin.

While I confess that Game Change was a thrilling read for this incorrigible junkie, it also speaks to a media culture that revels in its own self-importance and plays a disproportionate role in political outcomes. The "media primary" is alive and well as the party has largely stepped aside and left it to the pundits to vet would be office-seekers over the course of a protracted campaign. Its positioning in the general election was equally pivotal, and probably a sign of things to come in 2012 and beyond.

Heilemann and Halperin contend that Game Change coalesced on the dual assumptions that we witnessed "as riveting and historic a spectacle as modern politics has ever produced," and that the story behind these headlines was not told. No disputing the former contention, but the latter is highly debatable. We knew enough about Michelle and Barack, Hillary and Bill, John and Cindy, and Sarah and Todd to consider them close acquaintances. Game Change arguably elevates them to family, and allows two accomplished journalists to put their own presidential experiences to bed.

Nowadays, all of the jokes in a romantic comedy are seemingly packed in the trailer. We flock into the movie theater, laugh a couple of times, but leave disappointed. Game Change represents a close parallel. Media coverage close to its release informed us of Harry Reid's racially-tinged missteps, John Edwards' mistress, and Bill Clinton's continued philandering. These revelations aside, Game Change largely sticks to a familiar script. It offers a rich narrative of memories ingrained somewhere in the back of our brains. For the politically obsessed among us, it allows us to finally lay the game-changing 2008 presidential election to rest.

State Secrets?

2010-02-17T16:24:00.006-06:00

I'm torn. Secret governments or open governments? It doesn't seem like it should be a tough choice. I'm forced to think about this because of yet another important story from the Chicago Tribune. Today the Tribune reported that many of Illinois' 59 senators participated in a private (no members of the public or press were allowed) "joint caucus" to hear presentations on budgeting and the economy from national experts (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/illinois-senate-meets-in-secret-today.html). Legislative leaders from both parties claimed this gathering, while rare, is perfectly legal. Presumably they were silent on whether it violated good governance principles. It seems to me that once again, our elected officials are demonstrating their contempt for those they govern by acting in secret. Whether it's private meetings by the party leaders to determine the marching orders which become law with little or no public debate or endless denials of Freedom of Information Requests, Illinois elected and appointed officials routinely act as if they are our masters rather than our public servants.

If I feel so strongly, why am I torn on this issue? Simply put, I'm fond of pointing out periodically that our founding fathers met in secret in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention. In fact, they went so far as to post guards and they closed windows (during a sweltering summer in a time before air conditioning) to enable that generation of leaders to speak frankly without worry that an eavesdropper or member of the press might embarrass them. This gathering yielded, arguably, one the greatest political documents ever written and the brilliant and dedicated men who wrote it recognized how politics might preempt their efforts and they took the bold, anti-democratic, step of debating in private. The results (save for the shameful compromise on slavery) were, in my mind, miraculous and a gift to mankind.

With that said, I think the Illinois legislative leaders erred. We live in a time of deep discontent and dissatisfaction with government officials at the same time (or perhaps because of the fact) that government has never before in America had as much control over each of our lives than it does now. Our government is established "of the people, by the people and for the people" and to leave people out of vital discussions on budget and economic issues when the state is in deep debt and near fiscal ruin, simply doesn't serve Illinois citizens. The founding fathers got away with meeting in secrecy but it's important to note that they weren't operating under a law which mandates that government meetings be open to the public. These laws serve the vital purpose of exposing elected and appointed officials to the illumination of transparency - they help build confidence in the system by exposing logic and illogic, altruism and personal gain. Ultimately, transparency requires them to articulate their beliefs, ask their questions and vote in a way that their masters - the public - have a chance to measure their decisions and capabilities. Had the founders had such a law, I've no doubt that they'd have followed it though I acknowledge it might have changed their work-product.

Of course, this isn't all theory. The practical impact of this is the precedent this sets for future legislative actions. What other secret meetings will be justified with the same rationale (a "joint caucus")? How far can they take it? It's important for each of us to decide for ourselves what we expect of our leaders and how we intend to hold them accountable.

I vote for no more state secrets. How about you?

Disconnect

2010-02-17T08:30:00.000-06:00

I have long admired the work of political scientist Morris Fiorina, for he manages to bridge the divide between academia and practical politics better than anyone else in the field. His three-decade old retrospective voting model remains a paramount explanation for individual voting behavior at a macro level. More recently, Fiorina confronted what he considers a false Red State-Blue State paradigm in Culture War?, where he disproves that the 2004 presidential election was decided on "gays, God, and guns." Disconnect (Oklahoma U. Press, 2009, 196pp) is the latest installment of a research project contending that political polarization is elite-driven and not reflected in the general electorate.

His basic argument suggests that we correlate voters' decisions to back liberal and conservative candidates with ideological alignment, yet most of us don't hold extreme positions on any number of issues, abortion most prominent among them. Moreover, our worldviews lack the clarity of the political class, and we fail to line up uniformly behind ideologically coherent party platforms. Thus the "disconnect" between the wider electorate and the ruling political class.

Fiorina attributes the current fiercely polarized political environment to a plethora of factors. While the regional sorting by party that encompassed Republican replacement of conservative Democrats in the South, and Democratic takeovers of seats formerly held by moderate and liberal Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest, explains about one-third of contemporary polarization, additional and less heralded factors account for the balance.

Robert Putnam famously documents the decline of civic organizations in Bowling Alone, and Fiorina argues that these heterogeneous and inclusive organizations were replaced by more homogeneous and exclusive single-interest groups. Abortion, environmental, and religious groups are among the most prominent examples. Rather than stimulating civic engagement and integrating their members into politics, these emerging groups fan the flames of partisan animosity and for the most part engage their members in mere check-writing causes to further their exploits.

Fiorina also claims that the stakes of winning and losing have increased in today's political environment, further stoking partisan animosity. The irony is that the field of political science, the author included, long called for "responsible party government" where the two major parties offered distinctive platforms and upon victory implemented their entire agenda. Then, during the next election cycle, voters would be the ultimate judges of their success or lack thereof. Their writing accompanied the 1960's and 1970's when the two parties were relatively heterogeneous ideologically and their overall power in relative decline.

The scene changed during the Reagan years and perhaps most prominently in 1994 when Republicans recaptured Congress for the first time in a generation, effectively nationalizing an election under the "Contract with America." Parties and partisanship returned in full force, alternating between unified party control and gridlock. In retrospect, Fiorina prefers the earlier era he once lamented, contending that it was at least friendlier and perhaps not less productive.

Most disappointing is Fiorina's failure to illuminate means of breaking this partisan stalemate. Legislative redistricting, the merits of it withstanding, is by no means the panacea that many of its proponents lay claim. The same holds true for campaign finance reform. Fiorina even allows that it may perpetuate the problem given its protection of ideological incumbents. Party primaries, though the most often attract an unrepresentative sample of the electorate, yield little discernible difference in this respect when their open and closed varieties are placed side-by-side for the sake of comparison.

Fiorina does offer the prospect that the hot issues of the day may soon recede into the rearview mirror of history. Among them are the lingering cultural clashes of the 1960's, the current anti-immigrant fervor, and the changing nature of what formerly constituted the "religious right." He also makes way for a transformational figure, and sincerely hopes that President Obama is that man. Early returns predict quite the opposite, as he may prove every bit the "divider" of his predecessor.

Life Support for Lieutenant Governor

2010-02-10T14:50:00.004-06:00

In the last quarter-century, 24 lieutenant governors have been promoted to chief executives of their respective states, 14 on account of the career advancements of their predecessors (see Clinton, Bill, and Bush, George W.), 5 due to scandal-imposed resignations (see Blagojevich, Rod), and the other 5 death-related. Since statehood, 7 Illinois Lieutenant Governors, Pat Quinn included, were elevated for various reasons.

The modern office is a product of the revised 1970 state constitution when the Lieutenant Governor position was forever tied to the candidacy of the gubernatorial candidate atop the ticket, avoiding split ticket scenarios like the one in 1968 that paired Republican Governor Richard Ogilvie with a Democratic Lieutenant, the iconic Paul Simon. From this point forward, the two candidates ran as a team, though they (mostly) ran independent of one another in the party primary that set the ticket. Moreover, they forever divorced the Lieutenant Governor from his or her perch as President of the State Senate, removing the last vestiges of formal authority tied to the office. He lays the crux of the current dilemma facing both parties in Illinois.

It is important to acknowledge that these problems are not unique to Illinois. Wisconsin State Senator Alan Lasee described the duties of Lieutenant Governor as “…sitting around, waiting for the current officeholder to pass on or leave town.” Our federal system enables great variability across states, some allowing split tickets, others enabling gubernatorial candidates to select their own running mates, and a few doing away with the position altogether.

The powers associated with the seat span from Texas’ elevation of the second-in-command to the co-equal of the chief executive, while others are left to languish in a spiral of pet projects and lost causes. While the vice presidency has risen in importance with the succession of accomplished and empowered number twos (Gore, Cheney, now Biden), most of their state counterparts occupy an office equivalent to what former Vice President John Nance Garner once said equated in worth to little more than a “bucket of warm spit.” Some suggest that history substituted “spit” for an even more unsavory word.

The diminished profile of the Lieutenant Governor position in Illinois established, it should then come as little surprise that the race for the respective nominations of both parties drew little attention from the news media and voters alike until the fruits of our labors (of lack thereof) led to the elevation of two political neophytes, one with more than his share of personal baggage. The unsavory past of former Democratic nominee Scott Lee Cohen has been well-profiled elsewhere, eclipsing the victory of Republican nominee Jason Plummer, a 27-year old lumber company executive employed by his family’s firm. Both candidates spent lavishly and thus bested arguably more qualified candidates in crowded fields.

Democratic State Representative Art Turner was endorsed by both major Chicago newspapers, while the Tribune picked Republican State Senator Matt Murphy, and the Sun-Times downstate Mayor Brad Cole. Murphy was Andy McKenna’s running mate and was just eclipsed by Plummer at the finish line, while Turner probably split votes with rival State Senator Ricky Herndon, allowing Cohen to vault ahead by flaunting his credentials as a “small businessman” and job fair host.

The gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and county board races gulped their share of print headlines and broadcast features, a reflection of their political power and statewide prominence. The news media industry in a large metropolitan region like Chicagoland simply lacks the resources to cover downballot races, most often because of the multitude of districts that cut across their readership and broadcast reach. The Lieutenant Governor’s office, while claiming statewide scope, remains out of the limelight unless the Governor is indicted, imprisoned, or falls ill.

It took only a day before Cohen’s triumph attracted its own share of the headlines and column inches. When it became clear that Governor Pat Quinn would be forced to run alongside an accused domestic-abusing, prostitute-attracting, steroid-using deadbeat dad, Cohen’s exit from the race was all but inevitable. Speculation over and the scramble for his eventual replacement is the story this week, but the larger issue of the position’s utility lingers in the snow-filled February air.

State Representative Lou Lang has proposed that gubernatorial candidates hereafter select their own running mates just as President Obama picked Vice President Biden and Senator John McCain selected former Governor Sarah Palin. State Representative Bill Mitchell takes reform one step further and kills the position altogether. His constitutional amendment would terminate the office by 2011, saving the state an estimated $2.5 million annually.

Before panic sets in amongst the electorate, five states already make do without the office (Oregon, Arizona, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Maine), and others are contemplating similar death knells, including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who would make the Secretary in State his next-in-line successor. I should also note that Illinois has “survived” without a Number Two since last February.

In sum, the latest political crisis in Illinois is once more one of our own making. We can either A, reform the selection process through which we nominate lieutenant governors and/ or enhance the power of the position, or B, eliminate the office altogether. Otherwise, option C will continue to haunt us. Below the radar candidates will rise, their skeletons hidden in the closet until it is too late, battling for a meaningless office that rises to importance only because of its association with the candidacy of an elevated stripe that has a notorious track record for sending a series of placeholders to prison. Scott Lee Cohen and Jason Plummer thus stand as natural outgrowths of a disjointed and erroneously prioritized process.

Primary Postmortem

2010-02-04T11:38:00.010-06:00

It’s perhaps fitting that the 2010 Illinois primary was held on Groundhog’s Day given that the outcome in both parties’ gubernatorial races remained uncertain through this morning with the prospect of mutual “do-overs.” Acknowledging that neither the Democratic nor Republican Party produced clear winners, and that a number of absentee and provisional ballots have yet to be counted, not the mention the prospect of a “discovery” recount, the balance of this piece will work with the assumption that incumbent Governor Pat Quinn will represent the Democrats this fall against Republican State Senator Bill Brady.

Quinn is currently a little more than 8,000 votes ahead of Comptroller Dan Hynes, who conceded and pledged his support to the incumbent this morning. The incumbent emerges scarred from a brutal two-way brawl marred by negative advertising that arguably had the effect of turning potential voters off entirely. Two weeks ago, Quinn staggered as Hynes brought Harold Washington back from the dead to question his executive competence, but Quinn counterpunched by accusing Dan Hynes of malfeasance in the Burr Oaks Cemetery scandal. The comptroller may have employed with the uppercut one week too soon as the governor appeared to regain his swagger in the final hours of the campaign, enough to cling to power for at least another nine months, as he struck the continual chord of “jobs” alongside a continued barrage of jabs at his opponent.

However, it goes without saying that Quinn is a wounded incumbent in a year where they are ripe for the picking from coast to coast. He barely eked out a majority over an opponent who ran a relatively lethargic campaign, as Democratic primary voters sent a message that Quinn’s first year in office was wobbly at best. He has until November to further polish his credentials and restore the luster he carried into an office his two predecessors forever tarnished.

Quinn’s strongest trump card may be the fact that his fall opponent is still to be determined. Brady leads fellow State Senator Kirk Dillard by a mere 400 votes, and a recount is probable. This could take weeks or even months, shattering Republican unity and undermining their best shot at the Governor’s Mansion in more than a decade.

The six Republican candidates split the vote almost proportionately, with five of them exceeding 14% and Brady leading the pack at 20.3%, a tenth of a percent ahead of Dillard. Brady was the only downstate candidate and benefited from the fact that he owned the Land of Lincoln south of I-80, the Springfield area excepted. Three DuPage County candidates (Dillard, Jim Ryan, and Adam Andrzejewski) and two Chicagoans (Andy McKenna and Dan Proft) fought fiercely on regional turf and diluted one another’s support.

The Republican race was characterized by funding shortfalls across the board with the exception of former state party chairman Andy McKenna. A late entrant to the race, he aired clever ads early on, playing off of Rod Blagojevich’s ridiculous pompadour as symbolic of Springfield corruption, to raise his statewide profile. With name recognition came a reciprocal rise in the polls, and McKenna then turned on his top challengers, first relegating Ryan to and out-of-the-money fourth place finish and then pivoting to Dillard late in the race when internal polls predicted a late charge.

While McKenna secured only a costly third place show for himself, he sent Ryan into a second political retirement and likely forced Dillard to fight for victory in the courtroom. Meanwhile, Brady built a strong southern turnout operation and vaulted himself unscathed into an apparent below-the-radar, come-from-behind victory, leaving Chicago area residents to ask yesterday in unison, “Who is this guy?”

I’ll recuse myself from making a premature November prediction and conclude by lamenting the low voter turnout witnessed statewide on Tuesday. Sure, the early primary date and two inches of snow share partial blame, as the state power brokers recognized the incumbency advantages of mid-winter polling first established to propel the favorite son presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. Also in play is the record voter turnout in the fall 2008 election, inflating voter registration lists and making Tuesday’s showing appear proportionately small.

I would suggest that the largest factor was a slate of candidates, particularly at the top of the ticket, who failed to inspire and whose nominees have much to prove in the nine-month slog to the general election that lies ahead of this February fog. Haven’t we witnessed this before?

Hail Mary Mudslinging

2010-01-27T10:59:00.006-06:00

Last Monday, I spent Martin Luther King Day at the DuSable Museum of African-American History on Chicago’s South Side. While perusing the exhibits, I came across a lifelike, robotic Harold Washington seated in an office modeled after his city hall digs while he served as Mayor of Chicago from 1983-1987. In separate segments he speaks about the racially divisive campaign that ultimately elevated him into office, his tumultuous tenure as mayor during the so-called “Council Wars” period, and most strangely, his untimely death.

It was in this light that I viewed the latest attack ad to surface in the brutal battle for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Illinois. Pat Quinn, the incumbent, has racked up endorsements from prominent African-American elected officials in recent weeks, with Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. headlining the list. Quinn also accused his opponent, Comptroller Dan Hynes, of standing in the way of Barack Obama’s campaign for U.S. Senator in 2004 when he ran in a competitive primary where the eventual president prevailed.

Hynes fired back in a big way with an ad that resurrected Mayor Washington from his grave, a reprisal in many ways similar to my experience at DuSable. The ad spliced clips from a 1987 Washington interview where he reflected upon the recent firing of then city revenue director Pat Quinn. He labeled Quinn as “totally and completely undisciplined” and who’s actions “almost created shambles in that department.” Washington goes on to say that Quinn’s appointment was “perhaps (his) greatest mistake in government.”

Harsh words about Quinn, and a risky ploy by his opponent Hynes. Does the ad represent a “game change” in this late hour of the campaign? Only time will tell, with the primary a mere six days away and the latest polls showing Hynes closing in on Quinn and within the margins of error. The larger issue that I would like to address in the balance of this post is the greater context of negative advertising, and specifically those ads that invoke race as a wedge between candidates and votes. In the process, I will point to Hynes’ motivating factors in generating this controversial and decisively negative ad.

Campaign conduct, and specifically televised advertising, was identified as one of five key factors that contribute to a civically disengaged populace in a 2008 McCormick Foundation report titled Civic Engagement in our Democracy. Modern day political advertising campaigns are increasingly dominated by negative and comparative ads, the latter focusing on opponents’ records, advocacy, and character, and difficult to distinguish from the former. Emotive images, voiceovers, and music tend to dominate these productions, and the opposition feels compelled to run equally “emotive” and “demagogic” responses, as the unanswered negative ad is often accepted as truth.

In the end, the impulse to vote is dampened, especially among weak partisans. While campaign consultants are paid hefty incomes to hoist their candidates to victory, all of the electorate loses as our perception of politics is permanently tainted.

Negative advertising with a racial component only heightens these tensions, but it is certainly not without precedent. The infamous Willie Horton ad generated by supporters of Republican President George H. Bush in 1988 against his opponent, Democratic Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, dealt a damaging blow by depicting the prison furlough of a black inmate who went on a crime spree, capitalizing on racial fears associated with rampant crime.

A lesser known 1990 ad in the reelection campaign of Republican Senator Jesse Helms in North Carolina explicitly invoked race. Dubbed the “white hands” ad, it tells the story of a white job candidate who was the “victim” of affirmative action policies supported by the Democratic nominee, former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gannt, an African-American himself, and opposed by his white opponent, Helms.

Both Bush and Helms would go on to victory, and these ads are credited with paving their paths. Hynes is playing with similar fire, but rather than invoke race as a wedge issue to polarize the electorate along racial lines, he is seeking to dislodge a key demographic of the Democratic electorate, African-American voters, from supporting Quinn and perhaps moving his way in the late stages of the campaign. Hynes capitalizes on the martyr status of Harold Washington in Chicago’s black community to undermine the credentials of Quinn.

Hynes’ fourth quarter Hail Mary Pass will either be caught miraculously in the corner of the end zone for a last second victory, or veer off course and be intercepted by Quinn. In all likelihood, the negative campaigning practiced by both camps will further dilute an already anticipated scant turnout next Tuesday, as voters choose between “bad,” “ugly,” or “none of the above.” The victor will emerge bruised and battered for the nine month general election campaign to follow and be considered by most as the “lesser of two evils.”

Note: The McCormick Freedom Project is a nonpartisan organization that engages in educational activity and does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.

What the Latest Boston Tea Party Means for the Land of Lincoln

2010-01-20T13:07:00.004-06:00

One year after President Barack Obama took the oath of office and pundits declared the beginning of Democratic ascendancy, the national political landscape has been dramatically transformed. Republican State Senator Scott Brown’s stunning victory over Attorney General Martha Coakley yesterday in the Massachusetts special election to replace the deceased liberal lion, Senator Edward Kennedy, represents a “shot heard around the world,” or at least the nation, as Obama and his Democratic Party face midterm grades this November.

Illinois has party primaries of its own looming in less than two weeks, a verdict that sets the stage for a marathon that ends in November with statewide elections that will produce a new Governor and U.S. Senator, not to mention a host of freshman constitutional officers, state legislators, and local government officials. To what extent does Brown’s victory last evening foreshadow the short-term future of Illinois politics? Critical variables to consider include the passage of time, the responses of both parties, the extent to which statewide races are nationalized, and the quality of individual candidates’ campaigns.

I would like to begin with the caveat that nine months is an eternity in politics. One need look no further than my opening line for words of caution. Should the economy continue its recovery, particularly through rising employment figures, President Obama and his Democratic Party will fare far better than recent electoral debacles in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia.

Moreover, health care reform is front and center at this juncture. Brown’s victory places its passage in peril, and Massachusetts voters, according to a Republican-commissioned poll, shun the legislation, while a plurality voted for Brown to stop it dead in its tracks. Should the measure die, or even be resurrected and successfully signed into law, passions could subside and be directed toward other issues like job creation and financial reform to the benefit of Obama and the Democrats.

Turning to the national parties and their state counterparts in Illinois, it is incumbent upon the Democrats to circumvent the blame game that has already begun in Massachusetts and turn to their larger test this November. They still retain the White House for at least three more years, control strong majorities in Congress (the shattering of the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate acknowledged), and also hold a majority of the nation’s governor seats and state legislatures. Losses in midterm elections of a presidency are not inevitable, but typical, and Democrats should focus on minimizing attrition and maintaining the balance of power in Washington and state capitols across the country.

Republicans, on the other hand, must move beyond being the “party of no” (Brown campaigned as the 41st vote against health care reform), offering an affirmative agenda that tackles the major issues of the day: economic growth, deficit spending, financial reform, climate change, and yes, health care. New Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in 1994 is instructive, as it formulated a positive agenda that effectively nationalized a midterm election and yielded Republican control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

The GOP must also field qualified candidates for offices up and down the ballot. The only way to leverage a national tidal wave in your direction is to have party members in position to benefit. Scott Brown is case in point. A little-known state senator leveraged national angst, local discontent, and a flailing campaign staged by his opponent to return his seat to Republican control for the first time since 1952 when Senator Henry Cabot Lodge lost to a young, charismatic congressman by the name of John F. Kennedy.

In Illinois, the GOP has a plethora of candidates contesting the major statewide offices, but less representation at the local level. The party will have to ensure that candidates are slated for open seats after the February 2 primary to position itself for electoral fruits parallel to those borne by Brown.

It is likely that the major statewide races in Illinois will attract national attention. The contest for who will fill President Obama’s former Senate seat is sure to be fierce, as Republicans will target this is a toss-up favoring the challenger, while Democrats will play defense to avoid embarrassment, not to mention a dwindling majority. Former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s trial beginning this summer will also draw an unfavorable spotlight on the state, at the same time highlighting the race to replace him.

Further down the ballot, however, I expect local issues to predominate, although a similar anti-incumbent fervor could grip a state fed up with endemic corruption and fiscal crisis. Given that Democrats control all of the state’s constitutional offices and strong majorities in the legislature, the party runs of the risk of bearing the blunt of the blame for an angry electorate.

The national landscape and positioning of political parties aside, former House Speaker Tip O’Neil’s contention that “all politics is local” still resonates. One cannot ignore the individual campaigns that candidates orchestrate over the course of the coming spring, summer, and fall. Republican Senate candidate and current Congressman Mark Kirk is a strong local example of this phenomenon. He won repeatedly in a district that voted for three consecutive Democratic presidents, fending off tough challenges in 2006 and 2008 through independent positioning and stellar fundraising.

Back in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley ran an above-the-fray campaign that assumed she was a shoo-in from the day she won the Democratic nomination in December. Only late-breaking polls revealing a tightening race awoke her from her “long winter’s nap,” and late miscues further undermined her credibility with independents and even members of her own party. Calling former Red Sox great Curt Shilling a “Yankee fan” is the Illinois equivalent of accusing Mike Ditka of being a closet Packer backer.

Illinois candidates would be wise to study the Bears’ roster in advance of their November midterm exam graded by state voters.

Note: The McCormick Freedom Project is a nonpartisan organization that engages in educational activity and does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.

Sunshine: The Great Disinfectant

2010-01-12T12:16:00.004-06:00

In my post last Wednesday titled "Cook County Wars," I reviewed a paper written by UIC Political Science Professor Dick Simpson and graduate student Tom Kelly. Their work was inspired by the relative dearth of information specific to roll call votes by the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

This morning, I received a phone call from Courtney Greve, spokeswoman for the Cook County Clerk, and she told me that her office is working to improve this data deficit. Although Greve did not receive significant negative feedback on this front, the Clerk's office was in the process of updating their web site, and will begin by posting minutes from Commissioners meetings starting today. My quick perusal of the site suggests that they are off to a good start as today's agenda is posted.

Greve said that web site visitors will be able to access minutes from past meetings, and promises a more user-friedly format moving forward. This will include information by date and a common phrase to describe the primary subject discussed at a meeting, such as video slot machines, for example. Roll call vote tallies will be posted here, too.

However, one caveat is in order: minutes from board meetings cannot be posted immediately. The commissioners themselves have the authority by law to review agendas and minutes after the fact, so eager residents will have a wait a few days afterward for the juicy details.

Prehistoric Print Endorsements?

2010-01-11T16:34:00.010-06:00

It's newspaper endorsement season once more, and the rival Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune have cooked up different recipes for eager readers and recalcitrant voters. With the February 2 state primary in Illinois inching ever closer, these major dailies clearly feel obligated to weigh in on what to date has been a muddled field, but to what effect? In an era of declining readership and a politically disengaged populace, do newspaper endorsements reflect little more than the proverbial tree falling in a desolate forest?

I would suggest that there still is a place for newspaper endorsements, even if voters are unlikely to read them in print form, if at all. Research suggests that editorial endorsements do sway voters in political contests down the ballot. For example, the Tribune's endorsement of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election likely had little impact on his historic victory, but their picks for comptroller and treasurer this morning may push little known candidates S. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, respectively, over the top.

Moreover, in a truncated primary season like this one, political information is at a premium, and the newspapers provide arguably the most objective, accessible, and thorough source. Ten-second soundbytes on local television emphasizing only the most visible races like governor tell us little about who should be his second-in-command. Given that Pat Quinn currently resides in the Governor's mansion even though he was twice elected to a lesser position, the importance of this office and others cannot be overstated.

On top of that, many of the primary fields are quite crowded with candidates assuming policy positions that are difficult to distinguish from one another. Editorial boards have the luxury of unencumbered face time with most of these office seekers, and separate the wheat from the chafe for those of us in search of shortcuts as we lead otherwise busy lives.

For example, the Sun-Times selected State Senator Kirk Dillard from a crowded Republican gubernatorial field, and Quinn in a competitive contest with Comptroller Dan Hynes. They centered on Dillard's vast Springfield experience and ability to work across the aisle, and Quinn's steady hand since assuming the reigns a year ago from the impeached Blagojevich.

The Tribune, on the other hand, offers up Andy McKenna on the Republican side and refuses to endorse either Quinn or Hynes for the Democrats. McKenna is elevated for his fiscal austerity and business background, while the Democrats are assailed for Quinn's failure to lead on political reform and budget balancing, and Hynes' refusal to take on entrenched interests and support pension reform.

Where does this leave Democratic voters, you might ask?

I would argue it exemplifies the role of editorial endorsements themselves. They are merely suggestive information pieces that voters can consult to shape their ballot box decisions. Surely they operate within a complicated matrix of other guideposts like political parties, peer networks, personal appeals, policy positions, social media outreach, and television, radio, direct mail, and Internet advertisements.

I might add that this voter in waiting is eagerly anticipating the newspapers' take on who should lead the Cook County Water Reclamation District.

Cook County Wars

2010-01-06T11:35:00.012-06:00

Note: The McCormick Freedom Project is a nonpartisan organization that engages in educational activity and does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.

During the mid-1980's, Chicago's city council evolved from a "rubber stamp" on mayoral priorities to an open battle that all but stymied African-American Mayor Harold Washington's reform agenda. He later co-opted former remnants of the machine constructed by a string of Irish-American mayors hailing from Bridgeport, and also fought for allies in aldermanic races that tipped the Council majority in his favor, effectively ending the so-called "Council Wars."

Since February 2007, Cook County Board President Todd Stroger has presided over a "war" of his own as commissioners have battled over budgets, borrowing, and taxation. University of Illinois political scientists Dick Simpson, himself a former Chicago alderman, and Tom Kelly released a report last month titled "Cook County Wars" that details fourteen major divided roll call votes on the County Board since 2007. Their work is a great public service just 27 days removed from a primary where Stroger and others place their fate before voters in party primaries, as the Cook County Clerk does not post divided roll call votes on its web site.

While the Chicago City Council has returned to its "rubber stamp" style under Mayor Richard M. Daley, the Cook County Board has moved in the opposite direction. For example, 46% of aldermen voted with Daley 100% of the time and another 14% voted with him more than 90% of the time. In contrast, only 4 of the 17 commissioners on the County Board voted with Stroger 100% of the time, and 10 districts, represented by 11 commissioners, voted against him more than 50% of the time.

The center of controversy at the county level has been the elevated sales tax first proposed by Stroger in September 2007. By increasing the overall rate in some municipalities to 11%, it represented the highest sales tax in the nation. Stroger successfully eked through the increase the following March by a 9-8 through carrots and alleged sticks that included a threatened immigration crackdown. All Republicans joined the opposition, as did three Democrats. The latter chorus would grow in the intervening months.

Commissioner Tony Peraica, Stroger's 2006 Republican opponent, led the first call for the repeal of the tax increase in July 2008, dubbing it Stroger's "corruption tax." It failed 7-10, as Democratic Commissioner Robert Maldonado now stood in defense of the increase.

Gradually, evidence surfaced that the tax hike was harming business in suburban municipalities, and in March of last year the Board voted 12-3 to repeal a portion of the increase. Stroger vetoed the measure as state law at the time required an exceptional 14 out of 17 votes to override a veto. The first attempt failed 11-4, and the second 9-6 last June. Last July, the override sunk once more by an inflated 12-2 margin, with 1 member voting present and 2 absent. In September, the measure fell short by a single vote, 13-4.

Last October, the state legislature amended the statute to reduce the number of votes required to override a veto from 14 to 11, in line with other counties across Illinois on a percentage basis (65%). On cue, the County Board voted on November 16 to reduce the county portion of the sales tax from 1.75% to 1.25% by a 12-5 margin. On December 1, Stroger's veto was finally overriden, though he did question the constitutionality of the new law and claimed that county health care services will be severely crippled by this eventual reduction in revenues. The decrease is set to take effect on July 1, 2010.

This successful veto override was the first in the 179-year history of Cook County and stands as an ominous sign for Stroger and his dwindling supporters on the County Board. Polling data suggests that Stroger will not even win his party's primary next month, and Simpson and Kelly predict that "a number of commissioners who have steadfastly supported high county budgets and sales tax increases are likely to be defeated as well." The implications of the "county wars" transcend mere electoral politics, too: the reforms necessary to streamline county government and place it on a sustainable path lie in waiting.

40 More Years

2009-12-28T14:50:00.007-06:00

Mark Twain once said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Democratic pundit James Carville is guilty of the same dire forecasts for his Republican counterparts in his new book 40 More Years. Just as conservatives were wrong to predict the collapse of the Democratic Party in 2004, Carville and his compatriots danced prematurely in the aftermath of successive victories in 2006 and 2008.

This book was published over the summer months, and by fall the fallacies of its content were all too apparent. Republican gubernatorial victories in purple Virginia and bright blue New Jersey should temper further grandiose claims and force Carville and his friends on the left to look beyond the exceptional candidacy of President Obama.

True, demographic trends favor the Democrats as the country becomes more racially diverse, and voters under thirty bleed blue. But New Jersey and Virginia are instructive of the fact that young voters remain an unreliable base, and independents are wild cards who cannot be taken for granted. Plus, political parties are not static creatures, but instead adaptive animals who adjust to emerging realities on the ground.

Carville is also guilty of the political trick played by both parties, namely equating correlation with causation. Case in point is his use of economic data to show how Democratic presidents are better fiscal managers, all the while failing to distinguish outliers or detailing the policies that produce superior outcomes.

Moreover, his proximity to the Clinton White House forces him to defend the 1993-2001 span with reckless abandon, blaming all errant trends on the Bushes who bookended the Clinton's two terms. The reality, as President Obama is fast learning, is that presidents don't enter the White House with a blank slate. More than anything, they are left to manage the legacies of their predecessors, particularly during the early years of their presidencies.

The book represents a mass of contradictions. Carville is wont to cherry pick data that justify the conclusions he reaches prematurely, yet he blames the right for doctrinaire policymaking all the while citing the need to bridge the partisan divide. He was an adament supporter of then Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary, and adheres to his belief that she would have been a better candidate and executive, preferring to play Monday morning quarterback and argue that it was Obama who ran a superior campaign. Yet Obama is the lynchpin of his argument that Democrats will dominate the political landscape for the next 40 years.

Much of Carville's book is dedicated to linking all that is evil with George W. Bush and Republican control of Congress. I was left waiting for him to detail a positive agenda for the Democratic Party, and something resembling a platform for the future emerges in Chapter 13. Dubbed the "Real Deal," Carville's cookbook for Democratic dominance hinges on environmental policy, yet he is overtly vague about what form this might take. Health care and entitlement reform receive brief mention, but more than anything, he urges the Democrats to adopt policies contrary to central GOP tenets, namely supply side economics, neoconservatism, and the social policies of the Christian right. In sum, his "big ideas" were disappointingly small.

It is clear that 40 More Years was written to profit from Democratic successes in 2008, massaging fierce partisans who want nothing more than a generation of dominance, and blinding them from the reality of a polarized, still competitive two-party system. Carville didn't anticipate criticism because this book isn't written to open minds or initiate a dialogue, but rather to cement the beliefs of a flock of folks who march with him in lockstep. It is this ideological echo chamber that breeds political excess, and will likely send our electorate searching for alternatives as soon as next fall. Carville's hypothesis is in danger of extinction even before the ink is dry.

Who Will Pay for News?

2009-12-21T10:00:00.001-06:00

News of the imminent closing of Editor & Publisher, the newspaper industry magazine, is definitely a sign of the times: there’s less and less of an industry to report on.
The staid and venerable trade publication could hardly keep up with the changes in advertising and circulation that have put traditional newspapers and magazines in freefall.
E&P has been around in one form or another since 1884. While it soberly reported on job changes and new technology, the editors also didn’t shrink from taking journalists to task, most notably for failing to question the rationale for the Iraq invasion.
But E&P became part of the story of the demise of the once-monopolistic newspaper industry; how even a trade publication cannot find the correct business model to remain profitable.
For several years now, newspaper and magazines have been laying off staff, paring pages and trying to devise ways to maintain regular readers and, hopefully, attract new ones. More than 15,000 journalists lost their jobs in 2009 alone. The New York Times, the gold standard of newspaper journalism, is reducing another 100 editorial positions by the end of the month.
Publishers and journalists have redesigned, redeployed and reinvented their products to attract younger audiences and entice advertisers who now spread their marketing dollars across a growing field of mostly electronic options. Last year, for the first time, more Americans got their news online than from newspaper and magazine subscriptions.
If the Internet is print publishers’ nemesis, they hope it also will be their savior.
One of the possible sources of revenue they are exploring is establishing pay walls for online access, or as it is often described, “monetizing digital content.”
Whether the fee is monthly or annually, so far only the Wall Street Journal, with its select audience of business readers, has been able to pull that off. Nonetheless, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp. which publishes the Journal and many other newspapers, is convinced that fees are the future.
“The old business model based mainly on advertising is dead…,” Murdoch told an FCC workshop on journalism and the Internet earlier this month. “In the new business model, we will be charging customers for the news we provide on our Internet sites.”
Back in September, the giant news aggregator Google informed the Newspaper Association of America that it was developing a click-for-fee program, or a “micropayment” system, where subscribers could pay anywhere from one cent to several dollars for individual news stories or other access. (The original micropayment idea was really “micro” in the hundredths or thousandths of a cent form for individual items. Google applied for the patent in 2004.)
Google has the heft to create buzz on new ideas, including this one based on “Google Checkout”. So micropayment thoughts quickly took off among industry writers. Visions of Google not only aggregating news but putting together “packages” of publications and seamlessly charging credit cards danced in their heads.
An analogous model for selling by the piece was Apple’s I-tunes, which developed the idea of paying for a single song for 99 cents that you could download on your computer. That was an amazing step, considering that not long ago, the music industry only allowed these options: turn on the radio or buy a record (or tape or CD) to listen in your own home.
Along the way, the Internet transformation saw computer users downloading music, legally and illegally, in various forms. Now downloading and sharing via MP3 players, laptops and cell phones makes it hard to imagine anything that limits choice.
Choice is the significant word in news as well as music. A major stumbling block to traditional newsgathering publication is that consumers are willing to pay only if there is a no alternative. So far, there are plenty of alternatives.
Despite the hope of finding a viable way to make newspapers profitable, I doubt there will ever again be just one business model to rely upon.
In a report titled “The Reconstruction of American Journalism,” Leonard Downie and Michael Schudson listed several possible avenues to re-energize the industry.
Not everyone will agree with their recommendations, but among the authors’ suggestions:
1. Changing IRS regulations to allow news organizations to operate at non-profit operations and received tax-deductible donations.
2. Encourage private philanthropists and foundations to support local news reporting.
3. Alter the philosophy of public radio and television to include more locally-oriented programming.
4. Encourage more universities and colleges to participate in news reporting activities following the lead of top journalism schools (including Northwestern University, where I teach) that report on community news and conduct their own investigations, what the authors call “accountability journalism.”
5. Create a national fund for local news using money from the FCC or broadcasters and others that use public airwaves.
The report, commissioned by the Columbia University School of Journalism, also suggests that journalists as well as governments increase the use of information collected by all levels of government and show readers how to access their public databases.
There is, obviously, no monopoly on gathering or distributing news. Along with millions of other news consumers, I am now accustomed to discovering for myself what I consider newsworthy.
I used to rely solely on the serendipity of newspaper or magazine editors selecting, editing and publishing. I might hear headlines on the radio or see a brief visual segment on television, but that only drove me to the print version of events for a fuller, more contextual, explanation.
Now I get less from print. I still enjoy the tactile feel of a newspaper, but I no longer think it sufficient and certainly not timely. Instead, I pick up news from alerts sent to my cell phone, from e-mails and links on social networks such as Facebook.
I scan the Internet not only for news but background information. I use links to go to original sources and to read or hear the cacophony of opinion. I suspect I am a fairly typical Internet user and, though the number of news publications has declined dramatically, the number of online newspaper readers has increased.
The overall impact on democracy isn’t yet clear. There is certainly more diversity of news and opinion; interactivity allows more awareness of events and government decision-making.
The Internet’s immediacy broadens an awareness of events around the globe. The protests after Iran’s allegedly fraudulent election, for instance, may have been reported by the correspondents who were still in the country, but they would not have had the “crowd-sourcing” impact of all the cell phone photos and text messages that were sent out while the demonstrations were underway.
Negatively, I believe, the problem of traditional news media’s decline is the lack of a common narrative about events and decisions. Readers and viewers may have disagreed with each other about what they saw or listened to, but they were all exposed to the same reports. The fracturing or diffusion of news and information now has many choosing to read or see only what they already are comfortable reading or seeing.
If nothing challenges beliefs or preconceptions, then the notion of common goals or understanding common threats is in danger.
Established publications seek a model that pays for an infrastructure that already exists, while others are appealing to non-profit and other civic foundations to subsidize or underwrite new, quality journalism. Is there salvation in philanthropy?
The large foundations, including the McCormick Foundation, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation have been providing grants for many newsgathering operations. The new Chicago News Cooperative received its initial funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. These grants and programs are pushing ahead with new journalism models, including online news sites, local investigative projects, community or ethnic news services, and national or statewide investigative news operations.
Many of these may be boutique efforts that I doubt will be a panacea for traditional mass circulation publications, but they are broadening the public perception of newsgathering and the responsibility of citizens to inform themselves.
As for direct government sponsorship, there are many doubters (Murdoch called it a “chilling” suggestion) that governments provide public assistance to keep publications alive.
Still, there may be merit in using tax write-offs, employing the British model for the BBC, or relying on something similar to the U.S. government’s partial funding of public radio and television.
Many business and community models have been tried with limited success. The Pew Center for Civic Journalism funded pilot programs as early as 1993. Still, the search for a new business model is moving to ever newer combinations.
In addition, there is more than one storyline here. While large city newspapers are depressed and dying, a more optimistic picture is seen in community and small town publications. They have suffered reductions, but not near their big-city cousins. The reasons are worth exploring in a later posting.

Swinging Senators to Be

2009-12-17T09:50:00.011-06:00

Seven more shopping days until Christmas, and a mere forty more until voters must make their Election Day decisions for who will represent the Democratic, Republican, and Green parties on the ballot next November in Illinois. Yesterday's attendees of the Union League Club's Democratic U.S. Senatorial Candidate Forum were treated to a delectable selection of candidates largely in agreement on the issues of the day, but whose words and actions show little evidence that they have been infected by the holiday spirit.

In their respective four corners, the four candidates vying for the Democratic senatorial nomination include State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Robinson Jackson, and commercial litigator Jacob Meister. Giannoulias, a mere 33, has served as treasurer since 2007, and before that was vice president of family-owned Broadway Bank. Hoffman was inspector general the past four years and also boasts experience as an assistant U.S. attorney and Supreme Court clerk. Jackson has been with the Urban League since resigning as Governor Rod Blagojevich's press secretary after his first term in office. Meister worked previously as a congressional staffer.

Giannoulias struck early at probable Republican nominee U.S. Representative Mark Kirk by tying him to former President Bush's "failed" economic policies. As state treasurer, he boasts of a record of consumer advocacy and economic development. Giannoulias celebrated his refusal to accept campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees (PACs), then went on with a story about "Tim and Susan," a husband and wife he allegedly met on the campaign trail who have fallen on hard times and stand as a microcosm of what plagues the country and the rationale for his candidacy.

Hoffman suggests that this campaign is about who voters trust to be a strong and effective leader. In Illinois, he claims, the system works for those with political clout and hefty campaign war chests. Hoffman prods us to examine the character of those who we elect, and touted his credentials as a member of the Illinois Reform Commission, plus that fact that he has no ties to Blagojevich nor his financier Tony Rezko.

Jackson, in her position at the Urban League, is "on the front lines and in the trenches." She shifted the organizational focus from social services to economic development, and from this vantage point witnessed the first signs of the recent recession. She listed early childhood education, access to health care, and investment in women as the issues closest to her heart.

Meister has premised his campaign on "experience and purpose," and calls his 2020 jobs plan the "most comprehensive in the race."

What follows is an issue-by-issue synopsis of the candidate's answers to a laundry list of questions posed by Union League Club moderator Chris Robling and members of the audience.

Economic Development

Giannoulias: Tax credits for businesses who hire new employees, a pay roll tax holiday for workers.
Hoffman: Need to distribute stimulus funding immediately and encourage banks to lend to small businesses.
Jackson: Help small businesses with cash flow, focus on job training.
Meister: Develop green technologies and industries.

Financial Reform

Giannoulias: Create a "living will" for failing institutions.
Hoffman: Focus on consumer protection.
Jackson: Oversight and regulation a must, would create a consumer protection financial oversight agency.
Meister: House legislation a good start, but should also regulate derivatives and further separate banking and securities.

Health Care

Giannoulias: Spent the bulk of this segment railing on Hoffman for investing in banks and later critiquing them.
Hoffman: Countered with Giannoulias' association with Broadway Bank, one the "worst-performing institutions in the country."
Jackson: The health care crisis must be addressed now, as current cost trends are simply unsustainable.
Meister: Supports national health care which will help offset some of the legacy costs borne by the flailing auto industry.

Public Option

Giannoulias: Supports, and predicts it would create competition and rid system of waste.
Hoffman: Supports system of universal coverage, and critiques Kirk's vote against lowering prescription drug costs.
Jackson: Yes, to drive down costs and compete with private providers, but also to emphasize outcome-based medicine.
Meister: "Absolutely"--lack of competition locks people out of the current system.

Thomson Detention Center

Giannoulias: Need to close Guantanamo, and Thomson is largely unused. Must address national security concerns, but we shouldn't engage in fear mongering (alluding to Kirk).
Hoffman: Attacks Giannoulias for his youth, the fact that he's held only two jobs, one of them at his family's bank, and the fact that he couldn't protect the peoples' money while overseeing the Brightstar college savings program as treasurer.
Jackson: The question is what's best for Illinois, and she responds with an unequivocal "yes."
Meister: Touts the creation of 2,500-3,000 jobs, and therefore considers a "win-win" for Illinois and the nation.

Unemployment

Giannoulias: Need to extend unemployment benefits.
Hoffman: Banks must begin lending again, and the federal government should secure state safety nets.
Jackson: Invest in emerging industries, better train our existing workforce, and improve our schools.

Afghanistan

Giannoulias: Supports the policies of the Obama Administration; cites the need to also focus on Pakistan and pursue an integrated approach in the region that transcends mere military force; considers a timetable for withdrawal "necessary."
Hoffman: Against the recent escalation, but admits that the US must remain in the region. Sees Obama's new strategy as an expansion of our mission, with no form commitment for withdrawal.
Jackson: Opposed expansion, and considers our national priorities flawed. Invasion is the wrong approach.
Meister: Supports our president and the troops, and reminds us not to forget about Pakistan. Withdrawal should protect our "vital interests."

Middle East Peace Process

Giannoulias: First priority is the safety and security of the Israeli people; then, isolate Hamas and work to build a moderate alternative organization to represent the Palestinian people.
Hoffman: A two-state solution is necessary, and the U.S. must play an active leadership role in this process, prodding both sides to make concessions.

From a global perspective, this debate was clearly a standoff between Giannoulias and Hoffman. The latter's implied barbs drew direct fire from the former, which spawned repeated jabs throughout the balance of the debate that served to distract the candidates and audience from the issues before them. Jackson and Meister preferred to stay above the fray. The proverbial elephant in the room was Mark Kirk, who drew the ire of both Giannoulias and Hoffman.

Hoffman delivered the most compelling performance of the quartet, though he did come off an unnecessarily mean at times. Giannoulias nailed his talking points and did nothing to undermine his frontrunner status. Jackson, on the other hand, asked the moderator to repeat questions a handful of times, even after the other three candidates has responded, and then proceeded to stammer through her responses. Meister read directly from his briefing book, but showed sporadic flashes of brilliance, all the while invoking hand gestures off kilter with his words.

While voters may have visions of sugar plums currently dancing in their heads, the Senate primary will follow the holiday hangover. It's never too early to pick a horse in this after Christmas sale with well-stocked shelves.

Canvassing in Cyberspace

2009-12-14T10:55:00.010-06:00

Via Twitter, Illinois Comptroller and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Hynes likes Notre Dame's hire of Brian Kelly as head football coach and hopes he brings the school their first national championship in more than two decades.

On his home page, State Senator Dan Rutherford and treasurer candidate just sent "Bonnie," his Pontiac with 315,000 miles, to the "recycler in the sky" and replaced her with another of the same make, "Pongee."

Current State Treasurer and Senate wanabe Alexi Giannoulias is more direct in his courting of digital voters, urging them to "Get involved in the campaign by donating, volunteering, writing a letter to the editor or suggesting our Facebook page to your friends."

The common denominator here is that the social media tactics critical to President Obama's victory last fall have trickled down to state-level races in Illinois and bridged the partisan divide.

Republicans have scurried to level the netroots landscape in light of the dramatic shift of young voters (18-29) to the Democratic Party. Candidates of all stripes seek low-cost means of mobilizing supporters in a primary season that straddles the holidays and where turnout in the February 2nd election is expected to be lackluster at best.

They negotiate a fragmented media environment where target audiences are elusive and expensive to reach via traditional techniques. More than anything, they exploit an all-of-the-above approach, broadcasting a personalized message that they hope will resonate with faceless partisans on the other end of a wireless connection, the latest manifestation of the candidate-centered campaign.

The jury is still out on the effectiveness of an integrated social media platform, but there are numbers to support the democratizing impact of these tools on political consumers. According to data from the National Conference in Citizenship's 2009 Civic Health Index, the "civic engagement gap" is narrower for those who utilize online tools. They collectively undermine the so-called "democracy divide" where engagement is tied to educational achievement and income, adding to the diversity of political participants. Social media tools provide more organic, less-structured, grass-roots opportunities for civic engagement, and these are especially important during recessional times when formal institutional structures crumble.

On many measures of civic health, Illinois fares poorly in comparison to the national average, but state citizens are 7% more likely to use new media tools to stay informed and get involved. According to the Illinois Civic Health Index, a state counterpart to the aforementioned national survey, 63% of Illinoisans generally follow news about government and public affairs. Nearly a quarter (22%) of state residents report using the Internet on a weekly basis to gather information about politics, a social issue, or a community problem, while 25% have watched a candidates' speech online. Twenty-three percent have watched an online video in support of or opposition to a presidential candidate.

Truth be told, the Digital Age is still in its early reaches, especially as far as political outreach goes, and experimental reigns. By comparison, Ronald Reagan was arguably the first president to master the Television Age even though it was at least thirty years in the making. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean elevated the promise of digital media during his dark horse and ultimately unsuccessful bid for the Democratic president nomination in 2004. Barack Obama certainly took it to another level and has continued his use of social media tools as a means of governance, from maintaining a White House blog to using YouTube to broadcast his weekly addresses. His meteoric rise shook the political world, and fellow office seekers have since sought to capture the same "lightning in a bottle."

Questions remain about the uniqueness of the Obama candidacy and the degree to which social media success can be duplicated at lower levels of office. One could argue that the "rock star" status of our national candidates lends itself favorably to celebrity tweets along these lines, but does a comptroller or county coroner candidate have similar Facebook appeal? On the other hand, given the smaller campaign war chests at the state and local level, not to mention the resonance of "front porch" issues in these campaigns, a personal touch from a hometown candidate may be the modern equivalent of door-to-door canvassing.

While the jury contemplates the verdict on these counts, the candidates continue to post movie reviews and dinner recipes, voting overwhelmingly in favor of Web 2.0.

Flags, Heroes and the Rest of Us

2009-12-11T09:00:00.000-06:00

So, to be clear right from the start, I like the result. Actually, I love the result. What's not to love about a highly decorated veteran winning the right to fly the flag for which he fought, in front of his own home, against the preferences of a bureaucratic homeowners association? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904393.html). That's a great story that people of all backgrounds and political persuasions can support.

What I worry about is: What happens to someone who hasn't won the Medal of Honor when his or her homeowners association tells them to take the flag down? What if the facts were a little different and a decorated veteran wanted to protest the troop surge in Afghanistan by flying an American flag upside down? What if it was a non-veteran flying an anti-war flag? What if was me flying a Chicago Bears flag (Packer fans can keep their comments to themselves)?

Those of you in-the-know will respond (partially) correctly that the First Amendment doesn't apply to homeowners associations because they aren't state actors. To be precise, Congress passed legislation which allows homeowners in associations to fly the American Flag provided they follow the guidelines of the association (presumably the association must have reasonable regulations permitting American flag flying). Furthermore, the State of Illinois (and perhaps other states) has explicitly incorporated First Amendment protections in its public act which governs condominium associations. It's fair to point out that these are exceptions and, generally speaking, when one buys into a homeowners association, that person freely enters into a contract which subjects him or her to non-governmental oversight. I don't dispute this and in fact, I regularly argue in favor of personal property rights (an association of homeowners has vested property rights which they openly protect with rules, bylaws and declarations). I also believe that people are free to buy into these associations - or not - and to participate in the governance process which can establish & repeal rules, etc.

So, what's the problem? Well, I'm on the board of an association, elected just last week, and I served on another in the early 90s so I have a sense for how they act. Simply put, they act like what they are...governments. There's really no getting around it. They are obligated to tax, spend, legislate and enforce rules, all for the common good. So, if they are a government in fact, without respect to what we call them, then I believe they should be held to the most fundamental principles to which our governing bodies are held. Among these are the five freedoms protected in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. With a nod toward reality, I'd even accept the compromise of enforcing First Amendment protections on political speech, press, petition, assembly and religious freedoms rather than the broader protections of commercial speech, press, etc (enabling associations to regulate the truly important issues like paint color and grass height, perhaps even Chicago Bear flags).

When I ran for my condo board, I was a bit embarrassed by the atrocious quality of my own handwriting on the candidate form that the association distributed, so I drafted my own letter and distributed it door-to-door along with a proxy form. I signed my name, provided contact information and tried to be a good candidate - provide my qualifications without slighting other candidates or making promises I couldn't keep. I was proud of my work and my commitment to participate in the governing body that would, as a practical matter, have the greatest impact on my life. My moment of civic pride was dashed upon receiving an admonishing e-mail from the building manager who, at the direction of the board (my guess is just one or two board members) that my distribution of election material was in violation of the association rules requiring prior board review and approval (known as prior restraint, which is typically severely limited in its usage in the real world). One of the board members who would have had an opportunity to pass judgment on my material was one of my opponents. After my research and overcoming my extreme frustration and because there was no meaningful warning of a fine or other repercussions, I simply reminded the manager (a smart, courteous professional with whom I'm happy to now be working) that Illinois condominium law protects my First Amendment rights and went about my business.

I'm an attorney by training, I used to run a museum dedicated to the First Amendment and I stay abreast of First Amendment issues, and even I had to pause to do some research to determine the board had - likely - overstepped it's authority in light of state law. However, even I wasn't sure. What would non-lawyer do? Similarly, how much support would I have had in my fight should it have gotten that far? What support would a non-hero or non-veteran have had in their battle to express their political beliefs - popular or not - whether with a flag or a candidate letter to their neighbors?

It's time to eliminate the distinction, for First Amendment purposes, on governing bodies of homeowners associations and public legislative bodies. Some rights are fundamental and should be applied equally so that the law supports even those among us who haven't won the Medal of Honor.

Speech, speech and more speech

2009-12-10T16:12:00.002-06:00

I recently attended my first “un-conference,” the Conscience Un-Conference, co-sponsored by the United States Holocaust Museum and the George Mason University Center for History New Media. The un-conference focused on using social media as tools for doing good – ending genocide, combating hatred, increasing involvement in democracy, etc., and many interesting and varied organizations took part, both in person and virtually. As a newcomer to un-conferences, I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised. Because the sessions were more casual, and put together the morning of the un-conference, there weren’t long PowerPoint presentations and multiple handouts and laser pointers. Instead, there was discussion. Lots and lots of useful discussion.

One of the most interesting discussions at the conference (that happened in several sessions) was discussing user generated content, and the scary moment of putting your collections, your materials, your creations, online for all to see, use and comment on. Many of the participants deal with sensitive material, and that material has elicited some disturbing comments in the past, comments filled with hatred, racism, or just plain anger. Is it appropriate to put that content online, leaving those associated with the content vulnerable to attack? It’s a difficult question to answer, especially when the content in question may be photos of Holocaust survivors, but an important one, with many First Amendment implications.

In the course of our discussions about the topic, the old adage “The way to combat bad speech isn’t less speech, it’s more speech” was invoked, and seems very appropriate. Taking away resources and limiting the public’s access to valid and appropriate content because we’re afraid of hate speech only strengthens the power of hate speech overall. As one participant pointed out, showing the general public that hate speech still exists – and in some arenas, flourishes – goes farther in showing the need for institutions of tolerance than any prepared statement ever could. Institutions and organizations of conscience need to shine a light on intolerance and hatred in order to show the world how ugly and real it is, not limit how much we show due to fear and hope to keep things sanitized. Hate speech goes on with our without our posted content, and if we can use that speech for good, to make people more aware of the appalling nature of hate speech, and hopefully inspire them to do something to create more tolerance, we’ve beaten the hate-speechers at their own game. As a comment I made (that was tweeted by none other than Craig of Craigslist himself) succinctly puts it “Without freedom of speech, how will we know who the $#@!holes are?”

Of course, this is an easy thing to say in theory, but a very difficult thing to do when you have the feelings of real people, people who have survived a horrifying event and confronted more hatred than most of us could ever imagine, to take into account. That’s why another initiative the Freedom Project is taking on in 2010 is also very important – media literacy. If we can help people distinguish between valid voices and information, and those just hatemongering, we’ve taken away a critical tool of people who use intolerance to incite violence and more hatred. Knowing who to trust, and where to go if you’re not sure if you should trust someone, is as important in our media adventures as they were when we were going on our first dates, going to college, or renting an apartment for the first time. People need the tools to weed out the unreliable voices or to refute them. Combined with the power of free speech, media literacy will go far in using hate speech for exactly the purposes it was not intended for – education, inclusion and tolerance.

To find out more about the Conscience Un-Conference, visit the official blog at http://www.ushmm.org/social/blog, or search for #conconf on Twitter to see live tweets during the sessions.

Interesting Bedfellows

2009-12-02T09:54:00.008-06:00

Among the five five freedoms the First Amendment guarantees is broad protections for a private press. Over time, this has encompassed almost absolute prohibition of prior government review of publication, a high standard to prove libel against public figures, and significant protection for reporters' use of anonymous sources. The private press considers these safeguards fundamental to their performance of the watchdog role critical to the perpetuation of democratic government, and has long cast suspicion on any active government role in propping up their existence.

Indeed, the industry abides by three mantras that constitute their very own version of the "separation between church and state":

A wall between business interests (paid advertisers) and newspaper content.
Strict boundaries between reporting and editorializing (these have eroded in recent years).
Fierce independence from the public figures and government bodies they report upon.

I'll leave aside mantras one and two for future posts, and center my attention on the third.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission sponsored a conference considering government assistance to the ailing newspaper industry. One option presented would ease antitrust exceptions that prohibit media organizations to own multiple entities in the same market. Others, namely Rupert Murdoch of Wall Street Journal and Fox News fame, lamented about the scavenging of "free content" by online aggregators like the Huffington Post. Ariana Huffington responded with a lengthy defense of new media, taking offense to the us versus them mentality, yet labeling Murdoch and his denizens the "horse and buggies" of the Information Age.

Other concrete proposals for government assistance have surfaced in recent months, including Maryland Senator Ben Cardin's idea to enable newspapers to operate as tax-exempt organizations. Let's not also forget that government support of the industry is nothing new, the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, which created joint operating agreements in two-newspaper towns, the most prominent example.

Geoffrey Cowan and David Westphal of the Online Journalism Review recycle an important argument made by Herbert Gans and others: the federal and state governments have subsidized journalism since the founding of the Republic. Reduced postage rates, preferential tax treatment, and significant government print expenditures of public notices in private papers are the holy trinity of "church-state" syndicalism.

Cowan and Westphal offer three notes of caution as the "brave new world" of government-newspaper cooperation encroaches:

Do No Harm: Government support should not retard necessary innovations in the industry. The Newseum in Washington is a wonderful archive of the industry's past, and any potential partnership should be forward-focused...
Encourage Experimentation: The authors elevate the Pentagon's investment in what evolved into the Internet as case in point.
Avoid "Excessive Entanglement": Broad protections like those highlighted above are preferable to government support of specific "news outlets, publications, or programs."

I would offer a fourth note, one that places the First Amendment front and center.

Broad press protections were embedded in our governing charter back in 1791 based on a basic concern: historically, the government and the press were one, and this parylzed self-government, for citizens were unable to gather the information necessary to evaluate candidates for public office (assuming competitive elections) and hold those elected accountable.

I am confident that the press will survive in one form or another, but fear that the word "free" that does and should precede press is in increasing peril.

New Kid on the Block

2009-11-30T12:24:00.011-06:00

A feature story on White House adviser David Axelrod's personal ties to his adopted home town. An investigative piece on a private firm's profits from the City of Chicago's controversial parking meeting sell-off. A lengthy lament about the Chicago Bears long slide from the Super Bowl Shuffle of 1985. All part of a quick perusal of today's Chicago Tribune, right? Well then, you must be speaking of the Sun-Times! Wrong again.

There's a new kid on the local journalism block known as the Chicago News Cooperative. The entity debuted this month by producing a biweekly local insert for the New York Times, and promises a content-rich web site available on a subscription basis next year. Led by former Tribune and Los Angeles Times editor Jim O'Shea, the CNC boasts a staff of 13, with heavy representation by fellow Tribune expatriates. They include Jim Warren, another past Tribune managing editor and current publisher of the weekly Chicago Reader, city hall reporter Dan Mihalopoulos, and business columnist David Greising.

The CNC is paid by the New York Times for their services, but also received seed money from the MacArthur Foundation and Chicago Community Trust. They anticipate being self-sustaining in 5 years, financed largely through subscription-based fees totaling an estimated $2 per week. The fee will provide more than web access to CNC material, offering to organize networking groups, soliciting original content, and assisting with op-ed drafting and placement.

The Times is interested in winning back disaffected readers, but O'Shea and company, many who left the Tribune on less than amicable terms, must be bent on sticking it to their former employers, correct? O'Shea dismisses the notion outright, according to a November 23 Times article: "I would be doing this even if I had never worked fro them, and I saw a need. We've got to figure out how to do serious journalism and pay for it, that's what's motivating me."

Warren, a CNC reporter, was less reserved in his motivations: "In (the Tribune's) mind, they've made it a more populist, utilitarian paper, and I think they've made it narrower, more lightweight, fueled by reflexive suspicion of the traditional ideas of traditional journalism."

Two weeks in, this casual observer is both impressed with the CNC's contributions to local reporting, but skeptical that their two-page insert represents the death knell for the Tribune or the Sun-Times. Count the latter's Laura Washington among the cynics.

As I've said repeatedly in previous posts, my contention is that there is no panacea for the broken economic model of traditional journalism. Efforts like the CNC to plug holes and break new ground should be commended, and better yet, funded.

Democracy wins when serious public affairs reporting flourishes. In my mind, two newspaper towns are inherently better than a one horse show, mostly because competition forces dailies to take risks and carve out their own independent niches. With both the Tribune and Sun-Times emerging from bankruptcy, and the potential peril this entails, not to mention the lighter menu of stories both now offer, there is certainly room on local readers' plates for more hard-hitting content.

Tribune managing editor Gerould Kern welcomes the challenge: "There's more competition every day, all the time, from every direction. So our view is, we will compete with anyone, any time, any place, and we believe we will win."

Gerry, we root for your success, and recognize that a rising tide lifts all readers.

Senate Sextet

2009-11-23T10:46:00.004-06:00

On Saturday, the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate brought health care reform to the floor of the body with a strict party line vote, 60-39, the bare minimum to stave off a Republican-led filibuster. Unlike the House, a supermajority is often required to pass legislation in the Senate to invoke cloture and prevent the opposition’s stalling tactics, igniting floor debate and often a roll call vote. Democrats hold a firm 58 seats in the current Senate, with two independents also joining their caucus for a fragile filibuster-proof majority. Any fracture to this coalition requires bi-partisan support, a difficult proposition in what has become an intensely polarized body.

Political scientist Keith Krehbiel developed the “pivotal politics” model more than a decade ago in a quest to examine the problem of legislative gridlock that rose to the common vernacular during the Reagan-Bush era. Clinton’s election in 1992, coupled with the Democratic Party’s hold on Congress, stirred excitement that gridlock would end with the return of unified control. To these proponents’ chagrin, however, little changed, and divided government returned shortly thereafter with the G.O.P.’s 1994 takeover of Congress. Something was amiss, and Krehbiel sought a more simplistic explanation for gridlock that transcended party control. Enter the “pivotal politics” model.

The model centers on the median voter in Congress, but also accounts for presidential preferences, institutional features like the filibuster in the Senate, and the veto pen wielded by the President. The pivotal players in Congress are the median voter, those near the sixty vote margin necessary to end extended debate in the Senate through cloture, and those near the two-thirds threshold necessary to override a presidential veto. All of these preferences are placed on a unidimensional line, thus the simplicity of the model. Elections are the dynamic force where these preferences can shift along the line.

A particularly compelling element is its ability to explain the productivity that usually accompanies the presidential honeymoon, the inevitable decline, even the lame duck status at the end of the second term. Presidents typically have coattails (Clinton and George W. Bush, excepted) and thus have favorable ideological alignments behind their programs upon entering office. The first hundred days is a natural outgrowth of this arrangement. The inevitable decline centers on this initial movement away from the status quo, leaving less to accomplish other than nibbling at the margins. Midterm losses are typically inevitable for the party of the President, and his productivity is thus undermined by the new ideological arrangement in Congress that emerges. Lame duck status is thus the logical outcome.

Krehbiel rejects party-based explanations for maintenance of the status quo or gridlock. While refusing to dismiss their significance entirely, he suggests that they are not integral to a “good theory of lawmaking.” Gridlock is instead a product of an ideologically moderate status quo, supermajority requirements in Congress, and the heterogeneous preferences of legislators.

How does Kriebel’s model illuminate the contemporary debate? Given that the House has already passed a reform bill, all eyes are on the Senate. The President made health care reform the centerpiece of his agenda, so the threat of a veto is non-existent, his signature on anything remotely smelling of reform inevtitable. The pivot is centrally located at the filibuster, or the sixtieth vote. By my calculation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can count on 56 votes for the legislation as it now stands, sufficient for passage assuming the opposition does not filibuster. Given the stakes involved, I find a truce unlikely.

Those 56 votes exclude three Democrats and one independent, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson and Lieberman are both adamantly opposed to the public option, a staple of the current legislation. Arkansas Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu of Arkansas and Louisiana, respectively, also have major concerns about the bill as it stands. All four are moderates and stand near the 60-vote threshold of the Senate’s ideological continuum. Any attrition from this group would require Reid to reach across the aisle, and likely the filibuster pivot, to recruit one or more moderate Republicans. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are perhaps the only two possibilities, so Democratic defection greater than two equals defeat.

Given the concerns voiced by Snowe for one about the public option as it now stands, her vote can only be won through a change to a state-based trigger mechanism instead of an opt-out as it now stands. Nelson and Lieberman seek its removal altogether, a deal-breaker for the more liberal members of the party and its voting base. For legislation to pass before Christmas or prior to the President’s State of the Union speech in January, I predict either a further neutered public option or a 56-44 vote with the four Democratic caucus members voting against the bill, but also in favor of cloture.

Through it all, keep your eyes on the pivot, for a sextet of Senators hold the keys to the fate of health care reform in America.

Democratic Debate Times Two

2009-11-19T09:00:00.002-06:00

Last month, I attended and reported on the Republican Gubernatorial Debate at the Union League Club. Yesterday, I had the privilege of sitting in on a smaller discussion of their Democratic counterparts who are in a pierced battle for one of the more difficult leadership positions in the country. Incumbent Governor Pat Quinn and State Comptroller Dan Hynes went head-to-head for more than an hour in a debate moderated by ULC Public Affairs Committee member Chris Robling. A recap follows, including an issue-by-issue comparison of these two Springfield titans.

Quinn was sworn in as governor on January 29 of this year, but has a long resume in Illinois politics, serving previously as Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, and also as a Commissioner on the Cook County Board of Tax Appeals, and as the City of Chicago's revenue director. He acknowledged at the outset that he assumed office under "unusual" circumstances, but has since presided over a "year of reform" that includes a commitment to "strong, touch ethics laws," "grass roots democracy," and to "strengthen the integrity of Illinois state government." He touted his previous service as state treasurer during similarly tough economic times, and his work across the aisle with former Republican Governor Jim Edgar.

Hynes is in the midst of his third term as State Comptroller. He has worked on consumer and taxpayer advocacy, government accountability, and long-term budget reform. The state's Rainy Day Fund is the most prominent example of the former. Hynes admitted up front that he is neither electrifying, charismatic, nor dynamic, yet labeled this election not a coronation, but a choice. Neither man was elected to the position, and he said the state's budget crisis demands immediate solutions that will not harm the middle class.

Quinn and Hynes on the issues (in the order they addressed the audience):

Taxes

Hynes: Highlighted the need to raise more revenue immediately. In the short term, he would raise cigarette taxes and close corporate income tax loopholes. Down the road, he would move toward a progressive income tax (Illinois is one of seven states with a flat tax), but nix tax increases on families that make less than $200,000 annually.
Quinn: Echoes each of Hynes on each of these points, but criticized him for being a late comer to progressive taxation, citing his opposition as recently as 2004.

Budget Cuts

Quinn: Claims to have made more budget cuts than any governor in Illinois history.
Hynes: Suggests that Quinn's cuts are laden with gimmicks, including delayed spending and borrowing.

Free Transit Fares for Seniors

Hynes: Open to means testing seniors for free fares; laments the annual Chicago Transit Authority funding crisis and touts the need for a comprehensive solution to this broader problem.
Quinn: Free rides should stay; negotiated a short-term solution to this year's installment of the transit crisis last week.

Furloughs for State Employees

Quinn: Implemented 12 days of layoffs for state employees this year as a means of avoiding layoffs. Turned to public pensions, and suggested a "two-tier" plan for incoming employees, presumptively at less lucrative levels of compensation.
Hynes: Promised to fund pensions properly; highlighted that fact that it was done via borrowing this year.

Medicaid

Hynes: Scolded its underfunding by billions and the fact that doctors are fleeing the state as a result.
Quinn: Providers have been reimbursed since he was elevated to governor, and as a sign of his commitment to universal health care, he walked the state a decade ago in support of legislation sponsored by former State Senator Barack Obama.

Guantanamo Detainees in Thomson, IL

Hynes: Supports Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo, and open to the use of the Thomson facility, a maximum security facility.
Quinn: Also supportive, but acknowledges public safety concerns and urges that terrorists be punished for their actions.

Education Funding

Quinn: Proper funding with accountability; jobs with follow brainpower; the state income tax should fund our schools and simultaneously provide property tax relief.
Hynes: Echoes the excessive reliance on property taxes; cements the notion that we invest in schools for pre-K through college.

School District Consolidation

Hynes: Open to the process, but emphasizes the need to create a comprehensive solution through consultation with local leaders.
Quinn: Need more consolidation: too many inefficiencies given the large number of single-school districts.

Campaign Finance Reform

Quinn: Lifelong commitment to issue; will soon sign historic bill that will continue this mission.
Hynes: Began movement to end pay-to-play through state contracts four years ago.

Negative Ads

Hynes: His ads are about the central issue of this campaign--the budget, and the taxes to close the operating deficit.
Quinn: 85% of Hynes' ads are negative attack ads, and Quinn has a duty to defend himself, for he "can't have folks on the sideline sniping."

Relationship to Blagojevich

Quinn: Testified against gross receipts tax and trumpeted the recall amendment, both Blagojevich prerogatives.
Hynes: Quinn refused to take on his two-time running mate until they were re-elected; Hynes stood up to Blagojevich during his first term for reckless spending ("Some stood silent, others stood up").

Relationship to Speaker Michael Madigan

Hynes: Need to build consensus, but take on tough fights when necessary; any idea with merit can make it through the General Assembly, but credibility and consistent leadership is pivotal.
Quinn: Need to get along; Quinn has a record of productivity with the legislature.

Death Penalty

Quinn: Keep for heinous crimes; need for reform and to measure its impact; lift moratorium later.
Hynes: Essentially an identical position.

As these issue exchanges attest, the differences between Quinn and Hynes are at the margins. Instead, this is a contrast of personalities and political skills. From the sheer perspective of debate performance, Hynes claimed at least a narrow victory. His responses were clear and to the point, and his opening closing statements were well-prepared and smoothly delivered. Quinn, on the other hand, showed less focus and often drifted from the questions posed. Both place forth formidable qualifications for office, and either man will be a worthy opponent for whoever emerges from the crowded field of Republican contenders.

Eleven weeks remain until the February 2nd primary, and Quinn and Hynes will likely ring in the holiday season with continued broadsides and head-on collisions like yesterday's standoff. It is clear from this casual observer that there is no love lost between the two. Perhaps a Christmas truce will soon be in order.

Illinois Civic Health Index

2009-11-18T10:11:00.008-06:00

The political climate in Illinois is nothing less than a national embarrassment. Last January, we impeached and removed our sitting Governor from office. Come next June, he will face trial on charges that will likely lead to imprisonment, making him the 4th of the last 7 Illinois governors to go from the executive mansion to the jailhouse. Our state faces a $10 billion structural deficit, and generations have grown up alongside a pay-to-play culture perpetuated by systemic corruption. It therefore comes as little surprise that our citizens look elsewhere for political leadership or withdraw from the public arena altogether. A new report released today by the National Conference on Citizenship (NCOC) confirms these ugly facts.

The NCOC has published the National Civic Health Index since 2006, and began releasing select state supplements last year in Florida, Ohio, and California. Today, with funding from the McCormick Foundation and the skill and expertise of the Freedom Project, the NCOC releases its first Illinois Civic Health Index.

Among the lowlights:

Trust in Illinois state government is at a serious low. Only 15% of Illinoisians said they believed the state government did the right thing most of the time, compared to 27% nationally.
Illinoisans have been cutting back on civic engagement for years, and at a faster pace that the rest of the country. In 2006, state residents were more likely to volunteer than the national average. These trends flipped to less likely in 2009, with 24.9% volunteering statewide, and 26.5% nationally. From 2003 to 2006 alone, there was a 22% reduction in Illinoisans' volunteer hours.
In 2009, state residents cut back volunteering by 76%, higher than the 72% national average.
Illinois Millennials (ages 15-29) also showed lower levels of engagement than their national peers. 77% reveal cutbacks since 2008 as opposed to 71% nationally.
Not only do Illinois Millennials volunteer at a lower rate than their generational cohorts (39%), Gen-Xers (47%) and Seniors (48%), they also trail their peers nationally.
In fact, Millennials lead the way in terms of volunteerism nationally (43% participation).

At play are two dual forces that are catastrophic for citizens of the Land of Lincoln. One, the deepest recession in a generation has forced Americans to focus inward, and Illinois has been disproportionally affected by these devastating economic forces. Two, endemic corruption punctuated by scandals at all levels of government in Illinois (city, county, and state), have bred apathy and widespread disengagement. Why participate in a system fixed for the powerful few?

This dearth of depressing information considered, there were a few bright spots that emerged from the gloomy data. While citizens have lost faith in Springfield, they are willing to ask Washington to rectify our civic health deficit.

75% of Illinoisans support a policy that would require all state high school students to complete community service.
72% endorse a requirement for all high school students to pass a new government or civics test.
89% back a proposal to provide college tuition assistance for service.

I might humbly suggest that the answer to our deficit lies closer to home. The obvious policy solutions have already been pursued, some of them enacted, and others on the verge. They include greater transparency in the business of state government, a strengthened Freedom of Information Act, and campaign finance reform, but are by no means a panacea. We must also find a way to bring young people back into the system, and a renewed commitment to civic education is the preferred course.

The Illinois Civic Blueprint, a product of the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition and the Freedom Project, provides a framework to restore of state's schools to their original purpose: to prepare young people for their roles as citizens in self-government. It marries civic education providers with school districts across the state, offering professional development for teachers and civic learning opportunities for students. It features schools across the state who are already leading the way. It puts forth a process, a "civic audit," by which school teams can assess the degree to which civics is incorporated across the curriculum based on six promising approaches, identifying deficiencies along the way and providing the resources to rectify them. Finally, it elevates exemplary institutions with "Democracy School" recognition.

The question to Illinois citizens and their elected officials is this: Are you sick and tired of the morass that has blanketed this formerly proud state on account of leaders who have continually failed and flaunted the public trust? We provide the answers today when we encounter these grim details, tomorrow when we take civic action, and next year when we flock to the polls, and I am hopeful that the next measurement of our civic health is the first indicator of a welcome and long-awaited renewal.

Speech-less

2009-11-08T09:09:00.008-06:00

For the political animals amongst us, Washington, DC epitomizes the pinnacle of the profession. There's something mystical about our nation's capital, from the Capitol Rotunda to the monuments by moonlight to the White House rose garden. Each of us remembers our first glance at the Executive Mansion, how small we felt next to Lincoln's statue as we reread the Gettysburg Address we memorized in grade school, and being baffled by L'Enfant's layout of streets by number, letter, and state.

Matt Latimer went to Washington with the wide-eyed enthusiasm of a young conservative as the Republican Party consolidated power for the first time in two generations. His memoir, Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, is an account of his early career as a Capitol Hill staffer, campaign manager, and speech writer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President George W Bush. His tell-all tale is both eye-opening and disillusioning, for he departs DC every bit as defeated as his beleagured party and seeks retrospective clarity in this simultaneously humorous and unfortunate recount of a young man who ascended to the highest thresholds of power.

Latimer was raised in Michigan by two devoutly Democratic parents, but somehow evolved into a rock-ribbed conservative who worshiped all things Republican. Always supportive, they paid his way to attend the 1996 Republican National Convention, his first foray into politics. Among his funny anecdotes were the awkward welcoming committee for nominee Bob Dole as he sailed up to the convention site, his encounter with Mary Matalin when he told her that he read her book five times, and his endless infatuation with Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

From San Diego he landed in Washington, working as a staffer for home state Senator Spence Abraham, then a local congressman, and back to the Senate in Jon Kyl's office. He eventually parlays this into a speechwriting job in the Pentagon, and is exposed firsthand to the inner turmoil of the Bush White House and their war operations. Secretary Rumsfeld emerges as a highly competent and sympathetic character who is a fall guy for a badly bungled war. Robert Gates' arrival spurred Latimer to look elsewhere, and the White House was his final destination.

He enters 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during the final years of the Bush presidency on the heels of the Democratic takeover of Congress and Nixonian approval ratings. He works closely with the President and presents him as a fun-loving and earnest leader, but one who places more emphasis on decisiveness than accuracy and who is surrounded by men and women selected on the basis of loyalty, not competency.

Karl Rove lived up to his "Darth Vader" stereotypes, a scheming, petty "architect" insistent on getting his way even when the facts point the opposite direction. Latimer anticipated learning from this highly regarded guru, but instead was glad to see him go and even skipped Rove's final send-off.

Vice President Cheney, on the other hand, emerges as a down-to-earth, grounded voice of conservative reason. Latimer recalls Cheney waiting in line with the masses in the White House mess, ordering his own cup of coffee, even asking for the cold remnants of the cup he was holding be "nuked."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is held high as an influential voice, second only to Laura Bush. Latimer claims that it was widely known that the First Lady was only nominally a Republican. He left feeling the same way about her husband after a stunning session when Bush claimed ignorance about any association with the conservative movement.

Some of the other inside baseball stories that emerged included the president's take on the 2008 race to replace him. Though Bush failed to take sides in the primary process, Latimer speculated that he and Rove favored former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He reluctantly sided with John McCain, recognizing that his legacy was tied to the campaign of the Arizona Senator. Bush continually questioned their strategies, from closing a joint Phoenix fundraiser to the public (Latimer claims McCain failed to fill the required number of seats) to insisting on a remote address to the Republican National Convention to the surprise pick of Sarah Palin as VP. Bush repeatly characterized the latter as "interesting" and recognized from the outset that she would struggle with national media exposure once the proverbial "flower fell off."

On the Democratic side, Bush expected Hillary Clinton to win the nomination all along, and repeatly made statements to the effect that he couldn't wait until she seated her fat *** in the Oval Office and faced the real problems he confronted every day. Bush considered Obama ill-prepared for the rigors of the White House, but the rest of course is history.

Latimer ends his political journey in a Virginia voting booth of all places. He detested John McCain, yet considered himself a lifelong Republican and committed conservative. He was sympathetic to the enthusiasm of his young nephew toward Obama, and recalled his mom's crossover vote for Bush 41 in 1992 on his behalf so not to cancel out his first presidential vote. He alternates levers between McCain and Obama, leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions after confronting this disconcerting vignette.

My money is on Obama, and Latimer will likely face this question and others during the Freedom Project's program in partnership with the Chicago Young Republicans this coming Thursday at the Cubby Bear. Titled "Reinventing Republicans," Latimer will pair with Reihan Salam of Grand New Party fame to articulate the future of the wounded and diminished party they call home.

In the end, Latimer fell victim to the clash between idealism and political reality. On one level, politics is poetry, the stuff of ideological purity and doctrinal domination. Campaigns embody these qualities now more than ever. In reverse, and often in practice, politics is prose, the hard work and pragmatic attempts to do the nation's business of governing. Latimer was disillusioned by this realization, and his book is a shot of restoring a reasonable balance between the two.

Grand New Party

2009-11-05T10:39:00.003-06:00

In the aftermath of successive bludgeonings at the polls in 2006 and 2008, there has been no shortage of post-mortem assessments of what plaques the Republican Party. Some suggest that unified Democratic control of Washington is a product of self-inflicted Republican scandals, the Bush Administration’s incompetence at home in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan, an abandonment of the fiscal discipline central to party dogma, and in 2008, a flawed messenger in Senator John McCain.

As the Republican Party clings to the remaining vestiges of its power, namely a regional base in the Deep South, recent debates have centered on whether it should seek to build a “big tent” or retreat to ideological purity. Should they work with a barrier-breaking and popular president of the opposing party or throw a wrench in his agenda when opportunities arise? Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, in their 2008 book Grand New Party (Anchor Books, paperback and updated version in 2009), prefer an alternative strategy, one that seeks to bring working class workers of every racial background into the party’s fold in order to construct a permanent majority.

Their narrative begins with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Douthat and Salam suggest that FDR’s policies were fundamentally pro-family and placed a premium on self-sufficiency and work. The working class was their primary beneficiary, and in the process, the Democratic Party cemented its hold on this demographic for a generation. It wasn’t until Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society pushed policies that the authors argue offered perverse incentives that impeded family formation and individual initiatives, coupled with social turbulence, that working class voters were driven toward Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, a group he called the “Silent Majority.”

Nixon’s passions lied in the realm of foreign policy, and despite some early efforts to address working class concerns through a negative income tax, their demands were largely ignored, their votes taken for granted. This opened the door for Jimmy Carter’s one-time trial in 1976, but Ronald Reagan brought them back into the Republican fold in 1980 and 1984, and allowed his predecessor George HW Bush to win in 1988 on his coattails. Reagan remains the template by which Republicans measure themselves, and their memories of him focus on ideological, doctrinaire purity.

Douthat and Salam claim this hindsight is fundamentally flawed, for Reagan didn’t seek to disassemble the social safety net, but instead oversaw increases in spending, be they scaled back significantly. It was Reagan who signed legislation creating the Earned Income Tax Credit, a scaled back realization of Nixon’s negative income tax, and whose pro-family agenda resonated with working families struggling to make ends meet.

George HW Bush’s country club Republicanism, try as he did, failed to hold blue collar affection, opening the door for Ross Perot in 1992 to siphon away working class votes and deliver the presidency to Bill Clinton. Bob Dole’s 1996 challenge to his incumbency reverted to the tried and true tenets of fiscal and social conservatism, and his party was sentenced to four more years of a president who brilliantly usurped issues in their sweet spot via his “Third Way” agenda.

The authors consider George W Bush’s presidency, more than anything else, as a lost opportunity. His 2000 campaign premised on “compassionate conservatism” showed promise, but he faced an unanticipated challenge on the left from McCain, rather than the right of center attacks he expected from publisher Steve Forbes. They hold No Child Left Behind, warts and all, as the sole working class entreaty, as tax cuts became the all-encompassing mantra, and 9-11 pushed all domestic issues of the table. His failed Social Security privatization planned signaled premature lame duck status.

Though Douthat and Salam wrote in advance of the 2008 presidential outcome, the new preface to the paperback edition to their book addresses lessons from a year ago. They found McCain a failed candidate who never articulated a coherent domestic agenda and ceded a cake walk to his largely untested opponent. They proceed to offer a vision for the future of the Republican Party moving forward, one that forever stops the working class party pinball by pursuing tax policies that reward family creation and child bearing; market-based health care reforms that provide a conservative answer to the public option but address a genuine middle class anxiety; immigration reform that focuses on border control and naturalization policies sensitive to the needs of the labor market; universal school choice coupled with the decentralization of teaching from pre-K through higher ed; and land use policies that utilize a largely untapped frontier for uses (energy, not agriculture) demanded by urbanites.

As the Republican Party celebrates its first dose of good news in five years in the form of separate gubernatorial triumphs by conservative candidates in states that voted for Obama last fall (New Jersey and Virginia), it also likes its wounds from a bloody battle for an open House seat in Upstate New York, where a Democrat won for the first time since the Grant Administration. Governors-elect Bob McDonnell in Virginia, and Chris Christie in New Jersey, while flaunting solid conservative credentials, both campaigned on pocketbook issues, leaving the politics of symbolism to the talk radio punditry. In New York, on the other hand, a moderate Republican candidate was forced from the race in lue of a challenger from the Conservative Party who would go on to lose to the Democrat by a plurality.

I would suggest that these separate outcomes confirm the central hypothesis of Douthat and Salam. Moreover, I urge caution when reading the tea leaves for 2010 and beyond. Republican campaigns modeled off of McDonnell and Christie can sell even in blue states and swing districts, yet rock-ribbed interventions like those exercised by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their likes in New York spell a generation of Democratic dominance. Fiscal restraint, job creation, and balanced budgets register with voters in an era dominated by their antithesis, and those who seek to win on the basis of “God, gays, and guns” are nothing more than a quick path to a long walk in the woods.

Join the Freedom Project and the Chicago Young Republicans next Thursday for a public program featuring Reihan Salam and former White House speech writing Matt Latimer. I will review Latimer’s book, Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor, in advance of next week’s event.

White House vs. Fox News Food Fight

2009-11-02T10:50:00.002-06:00

Every president at some point complains about coverage of his policies, his people and his family. Lincoln jailed several editors; Franklin Roosevelt railed against publishers who turned critical; Nixon compiled his infamous enemies list that included many journalists, and George W. Bush insisted a liberal bias pervaded the “media elite.”
So when top President Obama’s aides began chastising the Fox News Channel for being against everything the President does and says, there were only two surprises: the unusually blunt language from political aides known for their carefully chosen words and that such deep antagonism is surfacing so early in the administration.
Describing Fox as a “tool” and communication arm of the Republican Party, White House aides declared it was not a real news outlet and henceforth Fox would be treated as a political opponent. Though his own comments have been veiled, Obama snubbed Fox recently while visiting the other major networks for interviews on health care.
That ratcheted up the controversy and delighted the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity because it appeals to their audience and audience numbers appeal to advertisers. No surprise that the latest numbers for evening cable television viewers show the CNN news channel well behind red-meat opinionated talk shows on Fox, MSNBC and even HLN, CNN’s sister network, formerly known as Headline News.
There is a larger issue here. When there is breaking news, readers and viewers want reports of the latest developments which CNN and others have done well. In the absence of breaking news stories, there is evidence of an increasing polarization of readers and viewers on the right and on the left throughout the news business. Attribute it to the growth of the cable news programming and especially to the Internet where it is easier to select the kind of information you are most comfortable with or opinions that you approve, and filter out the rest.
Add to that the decline of mass market newspapers—where people traditionally shared not only news reports but a mix of opinion columns. That decline of that medium has accelerated tremendously in the last decade. An audit bureau report a week ago showed large circulation newspapers averaging annual circulation losses of between10-15 percent.
Overall, the media industry is consolidating and television is increasingly preaching to the choir as a way to retain and attract viewers. Even in this tussle, Fox News executive Bill Shine acknowledged to The New York Times the impact of such White House criticism: “Every time they do it, our ratings go up.”
The fight also gives journalists a delightful side-show to talk about the war of words instead of the economy and health care and the real wars. And journalists, truth be told, do love a political food-fight. Everything is messy but, hopefully, no one gets hurt. Bloggers and columnists join in with great satisfaction as both sides lob big fat rounds of invective at each other.
For years, many journalists were rankled that people actually believed the Fox News slogan that it was “fair and balanced” when it was so demonstrably not. Now, in a delightful bit of showmanship, Fox is adding “unafraid” to its tout.
On the other side, the way news was framed on ABC, CBS, NBC and on NPR and in many newspaper articles often displayed a more liberal set of values and was less than “objective,” sometimes even downright slanted.
This fight isn’t new, but the blurring of news and commentary is creating a new wrinkle on what is considered “news” and who represents a legitimate news outlet. We’ll look at that more in a future column.
The Fox network has eagerly developed a group of commentators who feed each other’s dire predictions and question Obama’s patriotism. I suspect they don’t represent the majority of Republicans, or even the majority of conservatives, who may feel their true message has been hijacked by the shouters on the far right. The loudest often get the most attention, think back to the empty paranoia and suspicion that the John Birch Society once spewed.
Still, as entertaining as it can be watching spittle form at the corners of an opponent’s mouth, there is also something worrisome when the attacks go beyond “just politics”.
Americans know that even as we cherish First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press, we also share a painful history of dangerous invective, especially when it comes to race-baiting. When Beck claims Obama “hates whites,” and others in the so-called “birther” movement deny his legitimacy (claiming he was not born in the U.S. and not entitled to the presidency), there is fear that such claims could provoke the unhinged to attack him personally.
At anti-administration “tea-party” rallies, promoted by the Fox hosts, some question Obama’s patriotism and call him a Nazi and a communist. During the election campaign, the opposition castigated Obama for transgressions by anyone, such as William Ayers, or any organization, such as ACORN, which supported him in the last election. It is almost certain that whenever some new terrorist attack occurs, that Obama will be blamed for allowing it to happen. The September 11 attack occurred just about this time in the Bush administration.
At the moment, however, the journalists in this food fight are more concerned about themselves.
A couple of weeks ago, Tucker Carlson (yes, the one with the bow tie), a Fox contributor, portrayed Fox as a victim while “the two most senior members of the White House staff attempt to bully a news outlet into silence.” The far right reveled in the feeling of victimhood throughout the eight years of the Bush administration. Now they can imagine the jackboots of government coming down over their throats.
The online Media Matters, a left-of-center watchdog organization, compiled a list of times the GOP and the Bush White House went after news organizations such as NBC, CNN and MSNBC and suggested boycotts by viewers.
Such tiffs are not uncommon especially during the campaign season. For a time, Vice President Cheney excluded New York Times reporters from traveling aboard Air Force Two. Presidential candidate John McCain’s people threatened to throw reporters from Time, Newsweek, and NBC off the campaign plane and two very critical columnists from the New York Times and Time magazine were not allowed on the campaign plane.
Democrats also kick back. Just a year ago, during the final election swing, Obama aides kicked off three reporters from the campaign plane: one from the Washington Times, another from the New York Post and one from the Dallas morning news. All three newspapers had editorially endorsed McCain.
For those who want to see how a conservative watchdog group operates, I would recommend the Media Research Center whose goal is to “fight liberal bias.” There you can find instances of how bias can swing both ways. If you are against bias from one antagonistic group, you should be against bias in all forms.
All parties in this will survive and similar food fights may erupt at any time. Some of Obama’s ardent supporters were getting worried that the government was prepared to cut Fox out from regular administration news briefings. But one lesson Obama learned from this current fight: don’t threaten to cut off a particular news organization’s access because even the competing ones will rally to its defense. There is an unwritten understanding among journalists that if one administration is allowed to cut off access to set of reporters and commentators, the next one administration may go after you. So many voices have been heard on the issue now that it is coming full circle with Mike Madden in Salon.com complaining that many mainstream media outlets are siding with Fox and attacking Obama.
There is certainly no question that Fox aims to appeal to a very conservative audience and that its commentators such as Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity love to pick apart every presidential utterance and administration effort. Fox executive Shine admits acknowledges that Fox is “the voice of the opposition on some issues.” Fox talk show hosts have been beating up Obama for his health care proposals, for efforts to turn around the economy, and for each decision or anticipated decision involving Iraq and Afghanistan
There is also no question that much of the rest of the media has been supportive of Obama throughout his campaign for the presidency and his first 10 months in office.
The Nobel Committee gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize basically, I believe, for not being George Bush, and for creating hope around the world that the U.S. is headed in a new direction on everything from climate change to conflict. The media also swooned (O’Reilly called the reporting “rhapsodic”) at Obama’s potential for change. It is fair to say that Obama has been treated with exceptional delicacy.
That could change, of course. Journalists, in general, hate the status quo (it’s boring) and criticism of the President is already rumbling through editorial pages and among even the most liberal political columnists. Many of Obama’s ardent supporters on the left are growing restive because he has not moved fast enough to undo Bush administration policies on Guantanamo. They also complain his Justice Department supports Bush-era court cases that lessen citizen privacy rights.
Last week, the Web site FishbowlDC reported that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had a meeting with Michael Clemente, a senior vice president at Fox, supposedly to tone down the rhetoric on both sides.
Despite the occasional food fights, it’s better to have a contentious free press than a tame one. While presidents get irritated by opposition voices, they know that ultimately they must live with them; they also believe the bully pulpit of the presidency is louder than any one news organization.

Gubernatorial Gambit

2009-10-26T10:45:00.011-05:00

This coming June, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's criminal trial resumes, and it is likely to lead him to a place that two of his immediate predecessors have already frequented: prison. During the intervening months, both parties will hold primaries to select his successor, hoping for an alternative fate regardless of the victor. Believe it or not, the state gubernatorial primary is a little more than three months away. Although the inter-party battles have largely stayed under-the-radar to date, they will undoubtedly heat up as the mercury outside dives.

Case in point was last Wednesday's Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Forum at the Union League Club. Five GOP contenders were on hand for an occassionally testy "conversation" that lasted a little more than an hour: Adam Andrzejewski, Bill Brady, Kirk Dillard, Dan Proft, and Bob Schillerstrom. Chris Robling of the Union League Club served capably as moderator.

Andrzewski, former owner of a family publishing business and founder of a good government organization, ForTheGoodOfIllinois, celebrated his lack of Springfield experience parallel to the not-of-Washington jingle so typical of national politics. A self-styled "real Republican reformer," Andrzewski alluded to the work of Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, and pledged similar efforts to tackle political corruption in Illinois through fiscal transparency.

Brady, a member of the Illinois General Assembly since 1993, promised to bring back business leadership to Springfield. He owns and operates Brady Homes. Brady would roll back the tax and fee increases imposed by Blagojevich, and offer tax incentives to bring back jobs to Illinois. In the realm of reform, he also favors term limits, campaign contribution limits, and computerized redistricting.

Dillard, a former judge and Chief of Staff to popular Governor Jim Edgar, is a sitting state senator and thus boasts a resume with experience in all three branches of state government. He acknowledged that Illinois is a state in crisis, citing its 48th place ranking in economic development and multibillion dollar budget deficit. Dillard is wont to celebrate his political experience, offering a laundy list of legislative accomplishments including ethics reform and truth-in-sentencing guidelines. He pledged to close his campaign fund upon election, and also to make Illinois a "destination economy."

Dan Proft, a PR professional and political commentator, surfaced as the anti-Dillard. He said that this race is not about one's resume, but instead the will to take the fight to the Chicago Democrats who control the levers of political power statewide. Proft promises a "clear, contrast reform vision," including fundamental reforms of the state pension plan, K-12 funding (statewide school choice), and Medicaid. He sees the state in "cardiac arrest," and returned to his slogan that the "system isn't broken; it's fixed." Proft pledged to form nontraditional coalitions around single issues, doing an end-around the tired ways of Springfield.

Schillerstrom, chair of the DuPage County Board, also clung to the experience mantle. He holds great hope for the state, yet recognizes that its government has regularly failed the people and their institutions. Schillerstrom said that we need to look no further than the Springfield culture, where its elected inhabitants spend more than they take in. He pointed to his eleven years of executive expertise where he ran a government larger than six states, paying bills on time, balancing the budget, and seeking efficiencies in governmental operations.

In a mostly civil exchange, only a couple of the barbs flung found traction. They were thrown by the two darkhorses, Andrzejewski and Proft, the former critical of Brady's tax plan, which he claimed offered benefits only at the margin, and the latter's rhetorical question to Dillard about the effectiveness of the ethics law he sponsored ("How is that working?").

When asked to name their role models, the candidates paraded the usual Lincoln and Reagan responses, but Proft claimed John Paul II, and Andrejewski Casmir Pulaski. All of the candidates save Schillerstrom articulated pro-life abortion positions, and Dillard offered a qualifier in favor of stem cell research.

Notably missing from the affair were former state party chairman Andy McKenna, who will officially announce his candidacy on Tuesday, and former attorney general and 2002 gubernatorial nominee Jim Ryan, who remains in the exploratory phase of his campaign. However, the five candidates assembled left those in the audience with plenty of food for thought and eager to see the two Democratic contenders, Governor Pat Quinn and Comptroller Dan Hynes, stage the same routine on November 18.

God on the Gridiron

2009-10-16T12:02:00.005-05:00

As a former high school football player and coach, I always appreciated the spirit and enthusiasm of our cheerleaders on game day. From decorating players' lockers to electrifying the crowd, they were integral to the atmosphere that makes high school athletics authentic and truly meaningful for young people in their formative years. Such is the case in Fort Oglethorpe, GA.

Since 2003, cheerleaders at Lakeview Fort Oglethorpe High School have constructed paper banners for the home team to crash through upon entering the field, albeit painted with biblical verses. In this heavily Protestant town, few even raised an eyebrow until an LFO parent, Donna Jackson, told the Superintendent that the practice was breaking the law and needed to be stopped. Jackson had recently taken a legal course at Liberty University, and regretted the move given that she reads the Bible daily.

Citing First Amendment concerns, the school district relented and halted any future imposition of biblical verses on gameday banners. Was their legal analysis sound?

The First Amendment's religious liberty clauses sometimes come into conflict with one another: one is free to exercise their religious beliefs, yet the state cannot establish its own religion. What happens when individuals, in this case LFO cheerleaders, use a taxpayer funded platform, namely a football game at a public high school, to trumpet their belief in God?

This proverbial play at the joints between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses surfaced in parallel fashion in 1995 at Sante Fe High School in Texas. At issue was a student-read prayer over the load speaker at home football games. It was initiated through a schoolwide election where a student champlain was elected and his or her right to read a pregame prayer was also endorsed.

Writing for a 6-3 majority in the 1999 case Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the prayer occurred on government property and was sanctioned by a government-affiliated entity, representing official endorsement of prayer at school-sponsored events. Student speech was anything but private. Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in dissent, took note of the disturbing tone of the majority that "bristle[d] with hostility to all things religious in public life."

Is a loadspeaker equivalent to a student-constructed banner? Does the locus of its construction matter? How about the source of the materials used to make it? Each of these questions are critical in order to predict a litigation outcome. Moreover, two members of the majority have since left the Court: David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor, and their replacements, Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito, respectively, may or may not be more amicable to private expression of religious beliefs through public channels.

Given that LFO High nixed this potential church-state conflict before it was dragged into the courtroom, we are left with an less than satifying outcome. Locals have taken it upon themselves to trumpet the messsages formerly displayed on banners using such diverse channels as the family SUV, student t-shirts, and even an electronic billboard outside a car dealership. These private channels of religious speech are of course permissible, even admirable. However, the question of whether these earnest cheerleaders were also in the right remains unresolved.

Taking it to the Streets

2009-10-12T11:18:00.008-05:00

Yesterday, more than 150,000 supporters of homosexual rights took their message to the fulcrum of power in Washington, demanding equality in Washington during a window ripe for reform. Last Thursday, the House passed enhanced hate crime protections for gays, lesbians, and transgenders, a long sought after legacy of the brutal beating of Matthew Shepard in 1998. On Saturday, President Obama stood before a gala sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and promised that he would end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy employed by the military since 1993. He claimed that his commitment to gay rights is "unwavering."

However, given the ambitious agenda on the first year president's plate, gay rights have remained on the backburner, and Obama has given no indication of when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be repealed, nor tread new ground on issues like the Defense of Marriage Act. Cautious optimism seems to characterize a movement that lined up en mass behind a barrier breaking figure in his own right.

Obama walks a precarious line between risking political capital on an issue that could undermine his frontline agenda items like health care reform and cap and trade legislation, and deferring a dream that in the eyes of many is long overdue. He likely has an eye on the last Democratic president (Bill Clinton) who grappled with the issue only to see his ambitious goals sacrificed for a peacemeal approach thereafter.

These concerns considered, Obama will find it increasingly difficult to hold back the waters of a rising tide. How will be continue a policy that facilitates the harm recounted by former Navy recruit Joseph Rocha in this Washington Post op-ed? Next month, Maine voters decide whether or not to validate a state law that enables same-sex marriage. Five states and counting constitute these ranks, though none has done so directly through the voice of the people. In the nation's capital, the city council appears likely to legalize same-sex marriages by the end of the year. The Defense of Marriage Act may be undone from the bottom up.

Bob Dylan's lyrics in The Times They Are-A Chagin' were directed at the civil rights movement of his youth, one centering on race and later gender. The following lines are apt as ever in describing the forces of change gripping government institutions across the land as civil rights reach their "final frontier."

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Brethren Back to Work

2009-10-05T11:16:00.005-05:00

The U.S. Supreme Court officially kicks off its 2009-2010 term today with an intriguing docket of 55 cases and growing. The conservative-leaning 5-4 majority is poised to take on a heavy load of cases involving business regulation in a political climate receptive to more intense government oversight of the private sector. Will the Roberts Court put the breaks on Obama's ambitious agenda?

The First Amendment also holds a front seat in the public gallery with the already reheard case concerning "Hillary: The Movie" as a proxy for the extent to which corporate money can play in federal elections. Simply stated, are campaign donations equivalent to speech, and if so, what level of scrutiny does the Court apply to corporate speech?

The clash between free speech and animal cruelty will also be put to the test, as state laws criminalizing the distribution of videos depicting acts of extreme violence toward animals are in question. Another Establishment Clause case considers the presence of a giant cross on public land that was later partitioned to the VFW.

Of local interest is a challenge to Chicago's 27-year old gun ban, an ordinance strikingly similar to the DC ban struck down by the Court last June when a 5-4 majority declared that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to "keep and bear arms." The remaining question was whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws, as DC is a federal territory. McDonald v. Chicago could make incorporation a reality. Stay tuned for more intense coverage of this potentially landmark case.

Finally, the Roberts Court weathers its third new iteration in 4 years with the coming of Sonia Sotomayor and the retirement of David Souter. On the surface, this appears as a tit for tat exchange of moderate liberals, but history tells us that "fair is foul, and foul is fair" when it comes to expectations and actual performance on the bench. Also lurking on the horizon is the probable retirement of the Court's longest-serving Justice, the 89-year old John Paul Stevens, who stands as the Supreme's liberal lion.

Public information on Olympics process scarce

2009-10-01T13:38:00.015-05:00

Media in previous host cities fought for information.

Protesters opposing Chicago's bid for the Olympics march outside of Chicago City Hall on Tuesday night.

UPDATE: Chicago did not win its bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. The International Olympic Committee chose Rio de Janeiro as the Olympic host city on Friday morning. This story was posted to Fanning the Flames before the vote was taken. Check out a photo gallery of reaction at Daley Plaza and more photos from the Tuesday night protest on the Freedom Museum's Flickr page, http://www.flickr.com/photos/freedomphotos/.

Posted on Oct. 1, 2009

By Jamie Loo
First Amendment reporter

While supporters of a 2016 Olympics in Chicago are on a media blitz before Friday’s International Olympic Committee vote, they will likely be more camera-shy with planning information if the city wins the bid.

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) won’t apply to the city’s organizing committee if Chicago gets the Olympics, but an ordinance passed by the city council provides a few safeguards to open public records.

The organizing committee has agreed to provide the city council’s Budget and Government Operations, and Finance committees with quarterly financial reports. The reports will include information such as revenues, expenses, construction costs, financial forecasts, insurance, and copies of financial reports submitted to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and state. Information such as requests for proposals, final construction contracts and amounts, and information on whether contractors donated anything to the organizing committee would also be disclosed. These reports will be posted on a quarterly basis to their Web site. A copy of the conflict of interest policy and required forms from the board of directors and other senior officers will be also posted on the organizing committee’s Web site.

No Games Chicago spokesperson, Tom Tresser, said he doesn’t have much faith in the ordinance’s openness commitment. No Games Chicago is a grassroots group of local residents who oppose the city’s Olympic bid, and also has a presence in Copenhagen this week. Tresser, a local activist co-founder of Protect Our Parks which sued the city to prevent it from privatizing portions of Lincoln Park, said their Freedom of Information Act requests were regularly ignored by the city.

“The city flouts the (FOIA) law routinely,” he said.

If Chicago is chosen, Tresser said he doubts that local media organizations will fight for open records because he feels they didn’t do a good job covering the bid process. He said many of the media organizations also have a conflict of interest because they donated money to support the Olympic bid. According to the Chicago 2016 Stewardship report, Tribune owner Sam Zell, the Sun-Times, ABC 7, WGN, WTTW, Chicago magazine and other media organizations donated or provided pro bono support.

Tresser said information that is available, such as a report by the non-partisan Civic Federation on the impact of the Olympics, is filled with conflict of interest issues. Companies and organizations that funded the report have either donated to the bid or stand to gain financially from a local Olympics, he said.

Pushing the local organizing committee or the International Olympic Committee to follow state FOIA laws is futile, Tresser said, because the committee will likely ignore it.

“The IOC is above all law. You can’t make the IOC and its creatures obey American law,” he said.

The press office for the Chicago 2016 bid committee did not respond to questions from Fanning the Flames for this story.

Fanning the Flames is a blog of the McCormick Freedom Museum, which is part of the McCormick Foundation. The McCormick Foundation donated money to the 2016 Fund for Chicago Neighborhoods, which awards grants to local organizations for local planning and development activities to complement the city’s Olympic bid. A specialized reporting institute in partnership with DePaul University was sponsored by the McCormick Foundation to help the media cover the Olympics if Chicago wins the bid. The foundation was also one of the contributors to the Civic Federation of Chicago study, which was released in late August. The non-partisan organization conducted an independent financial review of Chicago’s bid for the Chicago City Council.

Lack of transparency

Organizing committees in previous host cities have claimed to be private entities, exempting them from state freedom of information and open meetings laws. It’s a barrier that local media organizations had to overcome in Atlanta, Georgia and in Salt Lake City, Utah to cover Olympic development news, and later to uncover questionable practices their cities used to become host cities.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution managing editor, Bert Roughton, who was a reporter for the newspaper during the 1996 Atlanta games, said most of the records they needed were available during the bidding process, because much of that process involved approval from local and state government.

But after Atlanta won the host city bid, he said the organizing committee began claiming its private status and tried to keep records closed. Roughton said he remembers several weeks of back and forth discussions with Olympic organizers trying to get them to be more open with information. When the newspaper asked for salary figures, organizers took it as “aggressive act.” Roughton said many committee members were not public figures and unaccustomed to dealing with the press, so it took them a while to come around and understand what reporters were trying to do.

Roughton said the Metropolitan Atlanta Olympic Games Authority (MAOGA) was created as a public entity, which meant its records were subject to the state’s freedom of information law. One of MAOGA’s tasks was building Olympic venues, he said, so documents such as construction contracts were public information. The London 2012 Olympic Committee has set up a similar public entity called the Olympic Delivery Authority.

The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG), eventually released some records to avoid going to court, Roughton said, and agreed to make regular reports to the media on their work. He said the newspaper’s experience turned out OK overall and they were able to gain access to the top salaries of those involved with the games, budgets and other important information for the public.

At the time, Roughton said the IOC probably wasn’t accustomed to dealing with journalists armed with legal protection under FOIA laws looking for information. Roughton speculated that the IOC probably doesn’t have to deal with the same level of scrutiny as they do in the U.S., because other countries have less press freedoms.

“They (IOC) were fairly uncomfortable working here,” Roughton said.

That discomfort would only grow later when a scandal in the bidding process for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games was discovered.

Scandal in Salt Lake City

A letter from Salt Lake City Organizing Committee (SLOC) official David Johnson stating that money from the “scholarship program” would be ending for Sonia Essomba surfaced in the media in November of 1998. Essomba, a student at American University at the time, was the daughter of an International Olympic Committee member which voted to award the games to Salt Lake City in 1995. As the story unfolded, it was discovered that Essomba had received $108,350 in college tuition, rent and expenses from the SLOC. It was part of more than $1 million in improper gifts and cash presented to 24 of 114 IOC members, in an effort to secure Salt Lake City as the Olympic host city.

The American Journalism Review reported that the story triggered an investigation into the “biggest corruption scandal in the history of the Olympics” and led to investigations into the bidding practices of previous Olympic game host cities.

After the scandal broke, state legislators in Utah demanded that SLOC open their meetings and records to the public, according to archives from The Salt Lake Tribune. The Salt Lake Tribune regularly reported on the open records issues the newspaper, along with other media organizations and the public faced during the lead up to the Olympics.

By the end of March 1999 the SLOC agreed to voluntarily release documents and work on drafting an open records policy. Salt Lake City media organizations felt that the initial open records policy draft didn’t go far enough and still denied access to many meetings and records. Mike O’Brien, attorney for the Salt Lake Tribune, sent a letter to the SLOC policy committee asking them to close loopholes in the policy. O’Brien and other media attorneys argued that because Salt Lake City signed an agreement to cover the SLOC’s debts and borrowed $59 million in state funds to build Olympic venues, the organization should be open to more public scrutiny.

After four months of discussions, SLOC adopted an open records policy agreeing to some demands from the media and withholding other information. The committee agreed to a “presumption of openness” for audit, compensation and ethics committee meetings. But the public can be shut out of those meetings at any time because of personnel issues, contracts or other business that may arise, and are eligible to go behind closed doors under Utah’s open meeting laws.

The committee adopted clear language to limit the reasons for closing meetings on legal matters. Non-business and social meetings of board members would not require public notice, but any SLOC business at these events was prohibited. The SLOC created a reading room for the public with information including a list of contracts, summaries of business terms in television rights contracts, and a list of donors who contributed more than $10,000.

The SLOC limited its $1.45 billion budget to a four-page summary because of concerns it would hurt the committee’s ability to negotiate with potential suppliers. The salary figures for SLOC officers and the five highest paid employees were released, but not for lower level managers and employees. SLOC agreed to a 20 day time frame to respond to requests for information.

Months later, the SLOC hired a paralegal to help them respond to information requests from the media and agreed to release some documents which were not covered in the open records policy. Then in May 2000, the SLOC refused to release documents with scandal-related legal payments, and a list of favors that may motivate IOC members to vote for Salt Lake City, which was known as the geld document. Some committee members feared releasing the documents would interfere with the U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the bribery scandal.

After the Justice Department informed the committee that it was not the target of their investigation, SLOC president Mitt Romney agreed to open all bid-era documents with some exceptions. Romney allowed documents which may contain information related to the indictment of former SLOC officials Tom Welch and Dave Johnson to be closed, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. IOC members threatened to sue the Salt Lake committee for libel for releasing the geld document. Romney responded that the open records policy mandated its release. The media would try to get the document from other sources, he said, and if the SLOC refused requests it would be viewed as a cover up.

The Salt Lake City scandal sparked interest at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution to look back at records from the 1996 Atlanta bid committee. The newspaper along with the Georgia state attorney general’s office fought to have records released. U.S. Congress opened up an investigation into potential corruption and also called for Atlanta Olympic organizers to make records available.

In the summer of 1999, the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games released an index of 6,500 boxes of documents and processed records requests, according to the Associated Press. Roughton said the public wanted more information over time and that the Atlanta bid documents were regarded as “historical documents” by the time they were released.
In an eight-part series published by Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the newspaper found hundreds of gifts, job offers and personal favors involved in the bidding process.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that after the SLOC scandal, Nagano, Japan -- which hosted the 1998 Winter Olympics--burned its documents related to the bidding process. In a 1999 article that appeared in the Japanese newspaper, Asahi, vice secretary general for the Nagano bid committee, Sumikazu Yamaguchi, confirmed that the committee’s accounting books were destroyed in 1992. A 1999 investigation into the Sydney, Australia committee’s bid for the 2000 summer Olympics uncovered travel, entertainment and gifts that exceeded IOC rules. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that independent auditor, Tom Sheridan, noted in his investigation report that many bid-related documents had gone missing or were destroyed.

Did sunshine equal reform?

The International Olympic Committee has an ethics commission that investigates alleged ethics violations by its members. In the wake of the Salt Lake City scandal many IOC members resigned from the organizations, who were either connected to that bid or other bids that were investigated by individual countries.

In 2002, U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) chief executive Lloyd Ward was accused of trying to help a power company get a contract to supply generators to the Dominican Republic for the 2003 Pan America Games. The power company had ties to Ward’s brother. No contracts were signed and the USOC’s ethics oversight committee decided not to discipline Ward.

The U.S. Senate’s committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held hearings in January 2003 to investigate the controversy and other internal problems at the USOC. The hearings led to a massive restructuring of the organization, which included shrinking its board of directors from 125 to 11 people and clearly defining responsibilities for directors and staff.

In addition to having an ethics officer, the USOC also created an Office of Compliance to make sure all branches of the organization follow its code of conduct. The USOC strengthened the code’s sections on conflict of interest and spelled out the rules on gift giving. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and its application to the USOC, was added to code. The act makes it a crime to directly or indirectly offer a bribe to foreign officials or foreign government-owned corporations.

SIDEBAR: British activists face records barriers for London 2012 Olympics

As Chicago vies for the 2016 Olympics, the 2012 Summer Olympics host city, London, is preparing for its games and has a Freedom of Information policy in place. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) has the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) as its public entity. ODA was created by the Parliament and will handle infrastructure such as building Olympic venues and transportation.

The LOCOG claims private status, but the ODA is subject to England’s Freedom of Information Act 2000 law. The London 2012 Web site provides information on how to file a request with the ODA and what categories of information are public.

The basic intent of England’s law is similar to FOIA laws in the U.S., except that it includes a long list of vague exemptions. England’s law also allows public officials to base a decision on whether the requestor is abusing their right to request information, harassing or causing distress to officials, or whether the request lacks a serious purpose.

Despite the ODA’s policy, members of Games Monitor, a London Olympics watchdog group, say they’ve been denied information requests on repeated occasions.

“Whenever I ask a FOI of the ODA(Olympic Delivery Authority) and it is a matter covered by LOCOG the ODA simply tell me LOCOG is not obliged to answer,” said Julian Cheyne, a member of Games Monitor, a London Olympics watchdog group.

Cheyne, an East London resident who was displaced to make way for the Olympics,
said he and other activists have been accused of making “vexatious requests.” Under England’s Freedom of Information law, public officials can deny vexatious, or repeated requests if they’re similar to prior requests. Cheyne said they have to be specific and word their requests carefully otherwise officials will provide vague answers or claim they can’t answer because of costs or time.

Independent journalist and Games Monitor member, Mike Wells, who has been writing about radioactive waste that was unearthed at the London Olympic park site, said he has had trouble obtaining records. In a Sept. 4 letter, ODA general counsel Celia Carlisle points out factors that they “advise” Wells consider when he makes future requests and warns that they may deny information if it “constitutes an abuse of the right to request information or is otherwise manifestly unreasonable.” Carlisle notes that in filling freedom of information requests, the ODA can take into account the history of a request, its context to previous requests and consider “whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation.”

Games Monitor member and activist Charlie Charman said it generally takes government officials 20 business days to respond, which is the maximum amount of time allowed under the law. Officials then have a list of exemptions they can claim to refuse information such as commercial confidentiality and “manifestly unreasonable” requests. He said officials can also demand payment for the time it takes to process a request. If they deny your request, Charman said an appeal can take another 20 days or longer.

Some of the London Olympics’ key documents have been shrouded in secrecy. Charman said the Arup Cost and Benefits Report of 2002, which was used during the bidding process, wasn’t released until 2008 and was heavily redacted. The host city contract hasn’t been released under the freedom of information act, Charman said, because of the “duty of confidentiality” claims to the IOC.

Nudge

2009-09-30T11:16:00.012-05:00

I'm often teased by my coworkers for my admiration of the intellect and scholarship of Cass Sunstein, a law professor at Harvard and head of the Obama White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His work transcends ideology, applying intuitive solutions to perplexing problems, and representing the ever elusive "third way" in our polarized political environment. His latest work, Nudge (co-authored with University of Chicago Business Professor Richard Thaler), stands as an exemplar of his growing body of trailblazing work.

Sunstein and Thaler build a model premised on "libertarian paternalism," at oxymoron at first blush, but a middle path between an unencumbered free market championed by the right and the command and control ideals of the left. It is libertarian in the sense that it enables individual choice, but paternal in that it attempts to influence choices via financial incentives, explicit encouragement, or at minimum, a default setting. In many cases the government would be the body charged with providing a "nudge," but there is a role for the private sector, too.

The authors begin with an example of the way in which food is arranged in a school cafeteria and how it impacts student purchases. As a former high school teacher and lunchroom supervisor, I was appalled by the two most popular student lunch selections each and every day: 1) pizza and an order of fries, or 2) skip the pizza, but double the fry order. According to Sunstein and Thaler, the sequence and height of food placement matter, and if we are concerned about the intake of caloric content and healthy alternatives among our youth, subtle manipulations can result in reduced childhood obesity and related health problems upon entering adulthood. By simply placing the pizza and fries later in the cafeteria line and offering salads in their place, the school would notice significant dietary changes among the student body.

Sunstein and Thaler delve into choice architecture, the process by which humans make decisions. In a perfect world, we are all rational consumers with complete information and make reflective decisions along these lines. The reality is that rationality is "bounded," and we are forced to operate with incomplete facts and time constraints that impair optimal outcomes. Many of our decisions are automatic with outright disregard for logic.

This is where private or public entities can enter with a nudge, constructing a choice architecture that accounts for human limitations, yet yielding the ideal outcome predicted by economic maximizers (or something close to it). Some fervent opponents of government intervention stop the conversation here, but the authors argue that the public sector is already a major player in private decision making, and even imperfect government intervention will produce a superior final outcome when compared to the status quo.

The framework in place, Sunstein and Thaler apply it to several diverse policy areas, from Social Security privatization to prescription drug benefits, greenhouse gases to gay marriage. They are skepital of the Social Security plan championed by former President Bush, suggesting that we need a sounder choice architecture, perhaps like that employed in Switzerland. As for prescription drugs, they are critical of the new entitlement plan in the sense that it assigns participating individuals providers randomly, failing to take into account pricing and effectiveness. Their plan to tackle carbon dioxide pollution sounds a lot like the cap and trade program circling its way through Congress, and they seek a divorce between the religious institution of marriage and the government civil union alternative.

Their most timely offering addresses health care reform, and they focus on a proposal popular in Republican circles, tort reform. Their plan, however, diverges significantly from the caps on punitive damages most often reflected in legislative proposals. Instead, the authors would separate medical liability from health care entirely. Patients could opt out of their right to sue in exchange for more economical procedures. Those who refuse the waiver would pay higher costs to reflect the real impact that lawsuits and the threat of them have on the system as a whole. Sunstein and Thaler suggest that we are all currently forced to subsidize the small minority of affected patients who do pursue legal recourse, and it inflates costs across the board. Interesting enough, President Obama has opened the door to some form of mediation between doctors and lawyers on this front in an effort to secure bipartisan support for his larger health care overhaul.

Outside of these major proposals, their mini suggestions are many, from a "Give More Tomorrow Plan" for charities, to gambling self-bans, to a dollar a day to prevent recurring teenage pregnancies. In a bonus chapter for the paperback addition, the authors listed twenty more nudges that came from readers who posted to their blog. Sunstein and Thaler are clearly on to something here, and they urge us to join the discussion and form collective solutions.

At a minimum, Nudge presents everyday decisions in a new light, recognizing that the economic man is an ideal, yet we are all closer to Homer Simpson in reality. It forces us to revisit retirement planning, health care consumption, and where we send our kids to school. More than anything, it sheds additional sunlight on complex decisionmaking processes. Given that Sunstein is situated in a place where he can bend the president's ear, it is likely that even the Commander-in-Chief will be nudged toward a few of these policy solutions, a result this reader considers a net positive.

Media Matters and Manners

2009-09-24T16:01:00.007-05:00

The beleaguered media industry weathered one more shot in a national survey released by Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT. In a wide ranging telephone poll of 800 respondents, Americans' trust, media consumption habits, and perceptions of bias were placed under the microscope. Respondents also weighed in on the future of the field. My analysis of the results follow.

Trust in media is waning, with less than a quarter of respondents (24.3%) reporting that they believe all or most media coverage. Over half (54%) believe some of the content, and one-fifth (20.4%) little or none. An astounding 86.6% strongly or somewhat believe that the media has its own political and public policy position and attempts to influence its audiences along these lines.

This overall lack of trust is arguably attributable to Americans' increasing leeriness toward large institutions, the government included. The spring tea parties and the summer town hall shouting matches are also a product of this populist fervor.

When asked what news organizations they trusted most, respondents cited Fox News (30%) most often, followed by CNN (19.5%), NBC (7.5%), and ABC (7.5%). Fox News was also ranked highest by its detractors, as more than a quarter of respondents (26.2%) listed it as the source they trusted least.

The Daily Show/ Colbert Report were identified as the most ideologically liberal, followed by the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, USA Today, and NPR. Fox News, then the Wall Street Journal, lead the conservative-leaning list.

While the print and electronic media register much more trust for accuracy than blogs (56.1% to 7.8%), the industry's overall positive ranking languished at 35.9%, well below the 80-90% customer service standard sought by most organizations.

Media consumption habits are well documented by Nielson and other organizations, but this survey sheds light on what drives the selection process among competing alternatives. Objective reporting (59%) is far and away the most powerful force, with similar issue positions taking a distant back seat (19%).

The fact that respondents identified prevalent media bias is not news in these circles, but the numbers themselves are staggering. 83.6% of survey participants feel as if national media organizations are somewhat or very biased. Only 14.1% see little or no bias. Most interesting is the 89.3% who suggest that the media palyed a very or somewhat strong role in the election of President Obama, and 69.9% feel that the national news media is intent on promoting his presidential agenda.

Looking toward the future, 38.1% report that they read newspapers less often than they did five years ago, and 45% feel that the Internet has filled the gap (35.6% disagreed). A strong majority (77.9%) oppose government intervention to prop up the struggling industry. More than two-thirds (67.9%) feel that "old-style, traditionally fair and objective journalism is dead," yet a similar number (64.1%) consider journalism vital to a healthy democracy.

Something has to give here, and I'm hopeful for the adaptation and sustenance of the media industry. We should find comfort that survey respondents recognize its importance, and demand a return to the age-old industry values that are arguably eroding before our eyes. Some would argue that the industry is conforming to the demands of a changing market, but the contradictions present in this survey argue otherwise. The problem is multifaceted and involves consumers, too. They must become more media literate and demand the restoration of "traditionally fair and objective journalism" in 21st Century packages.

THREE ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOLS RECOGNIZED AS DEMOCRACY SCHOOLS

2009-09-18T13:37:00.001-05:00

The Illinois Supreme Court in Chicago was filled with educators and policy-makers this morning as Illinois Civic Mission Coalition, in partnership with the Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago and the McCormick Freedom Museum recognized three exceptional Illinois high schools as Democracy Schools. Illinois Democracy Schools are accredited secondary schools that provide students with authentic experiences in the rights, responsibilities, and tensions inherent in living in a constitutional democracy. The three high schools that have earned this distinction in 2009 include:

Glenbard South, Glen Ellyn, IL
Maine West, Des Plaines, IL
Wheaton North, Wheaton, IL

Governor Pat Quinn sent a letter congratulating the schools and recognizing the vital importance of the civic mission of schools.

Each of the schools received a plague signed by the Chairman of the Illinois State Board of Education, Jesse Ruiz, the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, Thomas Fitzgerald, and the schools’ state legislators—Senator Dan Cronin and Rep. Sandra Philos for Glenbard South; Senator Dan Kotowski and Rep. Rosemary Mulligan for Maine West; and Senator Carole Pankau and Rep. Franco Coladipietro for Wheaton North.

Democracy Schools provide numerous opportunities for students to participate in the democratic process through a range of classes and clubs. From class discussion on current issues and democratic simulations to extracurricular and service learning opportunities, students are able to experience first-hand the critical role they can play in shaping their government and society.

“The McCormick Freedom Museum’s mission is to enable informed participation in our democracy by demonstrating the relevance of the First Amendment and the role it plays in the ongoing struggle to define and defend freedom,” said Shawn Healy, managing director, McCormick Freedom Museum. “Reincorporating civics into the curricula of our secondary schools is vital to advancing our mission and sustaining democracy in Illinois and beyond. The committed students, teachers, administrators, and school board members of Glenbard South, Maine West, and Wheaton North exemplify this cause and should be commended for joining the growing ranks of Illinois Democracy Schools.”

“The climate for reform couldn’t be more promising,” said Healy. “In 2008, more than 6.5 million young people under the age of 30 voted in the presidential election, which is a 17 percent increase from the 2000 election. This is the perfect time to capitalize on this excitement and channel this interest into a lifelong commitment to civic engagement.”

“Illinois has several outstanding examples of high schools committed to their civic mission,” said Carolyn Pereira, chair, Illinois Civic Mission Coalition and executive director, Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago. “Our goal, along with the Freedom Museum, is to increase the number of Democracy Schools in Illinois by working with policy-makers and educators to ensure all Illinois high schools become Democracy Schools.”

ISBE Endorses Civic Blueprint

2009-09-17T16:33:00.005-05:00

This morning, on Constitution Day, the Illinois State Board of Education passed a resolution endorsing the Civic Blueprint for Illinois High Schools. The text of the resolution follows, and pictured above are four Illinois Civic Mission Coalition members (Carolyn Pereira, center left, and Dee Runaas, far left, of the Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago, Cynthia Woods, second from left, of the Illinois Association of School Boards, and me, Shawn Healy, of the McCormick Freedom Museum) and the State Board of Education, including Board Chair Jesse Ruiz (center-right).

Recognizing the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition and the McCormick Foundation
for the Illinois Civic Blueprint for Illinois High Schools

Whereas, the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition is a broad, non-partisan consortium including
educators, administrators, students, universities, elected officials, policymakers and
representatives from the private and non-profit sectors; and

Whereas, the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition is a part of the Campaign for the Civic
Mission of Schools, a national initiative to restore a core purpose of education to prepare
America’s youngest citizens to be informed and active participants in our democracy; and

Whereas, quality civic education opportunities are vital for all students and should be part of
every student’s school experience at every grade level; and

Whereas, the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition and the McCormick Foundation sponsored
an Educating for Democracy conference on February 9-10, 2009, attended by members of
the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition, leaders of state civic education organizations, and
educators to advance the cause of civic education in the State of Illinois; and

Whereas, a civic blueprint was created to guide Illinois High Schools in their role to encourage
students to become active and informed citizens of our democracy as part of the Educating for
Democracy conference; and

Whereas, the Civic Blueprint for Illinois High Schools is designed to give educators,
policymakers, parents and all residents of Illinois promising approaches to high school level
civic education, examples of Illinois high schools, educators and students using these
approaches, recommendations for implementing these approaches in high schools across Illinois,
and resources that support schools and communities in promoting the civic engagement of
Illinois High School Students;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Illinois State Board of Education recognizes the
Illinois Civic Mission Coalition and the McCormick Foundation for their efforts in
developing the Civic Blueprint for Illinois High Schools.

Survivors of war in Sudan reflect on past and look toward future

2009-09-15T15:00:00.005-05:00

(left to right) Malual Awak, Peter Bul, Neima Tarifa, and John Dut from the Sudanese Community Association of Illinois speak about surviving the Sudanese civil war at the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center in Skokie on Thursday.

Advocates say U.S. needs to keep pressure on country for fair elections in 2010.

By Jamie Loo
First Amendment reporter

Go back to your childhood.

Imagine being age 6, 7 or 8 years-old and playing with your friends outside. Suddenly, you hear gunfire and bombs. You go home to find your house on fire and your parents being arrested. You make a run for it through the fields staying off the roads because the military and police are there.

Soon, you find other children also fleeing from the militias. As you continue walking you find more children, until your numbers swell to 27,000. Older children, ages 10 and 11, become the leaders of the group. The group reaches a river. Some of the children try to cross on bridges and are gunned down. Others try to swim across. About 11,000 die trying to cross that river.

The children sleep where they can, eat when they can, often traveling at night to stay undercover. If there’s nothing to eat, you eat mud and grass. Many die along the way, and with no adults around the children bury their dead. Eventually about 10,000 children make it to a refugee camp. You’re given one cup of corn twice per month to eat.

It’s the story of the 27,000 “Lost Boys of Sudan” who were displaced during the Sudanese civil war between 1983 and 2005, which by some estimates killed up to 2 million people. These children made perilous journeys from Sudan to refugee camps in neighboring African countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia, which is the rough equivalent of walking from Chicago to Denver.

Four of the survivors shared their stories, talked about life in the United States and views about U.S. policy toward Sudan, in a program at the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center in Skokie on Thursday.

The youngest of nine children, Peter Bul said he was 6 years-old when he left Sudan in 1988 with his mother. After six days, his mother collapsed and couldn’t go any further. He said aid truck carrying water was going to a nearby village, so it took Bul’s mother to get medical help. Bul continued on with the other children for three months.

“A lot of children died along the way. I didn’t want to die so I tried my best, I worked,” he said. “We buried children along the way.”

He stayed in a refugee camp in Ethiopia for about four years. In 1991 there was a war in Ethiopia, so Bul started to travel back to Sudan. There was still violence in Sudan, so he fled again, this time arriving in Kenya in 1992 where he lived in a refugee camp for nine years. The U.S. offered to take 4,000 of the Lost Boys in 2001, and Bul said he was among the lucky group. He arrived in Chicago in April 2001.

Bul, who serves on the board of directors for the Chicago Association of Lost Boys of Sudan and Sudanese Community Association of Illinois, has helped to start a school in Sudan which now has 1,000 students. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, with hundreds of tribes and languages. This cultural and language diversity, along with lack of education means that many Sudanese cannot communicate with each other. By providing education about the country’s diversity and history, Bul said he hopes future generations can learn to live together in peace.

Malual Awak, president of the Sudanese Community Association of Illinois, said he was in high school in 1986 when he walked to Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, to live in a displacement camp. Awak walked to Liberia in 1987 where he had relatives and stayed until 1990 when civil war broke out there. He then sought safety in Ghana. In the mid ‘90s the U.S. government offered to help some refugees leave the country. Awak came to Chicago in 1995. He worked as a dishwasher through college and earned a bachelor’s degree in economics in 1999.

“I loved that job because it was the first job I had in my life,” he said. “I didn’t have anything before that.”

Bul and Awak said Illinois has many war survivors because there is a strong Sudanese community network and supportive U.S. citizens in the state. The Chicago Association for the Lost Boys of Sudan (CALBOS) offers services such as mentoring opportunities, career counseling, medical, emotional and education support. The Sudanese Community Center of Illinois helps all residents of Sudanese descent with social services and leads local efforts to advocate for change in Sudan.

At age 10, John Dut was considered an elder among a group of Lost Boys in 1987. He fled to Ethiopia for five years before returning to Sudan, only to have to flee again to Kenya. When he was in high school in Kenya, Dut said he remembers the U.S. providing aid to the refugee camps. He came to the U.S. in 2001 and is currently working on his master’s degree in business administration.

Neima Tarifa said the war also had “lost girls,” some who traveled with the lost boys and ended up in Kenya and Uganda. The U.S. also helped bring these girls to the U.S., she said, and most of them ended up in Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Tarifa left Sudan in 1999, living in Egypt for two years before coming to the U.S. She is going to school and raising four children.

Bul said he is worried that the upcoming elections will lead to another civil war. The country is supposed to hold a presidential and parliamentary election in 2010, which is the first national election to include southern Sudan in 40 years, according to the Associated Press. The current president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, took over the country in a military coup in 1989 and became president in 1993. In March, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Bashir’s arrest for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, was in Sudan last week to continue bilateral discussions with the National Congress Party (NCP) and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Although a peace agreement was signed in 2005, implementation of parts of the agreement has been met with resistance. Gration has been criticized by some human rights groups for being too soft on the NCP, which perpetrated the genocide in Darfur. The Obama administration is expected to announce its policy on Sudan soon, according to media reports.

Bul said he is disappointed at the administration’s slow pace on developing the Sudan policy. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Bul said he campaigned for Obama because the then-candidate said he cared about international issues like the crisis in Sudan.

Gration has talked about easing some sanctions to try to create a better relationship with the Sudanese government, Bul said, but he doesn’t think this should happen until after the election. He said Obama should put some pressure on Bashir to make sure a fair election happens before trying to improve relationships. Bashir will not give up power easily, Bul said, and part of the reason for the war in Darfur is because Bashir doesn’t want the people there to vote.

Dut said Obama’s policy should have steps to ensure free elections and equal rights. Religion and politics are too tied together in Sudan and need to be separated, he said.

Tarifa said real change can’t happen in diplomatic documents, and must be concrete through development. In southern Sudan there are few schools, no hospitals and no clean water, she said. Tarifa said for those lucky enough to go to school, “you can find a class of 200 students in one class.”

The most important thing Obama can do is to make sure a peace agreement is reached between the north and the south, and implemented, Awak said. That peace agreement will help bring peace in Darfur, he said, which needs a larger peacekeeping force to help the United Nations African Union force in Darfur (UNAMID). UNAMID had 16,961 peacekeeping personnel in Darfur from 39 countries at the end of July.

Awak, Bul, Tarifa and Dut said they share their stories to raise awareness about the situation in Sudan. Dut said after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks some U.S. citizens treated the Sudanese like terrorists, so the opportunity to talk to people about their history is important. Dut said residents should also contact politicians to tell them that Sudan needs to be a priority. As the Sudanese and their supporters become a larger, and more vocal voting block, Dut said more legislators are noticing them. He said they’ve been telling legislators to keep an eye on the Sudanese elections and do everything possible to prevent war in the country.

“Our goal is to make sure that what we have gone through should not happen to other generations,” Awak said.

SIDEBAR: Sudan’s conflicts

Malual Awak said after Sudan gained its independence from England in 1956 the country had a civil war for 17 years. After a period of peace, war broke out again in 1983. Awak said the country had an “identity crisis” trying to figure out if it was an African or Arab country. Then when oil was discovered in the south, he said things became more complicated because more international interests were involved. Religion plays a big role in Sudanese culture which has fed the larger conflict. Sudan has Christians, Muslims, and many other religions.

Peter Bul said the fight over natural resources is one of the focal points of the conflict. Money from oil has gone primarily toward the northern part of the country for development, he said, leaving Darfur and the south poor. Bul claims that Bashir knew long ago there was a possibility of civil war again between the north and south, and that Darfur probably wouldn’t support him. Instead of fighting a war with Darfur later, Bul said he thinks Bashir tried to wipe out the people through the genocide which began in 2003. Former United Nations African Union peacekeeping commander, Gen. Martin Luther Agwai, told Agence France-Presse in August that although the war is over in Darfur, the region still has security and humanitarian problems. Thousands of refugees are still living in camps across the border in Chad.

In 2005, the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed which ended the civil war and triggered a six year interim joint power sharing period between the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Elections will take place next year, and in 2011 a referendum will be held in southern Sudan to determine whether it should secede from the north.

On the Web

To learn more about the Sudanese community in Illinois, visit the Sudanese Community Association of Illinois Web site, http://www.sudanesecommunitycenter.org/.

Packing the Court

2009-09-14T09:51:00.008-05:00

The U.S. Supreme Court prematurely kicked off its 2009-2010 term with a special hearing last week of a rescheduled challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. They focused specifically on a ban of corporate-sponsored communication, in this case "Hillary: The Movie," considering whether it violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech. The ruling is likely weeks or even months away, but a 5-4 majority appears poised to further peel back this 2002 landmark legislation and unravel past Supreme Court precedents upholding the law and the larger concepts of corporate bans. This trend is not unique to our time, but is the product of judicial review, a power the Supreme Court assumed for itself in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.

James MacGregor Burns, in his latest book Packing the Court (2009, Penguin Press), suggests that the Court strayed from its initial bearings early on when Chief Justice Marshall carved out an institutional duty to strike down state and national laws that violate the Constitution. He is right that the Supreme Court, from its inception, was the most inferior of the three branches. Article III of the Constitution, which created the Court, is notable only for its brevity and delegation of authority for establishing the federal courts and their jurisdiction to Congress. Judicial review is altogether missing, and the bane of Burns' existence for the duration of this work.

Burns' problem with judicial review is that it is fundamentally undemocratic. Supreme Court justices are unelected and appointed to lifetime terms. They have no regular accountability to the people outside of the court of public opinion. Their tenures most often outlive the presidents who nominated them and the Senators who voted to confirm them. Throughout our history, it is quite common for a majority on the Court to nix the achievements of a President and Congress with agendas on the ideologically opposite poles.

The author's argument breaks down on account of the fact that the Court was undemocratic by design. The Constitution at heart is a fundamentally conservative document. Through separated and shared powers, and strategically positioned checks and balances, the democratic will is sometimes stymied, and the pace of inevitable change glacial.

Moreover, it's hard to argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have a duty to strike down laws that conflict with the government's foundational document. If these nine men and women are not so empowered, who will wield this necessary sword? Here lies the fatal flaw in Burns' book. He fails to offer an alternative vision for the daily doings of the Court. If not judicial review, then what? Certainly, he would allow for justices to determine the meaning of the Constitution, but then turn around and neuter them when an act of Congress or presidential excutive order violates its basic tenets?

At play here is the proverbial elephant in the room. The Supreme Court is held high as an institution where political party and ideology are checked at the door and the brethren in their majestic robes search for the original meaning of the Constitution, or its contemporary relevance, through textual interpretation and the evolution of common law. The reality is that the vast majority of justices share the same political party and/ or ideology as the president who appointed them, and employ these beliefs in their daily doings. Justices' terms on the bench are increasingly lengthy, making it likely that they will serve under presidents and Congresses with divergent views, and during changing political climates.

Such a scenario is currently unfolding. Six of the nine contemporary justices were appointed by Republican presidents. One, John Paul Stevens, has since drifted to the left ideologically and become the leader of the liberal wing of the Court (Ginsberg, Breyer, and most likely Sotomayor), but the remaining five represent a fairly reliable conservative majority (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito). Obama is arguably the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson, and Congress is controlled by his Democratic Party. In the short term, conflict appears inevitable.

It is widely speculated that Justice Stevens is on the cusp of retirement, presenting Obama with his second Supreme Court appointment, but this would do little to change the ideological complexion of the body. The same is true of Justice Ginsberg. However, should Obama win reelection, conservative Justices Scalia and/ or Kennedy may also leave the bench, providing Obama with an opening to consolidate a left-of-center majority more supportive of his agenda.

Elections have consequences, and the current Court is a product of them. Burns would be wise to heed their results and respect the marvels of separation of powers and checks and balances embedded in our founding document.

Newspapers and Non-Profits: Rising from the Ashes?

2009-09-09T09:00:00.010-05:00

Present perils and feasible futures for the newspaper industry were the subject of a sometimes-sobering session hosted by the McCormick Freedom Museum at Columbia College’s School of Journalism in Chicago. The panel was introduced by David Hiller, current CEO of the McCormick Foundation and former publisher of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, and was moderated by Tim McNulty, veteran White House and international correspondent and current professor at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism and the University of Chicago. Participants included Suzanne McBride, associate chair of Columbia College journalism school; Stephen Franklin, director of the Community Media Workshop and former international correspondent and labor journalist at the Chicago Tribune; and Adrian Holovaty, a young journalist, computer programmer, and creator of EveryBlock.com, which aggregates news and information specific to local neighborhoods.

Calling the future of newspapers “an urgent topic,” McNulty put an immediate stake in the ground before passing the microphone to Hiller. Hiller began by quoting Thomas Jefferson: “If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." Hiller called for more civic engagement and more discerning consumers of the news. McNulty followed by stressing the value of the First Amendment for any American who wanted to speak up and express ideas and opinions in a respectful, non-violent way.

The panelists all emphasized that people remain hungry for news, in spite of the devastating consequences of the recession on newspaper companies. McBride lamented the fact that fewer journalists are reporting now, although she expressed some hope for journalism in the Chicago area because of the increase in enrollment in journalism schools. McNulty cited a sobering statistic: “26,000 reporters and photojournalists have lost their jobs in the last 18 months.”

Adrian Holovaty addressed the battle between newspapers and their online competitors, pointing out that he uses 200 RSS feeds as well as Google Reader every day. He believes that city dailies should focus on local news rather than national and international news, since world news appears on Internet sources that can be updated quickly. He also pointed out that the smaller newspapers, including those in rural areas, are doing much better than the bigger ones. He downplayed the authority that newspapers once had.

The panel actively debated the “Twitter Revolution” and its positive and negative effects on the news. McBride and Holovaty called Twitter a “public forum” and praised Twitter’s role in actively engaging people in events and encouraging them to use their First Amendment rights. Holovaty said, “People are smarter than one thinks,” calling Twitter “truly free news” that had a role to play alongside newspapers.

Stephen Franklin, however, was skeptical, even wary, of Twitter’s outreach to a mostly younger generation. For example, he pointed out that even before Twitter, potentially damaging viral rumors existed which might have been made much worse if Twitter had existed. One anecdote in particular involved the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people. Franklin said an “Arab” was initially blamed for the bombing and he recalled that there were reports of some men subsequently being beaten just because they looked like Arabs. He asked the other panelists: “What if they had Twitter back then?”

His fellow panelists replied that that was a “self-correcting process.” Franklin shook his head and replied, “How many people have to be injured or even die for it to be self-corrected?”

“Do you really think people would go around beating up people,” Holovaty said. He said “people have skepticism.”

Franklin said it’s important that sources have authority. Trying to counter him, an audience member later asked Franklin how he could trust The New York Times after the Valerie Plame CIA leak scandal and former reporter Jayson Blair’s plagiarism scandal.

“Newspapers are imperfect, but I still trust The New York Times,” Franklin said.

Franklin also noted that more Latino and African-American newspapers have closed due to the recession than their mainstream media counterparts. He extolled the deep penetration of newspapers in the Latino (90% penetration) and African-American communities (84%) over the past four years, praising the socially driven ethnic- based newspapers that “cut to the bone” on news with no fluff. Franklin said he has hope for the future of ethnic newspapers because there are still many non-English speaking elderly immigrants who depend on receiving news in their native language. He felt that newspaper companies should focus more on them.

Finally, Franklin steered the discussion into a relatively new, yet very plausible route for ensuring the future of newspapers: a scenario where non-profit organizations or civic-minded individuals would bail them out. Reasons for taking such a route might vary, but they would likely all center on civic responsibility and engagement. For example, multi-billionaire David Geffen spent roughly $200 million in May of 2009 for the 19.9% stake in the New York Times Company. According to BusinessWeek, Geffen took this step because he was born to immigrants, lived in New York, and read—and still does— The New York Times as he grew up. Geffen also was one of the failed bidders for the LA Times, losing to Sam Zell, who—for the time being—owns and runs both the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune.

In prognosticating the future of newspapers over the next quarter century, pessimism and optimism clashed. McNulty amused the crowd by saying: “I can’t even imagine 2-5 years.” He stated that he believes the industry will be smaller and more specialized and that sooner or later they would become like magazines. Holovaty also quipped that the future will be bright for news, just not news companies.

In the end, no one knows what will happen to newspapers down the road. The future is hazy, but some options are beginning to take shape: bankruptcy or liquidation or the more promising potential of non-profit conversions. The most disturbing possibility remains the death of professional news due to creeping civic apathy.

Illinois’ Freedom of Information Act gets a make-over

2009-09-04T14:45:00.010-05:00

New rules open doors to better government accountability.

By Jamie Loo
First Amendment reporter

Sweeping changes to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have been signed into the law, which open government advocates say will result in better access to public documents and more government transparency.

FOIA laws give residents the right to inspect documents on the public record such as meeting minutes, budgets, court documents and documents involved in the government decision making process. Freedom of information laws vary from state to state and generally apply to public bodies including city councils, boards and commissions, as well as some other entities that receive tax dollars. Although the federal FOIA was adopted in 1966, Illinois didn’t enact a state freedom of information law until 1984.

One of the key changes to the Illinois FOIA law is the state’s powers to enforce the law, said Terry Pastika, executive director of the Citizen Advocacy Center, which works on government accountability issues.

The law codifies the position of the Public Access Counselor (PAC) in the state attorney general’s office and empowers the counselor to enforce FOIA law. The public can file complaints and have them reviewed by the counselor for violations of the Open Meetings Act or the denial of records. The PAC has subpoena power and can compel public officials to cooperate in investigations. The Attorney General can issue advisory and binding opinions on disputes, and there are also civil penalties between $2,500 and $5,000 for public bodies that don’t comply with FOIA.

Illinois Press Association (IPA) director of government affairs, Beth Bennett, said these provisions provide important recourse for residents fighting to obtain public documents. Prior to the change, citizens had to take their cases directly to court. The new rules also require that a Freedom of Information Act request denial include “the specific reasons for the denial, including a detailed factual basis and a citation to supporting legal authority,” which is stronger language than the previous law.

The new measures include guidelines and deadlines for how public bodies handle FOIA requests. Public bodies are now required to have a Freedom of Information Act officer, who must complete a training course by the state on responsible processing and compliance with the statute. Pastika said only one other state in the Midwest requires FOIA training. The bill also shortens the response time for FOIA requests from seven to five business days. Public bodies must provide the first 50 pages of a document for free and photocopying fees after that are capped at 15 cents per page.

Bennett said the IPA, a trade association which represents daily and weekly newspapers, saw many good provisions that they’ve wanted for years enacted in the bill. For example, Bennett said settlements between public bodies and groups such as insurance companies were often sealed before, forcing journalists and the public to go to court to get those documents. Settlements are now considered public documents.

Public bodies often enter into contracts with outside entities for government work, Bennett said, and the courts had varying interpretations on whether these contracts were public. The law now clearly says that these contracts are open to the public, she said. The media often ran into problems obtaining arrest reports and criminal history records, Bennett said, so to work around the prior Illinois FOIA law the Media Arrest Report Law was passed. The FOIA law now includes language from that law, Bennett said.

There are some however, that are opposed to the changes such as the Illinois Municipal League which is a lobbying group that represents city and town governments.

In a letter to Gov. Pat Quinn, the league says that the new requirements will create an overwhelming burden on local officials who have to process Freedom of Information Act requests every day. Many municipalities have small staffs and the shortened time period to respond to requests will mean an increase in labor. Local governments have cut back on printing and copying to save money, and asking them to produce up to 50 pages of documents free of charge will hurt their budgets.

The IML noted that any court reviews of the PAC’s decisions must be filed in Cook County or downstate in Sangamon County, which would make it difficult for public bodies that are far from these counties to seek legal remedy. The law doesn’t have eligibility guidelines for the FOIA officers, which raises questions about appointment procedures and if there is a conflict of interest for the designee to hold other municipal positions. The league letter said the law also ignores the “legitimate needs of government to keep some information confidential” and doesn’t adequately protect government rights in the process. FOIA has been used as a “political tool not to gather information but to harass and harangue public officials,” which the IML claims were not recognized in the bill.

“I think more work needs to be done in the exemptions section,” Pastika said.

The Citizen Advocacy Center director said restrictions on what can be claimed under privacy exemptions have improved but overall Illinois still has more exempt documents than other states. Bennett, from the IPA, and Pastika said draft documents are still exempt and the law doesn’t define when a “preliminary document” becomes open to the public. Bennett said it’s also not clear when the disciplinary action records of public officials can be released, so for now those documents can be protected by personnel files.

SIDEBAR: Public set to benefit from FOIA changes

The Illinois Public Access Bureau received 1,389 total requests for assistance with the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law and Open Meetings Act (OMA) in 2008. The majority of the freedom of information cases came from members of the public who filed 231 requests for assistance from the state attorney general in obtaining records from public bodies; 290 FOIA requests for documents from the attorney general’s office; and made 173 phone inquiries. The attorney general’s office also received 128 written inquiries and 130 phone inquiries from the public on the OMA.

In both categories, members of the public made more requests than the media and government officials. Overall, the smaller number of requests from the media may be because professional journalists tend to be experts on the FOIA and OMA laws and therefore would have fewer questions for the attorney general’s office. Journalists also often resolve disputes over denied information requests and open meeting issues with public bodies before it reaches the level of the Public Access Bureau or the attorney general. Government officials contact the attorney general’s office about FOIA and OMA for a variety of reasons, such as how to apply the law to specific meetings and whether requested documents can be disclosed.

In FOIA cases, the media made 37 requests for help obtaining records from public bodies, 20 requests for internal attorney general documents and 23 phone inquiries.
Government officials made 123 phone calls with FOIA inquiries, 13 FOIA requests for attorney general documents and 26 asked for assistance obtaining documents from public bodies. The media filed 15 written requests and 14 phone inquiries about the OMA, and government officials made 127 calls and 39 written inquiries about the law.

On the Web:

To read highlights of the changes to the FOIA and OMA laws go to, http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2009_08/SB189_summary.pdf.

Team of Rivals

2009-09-04T13:28:00.010-05:00

After years of procrastination, my honeymoon offered ample opportunity to tackle Doris Kearns Goodwin's monstrous assemblage (757 pages) on the Lincoln Administration, aptly titled Team of Rivals. I first encountered Goodwin as an undergrad when I was assigned Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. If unencumbered access characterized this breakthrough book, her latest biographical foray is punctuated by her thorough attention to previous scholarship on the four men central to the plot: Edward Bates, Salmon P. Chase, Abraham Lincoln, and William H. Seward.

Each of these four men had a claim upon the 1860 Republican nomination for President, with Chase and Seward representing the more liberal elements of the fledgling party, and Bates the conservative counterpart. Lincoln positioned himself firmly at the center of a party bent on halting the expansion of slavery in new territories and states, and lucked into having the convention in his home state (the Wigwam in Chicago). As the multiple ballot process proceeded, the nomination turned into a two-man tug-of-war between Seward and Lincoln, with Honest Abe ultimately prevailing.

Lincoln wasted little time reuniting the party as it entered perhaps the most polarized election in history, calling upon his former rivals to campaign on his behalf. Upon victory, he quickly brought these very capable men into his administration, appointing Seward Secretary of State, Chase to Secretary of Treasury, and Bates as Attorney General. Over time, Seward and Lincoln would grow incredibly close, as the railsplitting prarie lawyer won the respect and admiration of the distinguished New York statesman. Bates and Lincoln enjoyed an amicable, if distant relationship, while Chase remained a conniving rival until Lincoln finally called his fourth bluff by accepting his resignation letter. The former Ohio Senator and Governor thought he rightfully deserved the 1860 nomination and continually plotted his course to steal it back four years later.

Throughout, Lincoln understand each man's strategic importance in his governing coalition and immense political talents they brought to the table. More than anything, Goodwin's portrait is one of remarkable leadership where the president placed his ego aside and massaged those of his inferiors. He refused to react rashly to adversity, assumed responsibility for all of his administration's actions, and patiently poked these men to lead the nation through its most trying chapter.

It should be said that Bates is little more than a bit player in Goodwin's narrative, and that Edwin Stanton, a Democrat, assumes the Secretary of War position in Lincoln's cabinet after Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania proved inadequate, and plays a central role in the plot from this point forward. Seward and Chase serve as perfect foils for the positives and pitfalls of Lincoln's approach to leadership. While Seward served ably and honorably, Chase sought to undermine his Commander-in-Chief at seemingly every juncture.

Paralllels to the Obama Administration proliferated last winter as he assembled his own leadership team. By absorbing former presidential rivals Joe Biden (VP), Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State), and Tom Vilsack (Secretary of Agriculture) into his adminitration, Obama, like Lincoln, tended to the wounds of the nomination process and unified his Democratic Party. The contingent would have been larger had Bill Richardson survived the pay-to-play allegations that surfaced in New Mexico. Obama also extended a hand to his rival Republicans, retaining Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and appointing retiring Congressman Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation.

Obama's verdict is years forthcoming, but early returns point to mixed success. His first 100 days were enormously productive, but he ran into a rough patch this summer. Biden has taken the administration off message at many junctures, yet Clinton came on board and vigorously pursued Obama's foreign policy goals. It remains to be seen if she and others still harbor presidential ambitions, particularly if things continue to go south for the rookie president. Moreover, Obama's outreach to Republicans has failed to deliver the bipartisanship he vigorously touted throughout last year's campaign. Floor votes in Congress have been intensely polarized, and compromise remains elusive as they tackle health care reform, climate change, and before long, deficit reduction.

Goodwin showed us the benefits of presidents who surround themselves with talented rivals who question authority and enable coalition building. Lincoln's ultimate success was as much a tribute to his own leadership ability as it is to his cabinet's collective wisdom and experience. As his once express-driven agenda is crippled by congressional opponents, organized interests, and declining public opinion, Obama would be wise to heed both variables in this complicated equation.

Senator leaves long legacy on rights issues

2009-08-28T14:43:00.006-05:00

Civil Rights Act just the starting point of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s commitment to rights for all.

By Jamie Loo
First Amendment reporter

The right to vote, at age 18.

Increasing the minimum wage.

Employment opportunities for the disabled.

Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy helped make these civil rights and quality of life initiatives possible. The senator passed away at the age of 77 late Tuesday night.

History will remember Kennedy for many reasons but it’s his legislative achievements that will have the most lasting impact on the every day lives of Americans. In his 47 years in the Senate, Kennedy was a champion for civil rights, immigration, and health care reform. Kennedy authored more than 2,500 bills during his career and a few hundred became laws, according to his senate press office. The following is just a handful of Kennedy’s accomplishments to expand the rights of people in the United States.

Civil rights

Kennedy pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination in housing, employment, education and public accommodations. In later years, he would continue to lead legislation to expand the protections in this act. Although, President Ronald Reagan vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988, Kennedy successfully led the charge for a congressional override. The Civil Rights Restoration Act required than any organization that receives federal funds must follow federal civil rights laws.
In 1991 he was the chief sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which provided additional protection and remedies in cases of intentional job discrimination and workplace harassment.

Kennedy also played a role in expanding voting rights, supporting the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The senator fought to eliminate the poll tax by proposing it as an amendment to the act. The poll tax, a tax that had to be paid in order to vote, was one of hurdles that prevented many lower income residents and African-Americans from voting. The amendment to eliminate the tax didn’t make it into the final bill, but the Supreme Court later declared the poll tax unconstitutional in 1966.

During the Vietnam War in 1970, Kennedy pushed to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, arguing that if U.S. residents were old enough to fight and die for their country they should have the right to vote. Kennedy was the chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, which were designed to increase minority representation in government. He was also the chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act, which provided language assistance to Latino, Asian and Native American citizens with limited English skills at the polls.

The senator was also a champion for those with disabilities. Kennedy was one of the chief sponsors of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits employers from discriminating against those with disabilities in the employment process and requires public accommodations for the disabled. The law opened the doors for the disabled to have more employment opportunities and to live fuller lives. Prior to that, Kennedy supported the passage of amendments to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibit discrimination against the disabled and children in the sale or rental of housing.

Kennedy was one of the key supporters of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which protects women from discrimination in educational institutions and expanded women’s athletics at colleges and universities. The senator also sponsored the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which improved the way the criminal justice system responds to victims and provides increased services to them. Kennedy was one of the Senate leaders in the passage of the 2008 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The act expands the time period to sue an employer for pay discrimination.

The Equal Rights Amendment, which would add wording to guarantee the rights under the Constitution to women, has been pushed by Kennedy every year since 1982.

In the early ‘90s, Kennedy sponsored the Family Medical Leave Act. Despite its passage in Congress twice and two presidential vetoes, Kennedy kept pushing for the legislation which was eventually signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The Family Medical Leave Act requires employers to allow employees to take unpaid leave to care for a newborn, or personal or family medical issues.

The minimum wage was increased 16 times during Kennedy’s time in the Senate. He led the most recent push in 2007, which raised the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. It was the first change in the wage in a decade. He also played a role in the passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

Immigration

The Immigration Act of 1965 reformed U.S. immigration policy, by eliminating the national origin quotas that were in the law. The quota system, which was based on race and ancestry, tended to favor immigrants from European countries. The act gradually phased out this system and created a system based on immigrant skills and family relationships. It was a turning point for immigration in this country. In 1968, Kennedy sponsored the Bilingual Education Act, which provided funding for bilingual education programs in schools to help immigrant children.

Kennedy authored the Refugee Act of 1980, which improved U.S. policy toward refugees fleeing from war by establishing a more equitable admissions process, and more humanitarian assistance with resettlement.

Healthcare

Kennedy called healthcare reform the cause of his life and gave his first speech on it in 1969. What followed were numerous acts to expand health care and quality of life. Among these are the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA); Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Kennedy was also a leader in creating the Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program (WIC), which offers food, nutrition counseling and health access.

Senator Orrin Hatch and Kennedy were the driving forces behind the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990, which created a federal program for people with HIV and AIDS in the U.S. It provided federal funding to states to develop programs geared toward early diagnosis and home care, as well as emergency funding to cities hardest hit by the epidemic. The act has been reauthorized repeatedly over the years.

An Adoptee's "Back to" China Odyssey

2009-08-28T09:00:00.000-05:00

An intimate, candid conversation about one woman’s journey back to her birth family in China took place recently at the Columbia College campus in Chicago. The woman at the center of the conversation was Mei-Ling Hopgood, reporter and author of a memoir called A Lucky Girl. Her book recounts her experiences as an adoptee from China and her trip back to meet her birth family over twenty years later. The moderator for the evening was Vikki Ortiz, a journalist at the Chicago Tribune.

The discussion opened with a video introducing Mei-Ling’s early life. She was born in Taiwan in the year of the Ox, but was put up for adoption by her impoverished parents. Later she was to find out that the primary reason her birth family gave her up was that they had really wanted a boy. As an eight-month old baby, she arrived in America for the first time in April 1974. The video continued described Mei-Ling as “a sleeping ox waiting to be discovered.”

Following the video, Mei-Ling, a petite, cheerful woman, talked directly to the audience and described her life with disarming candor. She began her story with a quote from her adoptive mother, who said she, “for one split-second,” saw the “discarded dark bundle” as “foreign,” but when the baby was in her arms, her mother knew that “[she] was theirs.” Mei-Ling then talked about her childhood in Taylor, Michigan, and how she interacted with her family, stating that she always desired to be an all-American girl. Her family was truly international, with two brothers who had been adopted from South Korea. Although Mei-Ling’s childhood was happy, she was straightforward about the isolation she felt as an Asian-American living in an overwhelmingly white town. Her parents dealt with her physical difference by assuring her that she was beautiful. Even this positive and loving reassurance could not quite mask the stark reality that she looked different from those around her.

Having adjusted very well to her new life over the years, Mei-Ling was taken aback when the nun who organized her adoption called her two decades later. Saying that she had news of her birth family, she wondered if Mei-Ling wanted to know more about them—perhaps even to meet them. She found out from the nun that both her parents were 59 and that her mother was a homemaker and her father a farmer. The nun told her that she had six sisters and a single brother who had been adopted from South Korea. To Mei-Ling, these statistics felt dry, even cold.

One colossal misconception about adoptees, she told the audience, is that “adoptees all want to know about their past.” Wrong! She elaborated on that by using herself as a model: “I’m adopted and that’s that.” She was quite frank in saying that she didn’t want to know a lot about her family, let alone meet them.

On February 7, 1997, the new Chinese year came—a perfect metaphor for a second chance and even rebirth for Mei-Ling. But she continued to be tormented by all the questions that bombarded her mind and weighed her heart—and soul—down. “What if I’m hurt even disappointed by the ugly truth?” she thought.

After finally having decided to meet her birth family, Mei-Ling told her adopted parents about her decision, not daring to say “my” mother and father to her adopted family. As any loving, protective parents would, they supported her odyssey with apprehension and hope.

Although she at first saw this as a journalistic exploration into the past, she began to be nervous when she landed in Taiwan’s colossal, noisy airport, and saw a sign with her name. Behind that sign was a crowd of Asian people—not only her immediate family, but also her extended family, including biological siblings’ spouses and a myriad of kids. In retrospect, she said she was shocked by how “pushy” they were, especially at the first reunion. She seemed a bit amused as she recalled the first reunion as “chaotic,” even “intoxicating.”

At this point, for the first time, Mei-Ling’s voice began to break—her eyes blinked more rapidly as if she were trying to block any tears that might slip out. She tried to calm herself with a quick hearty laugh after recalling the trite, even misleading, reunion movies in which people cry and exclaim, “We love you!” Yes, she recalled the crying—but they were strangers crying and hugging while meeting each other for the first time.

She described the complex nuances of her relationship with her birth family, saying that she has grown closer to her sisters and brother over the ten years since that first reunion. But she still has some frustration with her birth father because of his philandering.

Towards the end of the discussion, one member of the audience asked the essential question: “Would you still feel complete if you hadn’t gone back to meet your birth family?” To the apparent surprise of some in the crowd, she simply answered, “Yes.” She emphasized that each adoptee has a personal perspective on the situation. As she did, they all must deal with it to the best of their ability. What more can anyone ask?

I am myself an adoptee from Romania and thus was particularly attuned to her ordeal and her emotional anxieties and frustrations. I know vaguely where and who my birth parents are. I was born in Turnu Măguerele, Romania in 1988 and was adopted in 1990—one year after the bloody Romanian Revolution. I have my two birth parents’ names on a sheet of paper. As with Mei-Ling, the names seem so removed from my life. Unlike her, however, I yearned to know my past and my birth parents and potential siblings when I first realized that I was adopted—and I still do. Because I know some other adoptees’ interactions with their past lives, I emphatically agree with her that non-adoptees mistakenly think that all adoptees want to know who their birth parents are or to meet them. I occupy a middle ground. Although I have not gone back to Romania, I want to, and hope to find out what happened to my birth parents—I did not just say “parents,” for my mom and dad are my “parents.” Life is a journey of discovery for each of us, and each of us must find our own paths to self-understanding.

Speaking Up

2009-08-24T09:00:00.001-05:00

Among the First Amendment community, Mary Beth Tinker's defiance in wearing a black armband to school in protest of the Vietnam War is seen as the pinnacle of Supreme Court free speech jurisprudence within the schoolhouse gate. The decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, has been elevated to the status of stone tablets, with each successive ruling a chip away at this majestic milestone. Anne Proffitt Dupre, in her 2009 book titled Speaking Up (Harvard University Press), turns this prevailing wisdom on its head, documenting the "unintended costs" that the Tinker decision unleashed by promoting free speech in public schools.

Dupre, a law professor at the University of Georgia and a former classroom teacher, laments the manner in which Tinker forever altered the relationship between students and their teachers and administrators. By abandoning in loco parentis, the Court unleashed a wave of litigation, where justices and judges defined what is permissible student expression in a public school setting at the behest of teachers, principals, and local school boards.

The author argues that we should view the Tinker decision in the context of the civil rights era when it was handed down, but unforseen challenges have since emerged that undermine the wisdom of the 1969 ruling. From hair length to library books, controversial newspaper articles to Christianity, and drug-related speech to that facilitated through the blogosphere, courts have aimlessly tried to apply the ideals of Tinker to student expression inside and outside of school walls.

In Dupre's opinion, the Court let the proverbial cat out of the bag with Tinker, and attempts to reign in lewd and vulgar speech through the Fraser decision in 1986, control speech through school-sponsored vehicles like student newspapers in Hazelwood (1988), and limit speech that advocates the illegal use of drugs in Morse (2007), only served to further muddy the First Amendment waters. Perhaps Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in Morse best describes the current landscape: "students have a right to speak in school--except when they don't."

Her critique is a welcome and necessary addition to First Amendment scholarship, yet it is wanting for a well-articulated alternative. She holds out hope that the Court will once again enter the fray and recalibrate the landscape. Maybe this involves overturning Tinker altogether, as Thomas is wont to do, or clarifying the application of the exceptions to free student speech, among them "material and substantial disruption," "lewd and vulgar speech," and censorship for "legitimate pedagogical reasons."

The book's greatest strength is its thorough review of First Amendment case law in the school setting. The landmark decisions, and several of lesser known fame, are reviewed in minute detail. It should be noted that the book is written for a general audience, so non-lawyers will find its content widely accessible. Dupre does devote an extensive number of pages to religious speech in schools, which reads like a departure and at times a reach from the book's overall theme. That said, the case Westside School District v. Mergens (1991) is notably missing from this chapter, a landmark decision for student's freedom of association through the First Amendment.

Dupre also examines teachers' free speech rights in the second-to-last chapter. This subject is rarely discussed, but a great deal of case law in the area does exist. Yet the extent to which teachers are free to speak their minds via the platform that is their classroom remains contested.

Speaking Up is a recommended read for those seeking a chronological, comprehensive review of school-based First Amendment case law through a critical eye. Its contemporary, contrarian take makes it the exception in an all-to-thin library.

Supreme Court Review: 2008-2009 Docket

2009-08-21T09:00:00.026-05:00

The McCormick Freedom Museum hosted an intellectually stimulating round table discussion on the Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 term on July 30th at the Loyola University Law School. Gretchen Helfrich, formerly of NPR's Odyssey program, moderated the program, which featured two erudite lawyers and professors considered to be "giants" in their fields: Geoffrey Stone, former Dean of Law and Provost of the University of Chicago Law School, who now teaches First Amendment laws, and Oxford-educated Richard Epstein, who specializes in property rights. The two experts delved into specifics related to the most important Supreme Court cases of the last docket of 2008-2009, as well as their larger social significance. The subjects discussed included some of the most controversial issues impacting American citizens: whether affirmative action can be used in hiring or job promotions, whether freedom of speech laws allow cruel movies of dogfights to be distributed, and whether evidence can be used if it is obtained through "police misconduct."

One of the most interesting cases discussed was Ricci v. DeStefano, considered a landmark ruling by some. In a conservative vs. liberal arm-wrestle, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of a group of New Haven white firefighters, striking down the 2nd Circuit’s affirmation of the city’s refusal to promote them. The court determined that the white firefighters, whose test scores were thrown out because of reported racial disparity, were being oppressed. According to Epstein, this ruling was "over the top." He added that the "equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment needs discretion" and lamented the fact that attackers only had to show incongruence and disparity, not intent of disparity. Stone pointed out that it's usually the liberals who make the case of disparate impact in support of affirmative action; according to him, conservatives turned the tables in this case, using arguments that they normally abhor. A footnote on this case is that then Judge Sonia Sotomayor was one of the federal appeals court judges who sided with the city in its desire to throw out the test scores to avoid lawsuits by minority firefighters.

The next case under discussion, one which has not yet been heard, US v. Stevens, will focus on whether videos of dog fights are protected by freedom of speech. The positions to be argued are whether these violent videos are simply entertainment, or whether they are inciting violence. The panelists agreed that the ruling will most likely be 5-4 with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the swing voter.

In Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled again in a divisive split-5-4, with Kennedy as the swing voter-in favor of police, even if evidence is obtained through police misconduct. This is quite significant, since it overturns the "exclusionary rule" that forbids this type of evidence to be used against the defendant. The 4th Amendment, which decries "unlawful searches and seizures," was on the scales in this decision. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, with Kennedy following them-stated that their majority ruling did not pertain to "deliberate, reckless and grossly negligent conduct," which, according to them, was when the "exclusionary rule" could be used. They considered the case at hand, which dealt with an alleged outstanding warrant (in fact, there was none) being used against a man whose car was searched. In the search, the police found methamphetamine and a gun. The Supreme Court allowed the evidence to be used, even though there had been police misconduct. This is a very significant ruling which will provide police with significantly more leeway.

On a broader scale, the two law experts stated that the four conservatives mentioned above are in constant battle with the four liberals-Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer and David Souter (now replaced by Sotomayor). Kennedy is in his own sphere. It was observed that one can't help but wonder at the colossal power that Kennedy has over the Supreme Court-and therefore over the country.

As the senator from Arizona and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, John McCain, once said, "Elections have consequences." He was absolutely right considering the presidential election and re-election of George W. Bush. He was given the auspicious opportunity to appoint two more Justices to the Supreme Court and did---two solid conservatives, Roberts and Alito. On the flip side, President Barack Obama has been able to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor due to the retirement of Judge David Souter. The next election, in 2012, will be critical. Landmark and controversial cases, like Roe v. Wade (1973), are at stake. If a Republican wins the presidency, then she or he will be able to nominate and eventually appoint one to several justices to an aging Court. . For now, though, Kennedy is the crucial swing voter in such divisive issues. For the most part, he has sided with the conservatives on those issues. If, however, Obama or some other Democrat wins reelection, then the Supreme Court will mostly likely stay in a partisan deadlock, at least until more conservative Justices are gone, since Ginsburg and Stevens are most likely the next ones to retire.

CTA’s video game ad ban draws court challenge

2009-08-18T08:47:00.004-05:00

First Amendment reporter

The Chicago Transit Authority’s rule prohibiting advertisements for violent video games is being challenged in court for allegedly violating constitutionally protected speech.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), an industry trade group, is suing the CTA for its policy that specifically bans advertisements for video and computer games that are rated as “M” for “Mature 17+” and “AO” for “adults only 18+”.

The new restrictions, which took effect in January, cite the correlation between video game violence and youth violence as part of the reason for the ban. It also noted that between Sept. 2007 and August 2008, 36 Chicago public school students had been killed. The ordinance states that the CTA “has a substantial interest in ensuring that its assets and resources are not used to advertise violent video or computer games which may foster or encourage violent or aggressive behavior.”

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, the ESA says that the ordinance unconstitutionally “restricts speech in a public forum that is otherwise open to all speakers without a compelling interest for doing so.” The ESA argues that the CTA allows advertisements for books, magazines, movie and television shows that have similar ratings and content. The ordinance is unnecessary, the ESA said, because advertisements that are seen by the general public are reviewed by the Entertainment Software Rating Board’s Advertising Review Council. The video game’s content rating is also displayed on the ads.

This isn’t the first time that the CTA and ESA have met in a court room over video game advertisements. Last year the CTA entered a contract to display advertisements for the video game Grand Theft Auto IV. The ads were removed after a media report questioned why the ads were allowed after a wave of youth violence in Chicago. The ESA took the CTA to court for breach of contract and First Amendment violations. In the settlement, the CTA agreed to allow a replacement ad campaign in November and December 2008.

“Courts across the United States, including those in the CTA’s own backyard, have ruled consistently that video games are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of entertainment,” said ESA chief executive officer Michael D. Gallagher in a press statement. “The CTA appears unwilling to recognize this established fact, and has shown a remarkable ignorance of the dynamism, creativity and expressive nature of computer and video games. The ESA will not sit idly by when the creative freedoms of our industry are threatened.”

CTA officials did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Protected speech

Although video games are protected by the First Amendment, some states and the federal government have attempted to regulate violent video game sales. Here are some recent cases:

-In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s labeling requirements and restrictions on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.

-U.S. Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., introduced the Video Game Health Labeling Act earlier this year which would require a “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior” label on games rated “T” for Teen or higher. It was sent to a committee but the House did not vote on this bill.

-Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich attempted to ban the sale of violent and sexually explicit videos games to children under age 18, and included heavy fines and up to one year in prison for violators. The law was challenged in the court system and was eventually struck down by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Similar laws in Michigan., Louisiana and Minnesota were also found unconstitutional by courts.

-Washington tried to prohibit the sale of video games showing violence against law enforcement officers. A court struck down that law in 2004.

Publius' Pariahs

2009-08-17T09:00:00.004-05:00

By Shawn Healy, Managing Director

The dog days of summer have been punctuated by a testy national debate over health care reform. Opponents of the so-called "public option" have taken to the airwaves, blogosphere, talk radio, and town halls, placing their proverbial stake in the ground against "socialized medicine." Their detractors, supporters of President Obama's plan, have responded with equal fervor, questioning their credibility, and most of all, the source from whom them take their marching orders. From my vantage point, this focus on the messengers is misguided, for it creates a sideshow from a legitimate debate about a system that encompasses one-sixth of our economy. More importantly, it cuts against the very design of our democratic republic.

James Madison, disguised as "Publius" in Federalist 10, made a case for factions as fundamental to the political framework known as the Constitution as it made its way through the ratification debates. He defined factions as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Considering the existence of factions inevitable, Madison suggested that there were two means of extinguishing them: "one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." Both are intolerable, he argued, for "the first destroy(s) the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other...giv(es)...every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."

Moving beyond eradicating factions' causes, Madison suggests that we may only temper their effects. Turning toward the current debate on health care, if the current cacophony of voices "...consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote." Simply stated, the protests will give way to passage of reform legislation, for this is what the majority in America demands.

Madison's argument is premised on the breadth of the "republic," for a regional faction can rarely undermine the public good. Instead, it is through the competition of factions, or from a later era, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes "marketplace of ideas," that the public interest emerges through often turbulent debates. This does not obscure the fact that misinformation like "death panels" and "socialized medicine" have entered the common vernacular, but it is the duty of public option proponents to refute them and make a compelling case for their own position. Furthermore, legitimate questions about the Obama plan are circulating through the marketplace and cannot be summarily dismissed by those who demonize any dissent.

This brings me to my second concern about the excessive focus on the town criers. Whether they take their orders from an organized interest group like FreedomWorks, Rush Limbaugh's radio program, a local listserve, or their own principled opposition to the plan, this combined top-down and grass roots movement is doing nothing more than exercising five freedoms embedded in the famous 45 words written once more by Madison, the First Amendment.

FreedomWorks, of Tax Day Tea Party fame, is led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and financed by big businesses and wealthy conservative scions. However, it stands as a prime example of the factions Madison so passionately defended, and the First Amendment protects our right to associate with this group, or the major labor unions (AFL-CIO and SEIU) turning out members in droves to support Obama's plan at the same town hall meetings.

Rush Limbaugh is exercising freedom of the press when he broadcasts a conservative message to his 20 million listeners. True, he has a galvanizing effect of his "dittoheads," but how is this different than the liberal calling orders issued daily by the New York Times editorial page or MSNBC's Keith Olberman?

Since Obama's ascension to the presidency, conservatives have closed the gap with their counterparts on the left through organizing virally on the Internet and utilizing their freedom of assembly through massive turnout at public events. They learned their lesson from the President himself, who so effectively managed these levers in last year's contest to win the election going away. The Obama-backed Organizing for America relies on his extensive email list from the campaign to take the bully pulpit of the presidency to the masses and circumvent the scrum that is Washington.

The last of these factions are millions of Americans who are at a minimum skeptical of the health care reform bills circulating through Congress and touted by the president. Perhaps their fears are misguided, but demonizing their motivations obscures the national debate that needs to occur. I am not a fan of shouting down one's opponent or disrupting a public meeting, for they damage one's cause and interfere with substantive debate. Rather, civil discourse is my preferred vehicle of conversation. Nonetheless, the First Amendment, if nothing else, was adopted to protect all forms of political speech, in this case petitioning the government (through its representatives) for redress of what they see as real grievances.

Justice William Brennan, a champion of the First Amendment, said that these 45 words represent nothing less than a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The latter descriptors are obviously present in the current national health care debate, but as we consider making another "commitment," let's not lose sight of the former, and diminish their enabling vehicle, none other than the First Amendment.

Bughouse Square Debates: 21st Century Style

2009-08-14T09:00:00.010-05:00

By Andrew Miller
Five Freedoms Intern

On July 25th, in Washington Square Park adjacent to Chicago's Newberry Library, the century old Bughouse Square Debates once again became a noisy and invigorating demonstration of First Amendment rights at work. For the uninitiated who might raise eyebrows at the debate name, the word "bughouse" refers to the mental hospitals of the early 20th century and stems from the almost anarchic nature of the debates. Over the decades, people have stood on soapboxes, professing (or shouting) their beliefs to a usually skeptical crowd, who then heckle or cheer the orator. The orators have been a diverse and sometimes infamous group, including leftist radicals from the labor movement and anti-war movement, such as Lucy Parsons and Emma Goldman, and renowned lawyers, such as Clarence Darrow, who most famously defended John Scopes in the "trial of the century," the Monkey Trial.

Rick Kogan, a veteran reporter from the Chicago Tribune, emceed the debates, providing a brief history and touting its decades-old support of civil rights, the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment. Kogan then presented an award to Barbara Till, who until recently was an advisor for the Stevenson High School newspaper, The Statesman. Till resigned after the school cracked down on her support for a controversial "Hook-up" article on teenagers’ sexual escapades.

A reenactment of one of the legendary Lincoln-Douglas Debates followed the award presentation. Kogan introduced the actors/orators playing the roles of the original debaters, Republican lawyer Abraham Lincoln was played by Michael Krebs, and Democratic Sen. Stephen Douglas. Both the original debate, and the Bughouse reenactment centered on the Kansas-Nebraska Act which stated that people in the sovereign territories could decide their own future regarding the issue of slavery. The original debate was held in Galesburg on October 7, 1858.

Douglas assailed Lincoln, who was adamantly against the act, for his alleged flip-flopping on the issue of slavery and racial equality-denouncing slavery to one group in the North while emphasizing the physical inferiority of the black slaves to another group in the South. Douglas also criticized the Republican Party as a "sectional" party while he extolled the national, patriotic Democratic Party. He praised the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) which Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, stated that black slaves, even freed ones, are not and can never be American citizens and that blacks never were meant to be covered by the "All men are created equal" line in the Declaration of Independence.

Douglas appeared to be vexed and perplexed by Lincoln's alleged support of black slaves because of these words in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." According to Douglas, Lincoln also said, "I'm not into equality for blacks" because of physical differences between the races; therefore, he was being either hypocritical or illogical. Douglas condemned Lincoln's position on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, calling it "heresy." He also pointed out that even Thomas Jefferson, who helped write the Declaration of Independence, owned slaves. He claimed that the Republican Party was for "mob law" and concluded by espousing a federalist view that each state must decide its own future, underscoring the direct sovereignty of its people.

Then Abraham Lincoln took to the podium to counter all that had been said against him and the Republican Party as a whole. Although he acknowledged that Thomas Jefferson had kept slaves, Lincoln observed that Jefferson was heard saying that he "trembled" for his country over the issue of slavery, for he feared the wrath of a just God. In regards to the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, Lincoln assailed their root-old Mexican law-which he said could not be considered models for the nation as a whole. In closing, Lincoln lamented that the two laws mentioned did not say that slavery was either good or bad. He believed the acrimonious territorial grab and the fight between the free and slave states, as epitomized in "Bleeding Kansas," would result in a "divided house," or Union, that "will not stand"-eerily foreshadowing the Civil War.

In rebutting Lincoln's charges, Douglas called for an "up or down" vote on slavery. Also, he stated that he eagerly anticipated territorial expansion so that people of the territories could then democratically voice their opinion and vote in the eventual elections. For the listener, this reenactment of one of the most important moments in American history brought home the intensity and complexity of American society and our continuing struggle with the issues of race, fairness, and the balance between states' rights and the role of the federal government.

The soapbox debates, which followed the reenactment, each consisted of a 15-minute speech in which hecklers could voice their dissent and supporters could be equally vocal. The topics varied from support for abortion on demand to advocacy for an illegal immigration compromise. The audience was extremely diverse.

Jorge Mujica’s soapbox debate focused on illegal immigration. He denounced the hysteria over illegal immigrants, recalling the xenophobia of the late 19th century and 20th century. One heckler yelled at him, wanting to know if he came to the U.S. illegally. Mujica candidly admitted that he had been illegal at one time and is now an American citizen. He seemed amused that there are not walls around O'Hare Chicago Airport when, according to him, one-half of illegal immigrants come via airplane.

In his soapbox speech Michael Mackaplow, called for more responsibility among the races and the elimination of affirmative action. Lamenting the fact that there are many single African-American mothers, he called for vigilance, birth control, and a "reasonable life style" among the minorities. He advocated fewer racial preferences for one's own race. Mackaplow offered a personal anecdote, recalling that, when his Chinese business associates were asked to hire new people, they brought in others of their own race. Mackaplow stated that he has seen white people be more altruistic than minorities, although they are, in his opinion, the ones truly facing discrimination. One heckler yelled at him: "Have you been pulled over by the police only because of your race?" Mackaplow admitted that he hadn't and acknowledged that there is racial discrimination, but he still believes that white people are discriminated against more than minorities-and that minorities needed to be more empathetic. According to him, white people already are.

In another soapbox debate, Erwin Lutzer contended that Jesus Christ' life, death, and resurrection had to be accepted by historians as facts. As evidence, he mentioned that most historians agreed that St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians in 52 A.D. Lutzer was received by several skeptical hecklers. One man asked, "Where are the first hand accounts of the alleged ‘five-hundred brethren’ who saw Jesus' resurrection?" Others countered the question with their own outbursts.

The most fiery of all of the soapbox debates focused on the issue of abortion on demand. Mars Caulton and Lina Horne stood at the center of the audience, calling for abortion on demand and denouncing the "pro-life" movement as hypocritical and invasive in the lives of women. They told the crowd that one in every three women will have an abortion once in her lifetime. This position that abortion should be between the woman and her doctor and that ultimately it is about a woman's body clearly infuriated two people in particular, one of whom called the two young women "child-killers."

Although many of the issues were difficult or disturbing, the Bughouse Square Debates—a boisterous affirmation of the First Amendment—was a proud example of what makes this country exceptional and what the Founding Fathers--and Mothers-- intended: that citizens never become apathetic, but that they be informed, concerned, and fully engaged.

Sonia and the Supremes

2009-08-07T15:02:00.004-05:00

On Thursday, Judge Sonia Sotomayor won confirmation as the 111th U.S. Supreme Court Justice, with the Senate voting 68 to 31 in her favor. The third woman and the first Latina to land on the High Court, Sotomayor’s ascendancy can be attributed to a number of factors, including the party of the president, the majority party in the Senate, and the associated ideology of the two. Also significant is the ideology of the nominee and the Justice who she is replacing, not the mention the nominee’s professional qualifications. Another factor is the point in a president’s term when the nomination is offered, and his or her willingness to take the case to the public and pressure the Senate for a favorable vote. Given that only two racial minorities have occupied the bench to date, this dynamic is rare yet powerful, and obviously a vital component of the just-completed process. Each of these variables broke in Sotomayor’s favor, and I will analyze them in order.

Sotomayor was nominated by a Democratic President, Barack Obama, and placed before a Democratic-controlled Senate with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. True, two Senators are independents who caucus with the Democrats, and Senator Kennedy was unable to make the vote on account of ill health, but the threat of a filibuster remained remote. Given that nine Republicans ultimately crossed the aisle and supported her confirmation, any effort to impede the vote would have proved futile. True, a good portion of the Democratic caucus is probably more moderate than the President, but he arguably lies at the ideological fulcrum of his party. Contrast this with the last three nominees outright rejected by the Senate, Clement Haynsworth in 1969, G. Harrold Carswell in 1970, and Robert Bork in 1987. Each was nominated by a Republican president who faced a Senate controlled by Democrats. From a pure partisan perspective, with history as her guide, Sotomayor faced favorable terrain.

Turning to ideology, Sotomayor’s 17-year track record on the federal bench provided few glimpses of extremism. Her rulings on cases concerning affirmative action, the Second Amendment, and property rights drew conservative scrutiny, but in total, Sotomayor’s tenure as a federal district and appellate judge was well within the judicial mainstream, and once more close to the center of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Moreover, she was slotted to replace a moderate-to-liberal Justice in David Souter. With or without Sotomayor, the conservative majority would remain, tempered by the less reliable Justice Anthony Kennedy. It is generally assumed that Sotomayor is no more liberal than Souter. Indeed, one could make an argument that she is more moderate, particularly on matters of law and order. Souter was long known as the “stealth candidate” given that he was nominated by a Republican president (Bush 41), yet drifted toward the Court’s left-leaning bloc. Sotomayor's long track record suggests that a reprisal of history is unlikely.

Bork, by comparison, was picked to replace the moderate Lewis Powell, who for 15 years served as the Court’s swing vote. He would have tilted the Court decisively to the right, thus his Democratic detractors’ successful derailment.

When Supreme Court nominees raise ideological eyebrows, their professional qualifications can either rescue or destroy their candidacy. Sotomayor made two controversial remarks off the bench that triggered conservative sirens, one in favor of judicial activism, and the second centering on empathy toward certain oppressed groups given her status as a “wise Latina.” She summarily dismissed these sound bytes during her confirmation hearing, and her Ivy League background, work as a partner at a corporate law firm, and seventeen years of service as a federal judge spoke to the fact that she is “well-qualified.” In sum, nine Republicans abandoned any ideological misgivings, partially on account of this impressive track record.

Presidents are much more likely to experience successful Supreme Court nominations during the early part of their term in office. Obama was fortunate to receive word of Souter’s retirement just past the 100-day mark of his presidency, a period widely known as his political “honeymoon.” It is during these days that public opinion remains high, Congress is more deferential, and his agenda is often rubber-stamped. Sotomayor’s nomination arrived during a flurry of political activity in both the West Wing and on Capitol Hill. Health care reform, cap and trade legislation, and corporate regulation crowd the agenda. Fortunately for Obama, Sotomayor’s nomination did little to detail his lofty ambitions. Short of an early defense of her controversial remarks, her confirmation sailed along after Obama’s late-May launch, allowing Obama to save political capital for the more contentious battles sure to follow this summer and fall.

In contrast, Reagan’s rendezvous with Bork took place during the second to last year of his final term in office. A lame duck by every definition, Reagan was working with a Democratic-controlled Senate for the first time that smelled blood as the Iran Contra Scandal took root. Despite Reagan repeated attempts to go over the heads of Congress and use his superior communication skills, Bork secured a mere 42 votes and the beleaguered president was forced back to the drawing board.

Sotomayor’s race undoubtedly played a role in Senators’ political calculations as her nomination winded its way through committee toward a full floor vote. Republicans understood that their share of the Latino vote was sliced thin by Obama and the Democrats in the November 2008 election, and that they placed it in further jeopardy by opposing her confirmation. Some, like Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham (R-SC), supported Sotomayor on the basis of her qualifications. Others, like Mel Martinez (R-FL), identified with a common heritage. Though thirty Republicans voted against Sotomayor, few made their reservations public, and those who did were mild and reserved in their respective rebukes. Unlike the Democrats’ treatment of Justice Alito in 2006, a filibuster was never on the table.

Turn back the clock to 1991 and Clarence Thomas’ infamous confirmation ordeal. Thomas attracted African-American sympathy despite his conservative views, effectively splitting Democratic Senators from one of their core constituencies. They shied away from directly supporting Anita Hill or blasting Thomas directly. Two Republicans voted against him, but eleven Democrats crossed party lines and helped vault Thomas across the finish line in the closest confirmation vote in more than a century, 52-48.

Missing from the conversation in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings was President Obama’s own record as a Senator in Supreme Court confirmation votes. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito shared Sotomayor’s lofty credentials, yet the future president cast his vote with the opposition in both incidents. In so doing, it was difficult for Obama to dismiss ideological opposition to Sotomayor when he exercised the same line of argument in a different political environment. Sotomayor’s 68 votes were ten short of the 78 achieved by Roberts, and her 31 detractors were eleven fewer than the 42 suffered by Alito.

This tradeoff between politics and legal credentials is at the center of the debate over the Senate’s true role as a provider of “advice and consent” in the Supreme Court confirmation process. Senators in the minority peg their opposition to ideology, while those on higher ground trumpet professional qualifications. Given the alignment of stars in Sotomayor’s strive for the Supremes, her sterling resume made confirmation all but inevitable.

Westboro Baptist Church visits Chicago

2009-08-07T10:40:00.009-05:00

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church protest at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive on Monday. The group protested at six sites in the city.

Federal courts split on funeral picketing laws.

By Jamie Loo

First Amendment reporter

CHICAGO – The hateful yelling, obscenities and dirty looks from those passing by is nothing new to Elizabeth Phelps.

“It’s just business as usual, there’s just more of them,” she said as she stood on the corner of the Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive bridge during rush hour.

Phelps and four other members of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) protested at six different sites in the city on Monday. The church, led by Phelps’ father the Rev. Fred Phelps, is known for protesting military service members’ funerals. Church members believe the deaths are punishment from God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. Holding signs with slogans such as “Israel is Doomed,” “Mourn for your Sins,” and “God Hates Fags” the group sang songs and shouted at people as they passed by.

While some ignored Phelps’ group others stopped to hurl insults at them. One man walked up behind Phelps and said, “God loves me. He hates you,” into her ear. Others flashed a middle finger at the group, which Phelps said is the informal “salute of a doomed America.”

Chicagoans respond

The WBC was met by more formal counter protestors at the Emmanuel Congregation in Edgewater. Outside the Don Rickles show at the Auditorium Theater the local sketch comedy troupe, Best Church of God, held their own comical protest.

Standing with the WBC, Brendan Sweeney encouraged the church members to sing louder. Beneath his cowboy hat, face contorted in a scowl he waved a bright orange and purple sign that read, “I’m an attention whore.” Nearby, P.J. Keane and Alex Lindquist capture it all on camera.

“We’ve been mock picketing with them,” Lindquist said.

The trio, are the producers of the CrazyPastorFred videos on YouTube, which is a satire of the WBC. Sweeney plays the Rev. Fred Phelps in the videos, where he rants about topics such as “the false prophet,” also known as Harry Potter, and the evils of breakfast cereal.

Lindquist said the WBC’s activities annoyed him and he wanted to find a creative way to deal with them. When people see the WBC protesting they get angry and respond with obscenity and more hate, he said. By using humor, Lindquist said he hopes people will take the WBC less seriously and that the group will have less of an impact on people.

The WBC thrives off anger and attention, he said.

“They’re ignoring us because we’re not giving them what they want,” Lindquist said.

Chris Andonian found out about the WBC’s visit through Twitter and came out to counter protest the group. Andonian, a devout atheist, said he tried to have a conversation with one of the WBC members about science, evolution and his belief that God doesn’t exist. The protestor wasn’t hostile in any way, Andonian said, but it was clear that the man wasn’t listening and stayed consistent with his message. He said he was surprised to see some people giving thumbs up to the WBC, and saw one man pull out his wallet and attempt to give them a donation. Andonian said the things they are teaching to their children are sick.

“I think they (WBC) show all the signs of being a cult,” he said. “They’re all brainwashed.”

Funeral picketing

Although the WBC has been actively campaigning against homosexuality, divorce, abortion and fornication for 18 years, they began drawing more attention in 2005 after they started protesting the funerals of military service members.

The federal government and 40 states have passed laws regulating protests at funerals largely in response to the WBC’s picketing, according to the Associated Press. But some of the laws are vague and in some cases could be unconstitutional. Here are a few cases involving funeral picketing laws:

-In June the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal to enforce Missouri’s law, which bans protests at funerals. The law was originally struck down by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
-The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in April challenging Michigan’s funeral picketing law.
-The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Ohio’s law in 2008, which prohibits picketing within 300 feet of a funeral or burial service.
-The Kansas Supreme Court struck down the state’s funeral protest law but a new law with the unconstitutional elements removed was enacted in 2008.
-In 2007, a federal grand jury in Baltimore found the WBC liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress for picketing the funeral of a Marine who was killed in Iraq. The jury originally awarded $10.9 million to the Marine’s family, which was later reduced to $5 million.
-A federal court in Kentucky upheld a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing its funeral picketing law in 2006.

First Amendment Center scholar David Hudson said one of the constitutional concerns that arise from funeral picketing laws is the possibility of viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited by the Constitution. Some of the definitions in funeral picketing laws are over broad, he said, and go beyond regulating fighting words.

University of Chicago law professor and First Amendment expert, Geoffrey Stone, said state funeral picketing laws that don’t regulate speech content but that restrict time, noise, and access to a funeral site are most likely to withstand a constitutional challenge. The problem with these laws, he said, is that they don’t truly achieve the “state’s interest which is to insulate mourners from offensive messages.” Stone said the laws don’t regulate signs, which then leads to the question of how states can eliminate the problematic activity without regulating sign content and infringing on free speech.

Illinois’ “Let Them Rest in Peace” act passed in 2006 requires protestors to stay at least 200 feet away from funeral sites and prohibits them from displaying any visual images that convey fighting words or actual threats against another person. Protestors are prohibited from blocking access to and from a funeral site. The demonstrations cannot take place 30 minutes before, 30 minutes after, or during the service or burial.

Hudson said the Illinois law is problematic because it extends the fighting words doctrine to fighting images, and could possibly lead to viewpoint discrimination. The 200 feet rule is less than the 300 feet that most states have in their laws, he said, and most states use an hour as their time frame. Stone said Illinois did a pretty good job with its law. The law is very carefully crafted, he said, and as long as the definition of fighting words is consistent with the Supreme Court’s definition, it should be able to withstand a court challenge.

Although the funeral picketing law issue is prime for the Supreme Court to consider because federal circuit courts have split on their decisions, Hudson said there’s no guarantee the court will take it up in the future. Stone said states have many variations on their funeral picketing laws so if lower courts reach different decisions on laws similar to each other it is plausible that the Supreme Court could take a look at it.

The First Amendment is considered the “brightest star” in the Constitution and Phelps said it’s hypocrisy that politicians have tried to limit their freedom of speech at funerals with these laws. Phelps said “that same God that made the First Amendment destroys the hearts of man.” The funeral picketing laws are another way that the U.S. has shown the world what’s wrong with it, she said.

“It’s only had the effect of catapulting our efforts into this world,” Phelps said.

Aside from laws, the WBC’s picketing also hasn’t gone unanswered by private citizens. The Patriot Guard Riders were founded to counteract the protests. The group attends funerals at the request of the deceased’s family and shields mourners from the protestors with their motorcycles or American flags. They often sing patriotic songs or stand by revving their motorcycle engines to drown out noise from the WBC protestors.

Blago Bracketted

2009-08-03T09:00:00.007-05:00

By Shawn Healy

Those searching for a quick primer on the pay-to-play scandal starring former Governor Rod Blagojevich that continues to cripple the State of Illinois would be wise to pick up Elizabeth Brackett's Pay to Play. The 236-page tome paints a portrait of a corrupt city and state, where Rod Blagojevich began his improbable rise, and whose equally stunning fall is symptomatic of a rotten political culture. Brackett, a local and national television correspondent for PBS, begins building Blagojevich as a sympathetic figure, only to document his Shakespearean slide upon reaching the pinnicle of power in the Land of Lincoln.

The son of immigrant parents, Blagojevich's tendencies were cemented at a young age. Shunning details, he was at best a mediocre student, entering Northwestern through the backdoor and later attending law school at Pepperdine when his LSAT score prohibited entry at a more prestigious institution. Upon graduation, he first flunked the bar, then upon passage, found that he lacked clout in a city that invented the term. This changed instantly when he met 33rd Ward Alderman Dick Mell's daughter Patti at a political event. They were wed two years later, and Blagojevich's political climb began on the back of a chief patronage provider, his father-in-law.

First elected to the State House of Representatives, Blagojevich felt lost as a backbencher in Springfield, and sought a promotion soon thereafter. His run for Congress centered on an opening provided by the imprisoned Dan Rostenkowski, who temporarily lent the seat to the Republican Michael Flanigan, only to see Blagojevich move it back to the Democratic column with a massive victory in 1996. His tenure in Washington was equally uninspiring, short of his role in freeing three hostages held by former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Come 2002, he campaigned for Governor of Illinois as a reformer, pledging to clean up the mess left by his since imprisoned predecessor George Ryan. He narrowly bested former CPS schools chief Paul Vallas in the primary, then strolled to a general election victory over former Attorney General Jim Ryan, a victim of an unfortunate last name.

Scandal beset Blagojevich from the beginning, as he elevated pinstripe patronage to a sport, trading campaign donations for lofty political appointments and lucrative state contracts. He governed by press conference, preferring to make populist appeals in the realms of health care and public transit over handholding in a legislature dominated by his own Democratic Party during his entire tenure in office.

He was able to stave off corruption charges to secure a second term, all along dreaming of a run for the White House. Blagojevich never lived in Springfield, but even abandoned his Chicago office after 2006, interacting with aides throughout the day from home on his speakerphone. Embittered by Barack Obama's meteoric rise as presidential contender, Blagojevich resolved to share the spoils of his soon-to-be vacant Senate seat, resulting in his swift removal from office.

While this narrative has appeared in many forms elsewhere, its comprehensive, yet fluid presentation is useful for locals all-to-familiar with its specifics, and especially to those from afar previously unfamiliar with the pol with funny-sounding name, a pompadour and a penchant for Elvis. It presents President Barack Obama as an occasional foil, the Chicago politician who navigated troubled waters and somehow emerged untainted. True, Obama confidants Axelrod, Emanuel, Jarrett, and Emil Jones share intimate ties with either Blagojevich, the Daley Machine, or both, and Tony Rezko was also an equal opportunity patron. Yet Obama's straight and narrow contrasts with Blagojevich's down and dirty, and it is no wonder that one man sits in the White House while the other awaits a federal home of a different variety.

Brackett reveals that Blagojevich long admired Richard Nixon. The parallels between these two paranoid men are nothing short of eery. Their up-from-the-bootstraps backgrounds yielded unimagined political success, yet their demons, namely their delusional desire for power, led to their untimely downfall. Nixon resigned when his impeachment was written on the wall. Blagojevich's impeachment trial began on his fallen hero's birthday. Nixon said his "mother was a saint" as he boarded Marine One on the White House lawn one final time. Blagojevich cited Kipling, then Tennyson, and faded with a pledge to continue his fight.

His trial is slated for next year, and the final chapter is far from written, but Brackett's timely work is worthy of a read by any citizen seeking to end pay-to-play, political corruption, and systemic problems bigger than Blagojevich.

In Demand: News Literacy

2009-07-29T13:12:00.003-05:00

The collapse of the economic model for print journalism has been well-documented here and elsewhere. Simply stated, readers have migrated online, and the advertising that subsidizes traditional reporting has failed to follow, at least on a proportionate scale. As Thomas Mitchell of the Las Vegas Review Journal often writes, “information wants to be free,” but “reporters want to be paid.” As a result, major dailies have scaled back on staff and printed pages, and some have stopped the presses altogether.

Band-aids of every variety have since surfaced, from a non-profit model financed by an endowment to micropayments for pageclicks similar to Apple’s iTunes. News aggregators like the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, and Real Clear Politics have evolved alongside local beat reporting (see the Chi-Town Daily News) and investigative journalism on a national scale (see Pro Publica). Each is elevated as a potential panacea, but I am increasingly convinced that a single solution is unworkable. Rather, an all-of-the-above approach is a more likely indicator of journalism’s future.

Moreover, missing from these conversations is a focus on the counterpart to the form and quality of media offerings, namely those who did, do, or will consume these products. Any basic economics student knows that price and quantity are determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves. While the supply side has been analyzed to death, demand for media has been all-but-ignored.

Let's begin with an analysis of the problem. David Mindich, in his 2005 book Tuned Out, makes a case that two generations of Americans have literally abandoned media consumption as a daily habit. True, intensity of attention to media grows over time in proportion to the responsibilities we assume as adults, but never in recorded history have we witnessed such a drop-off between generational cohorts. Media habits are learned at a young age, and the numbers suggest that they are too often ignored in today’s classrooms and kitchen tables.

According to a 2007 Shorenstein Center study titled “Young People and the News,” a small minority read newspapers (9%) or tune into radio (25%) or TV newscasts (31%) on a daily basis. A full 46% never or hardly at all pick up a daily paper. News consumption, if it occurs at all, is often accidental; a 60 second news brief at the top of the hour on a local top 40 station, for example. Additionally, the Internet, while a regular drain of young peoples’ time, is a daily news portal for only 20% of adolescents, and nearly a third (32%) never use the Web as a source for news.

More recently, a 15-year old intern in London “shook the world” by filing a report to his bosses at Morgan Stanley. Mathew Robson wrote, “No teenager that I know of regularly reads a newspaper, as most do not have the time and cannot be bothered to read pages and pages of text while they could watch the news summarized on the internet or on TV.” His frank assessment encompasses all forms of traditional media, and though largely anecdotal, bears an uncomfortable truth that the industry has to date been loathe to address.

Enter the news literacy movement. Situated in the School of Journalism at Stony Brook University and the DC-based News Literacy Project, these entities, according to Stony Brook Dean Howard Schneider, seek to nurture “a generation of news consumers who would learn how to distinguish for themselves between news and propaganda, verification and mere assertion, evidence and inference, bias and fairness, and between media bias and audience bias—consumers, who could differentiate between raw, unmediated information coursing through the Internet and independent, verified journalism.”

The movement is attempting to combat young peoples’ assumption that “If the news is important, it will find me.” The so-called “9-11 Generation,” and more recently the “Obama Generation,” is socially and politically engaged, yet lacks the basic information for more substantive civic engagement. In a Columbia Journalism Review article titled “Leap of Faith,” Megan Garber argues that news outlets themselves need to join the effort to help their cause and combat blind faith. This means meeting young people “where they are,” namely in classrooms and on the Web.

More than anything else, news literacy is “distinguishing—and appreciating—excellence.” It requires confronting consumers’ cynicism about media, where only a fifth of Americans believe “most or all” reporting. The industry must push back against ideological criticism on the left (“the corporate media”) and the right (“the liberal media”), transcending an industrywide reluctance to trumpet its own cause. This means articulating the importance of a free press to the very sustenance of democracy. Garber writes, “Citizenship relies on commonly accepted modes of taking in and talking about the world—on a shared vernacular that is premised on a shared reality.”

By bringing the demand side of the equation to the discussion taking place at the proverbial altar of traditional media, the news literacy movement is performing a great service in promoting quality journalism and savvy consumers. Here’s hoping that the sick patient can help save itself.

Restrictions on religious publications considered

2009-07-24T18:28:00.011-05:00

Federal prisoners may lose access to religious materials under proposed rule

By Jamie Loo
First Amendment reporter

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is considering a new rule that could severely limit what religious publications inmates have access to, according to the proposal’s opponents.

The chapel library materials rule would exclude materials that “could incite, promote, or otherwise suggest the commission of violence or criminal activity” from prison chapel libraries. This includes any materials which advocate or foster “violence, vengeance, or hatred toward particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups” or that urge “the overthrow or destruction of the United States.”

Bureau of Prisons spokesperson, Traci Billingsley, said the rule’s intent is to clarify the requirements in the Second Chance Act of 2007 and to notify inmates that certain materials could be excluded from chapel libraries. The Second Chance Act, which authorizes funding for prisoner re-entry services and programs to reduce recidivism, allows the Bureau of Prisons to restrict materials “that seek to incite, promote or otherwise suggest the commission of violence or criminal activity.”

In its proposal, the Bureau of prisons says that the rule addresses concerns raised in a 2004 report from the Office of the Inspector General. The report indicated that prisons could become recruitment sites for militant Islamic terrorist groups and other religious groups, and provided recommendations to prevent this from happening.

The Bureau of Prisons argues that they “must ensure that materials provided to inmates will not promote violence or criminal activity, thereby endangering the safety, security, and good order of Bureau facilities, and the protection of the public.”

“The rule only applies to library materials and not materials purchased by inmates for their personal property,” Billingsley said.

But opponents say the language creates a broad and overreaching policy that would prevent inmates from having major religious texts, and violate their constitutional right to practice religion.

The American Civil Liberties Union along with several religious groups have filed formal opposition to the chapel library materials rule because they say it would allow federal prison administration to ban religious material that is protected in the Second Chance Act.

Banning the Bible?

David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Prison Project, said the proposal’s wording is dangerous because it uses the words “could…suggest” violent or criminal activity instead of “seek,” which is in the language of the Second Chance Act.

In its formal opposition, the ACLU pointed out violent passages in the Bible such as “then you should bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones,” and the Quran, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet…” Shapiro said under the Bureau of Prisons proposal, entire publications that don’t seek to incite or promote violence might be banned because they could theoretically suggest it.

“These are religious texts that are core to people’s religious expression,” Shapiro said.

The ACLU also noted that Martin Luther King Jr.,’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”; could be banned under this rule because of passages such as: “You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws…I would agree with St. Augustine that an ‘unjust law is no law at all.’”

Billingsley said although the Bureau recognizes inmates’ access to religious materials is important the Bureau of Prisons must comply with the requirements in the Second Chance Act.

This isn’t the first time the Bureau of Prisons has tried to place restrictions on chapel libraries. Several years ago, the Bureau used the 2004 inspector general’s report to create the Standardized Chapel Library Project, a list of pre-approved religious materials. In the spring of 2007, chaplains and prison staff began removing content from chapel libraries that were not on the list. The program was discontinued and the materials returned after public outcry from religious and civil liberties groups, and members of Congress.

Martin Garnar, chair of the American Library Association’s Information Freedom Committee, said the proposed chapel library materials rule seems like “a clear violation of the First Amendment and suppression of religion.” The ALA is supporting the ACLU and other groups in their opposition. Garnar said the ALA wants some safeguards in the wording so that inmates are not prevented from having access to religious materials.

The ALA’s formal comments also pointed out that work “perceived” to encourage an overthrow or destruction of the U.S. government is not in the Second Chance Act and that it “strikes at core political speech protected by the First Amendment, which protects the freedom to criticize the government, even to the point of saying that the government should not exist.”

Current policies

The policies and restrictions on what inmates can access through libraries or receive in the mail are different depending on the jurisdiction and type of facility. Mail in prisons is monitored by prison staff.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has policies based on the facility’s level of security. Wardens in federal facilities can only reject a publication if “it is detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity.” For example, publications with instructions on how to make bombs or weapons, manufacturing drugs or alcohol, or encourages criminal activity are prohibited. The Bureau’s policy also says that a warden cannot make a banned publications list, and must review a publication prior to rejection.

Januari Smith, Illinois Department of Corrections spokesperson said the state doesn’t have a general policy for publications. She said each facility has its own publication review committee that decides what is allowed and what isn’t allowed in facilities. She said the standards can vary based on the prison’s security level, and committees tend to use general guidelines such as excluding pornographic material or materials that may incite violence.

Other reading restrictions

The types of libraries available in correctional facilities vary from recreational use libraries, to chapel and law libraries. Although it doesn’t appear that prisons keep a banned titles list, inmates face other challenges accessing library materials.

Shaena Fazal, director of the John Howard Association of Illinois’ Long Term Prisoner Policy Project, said prison libraries have diverse collections ranging from romance novels to science-fiction books. The John Howard Association is a group of volunteers and staff that provide oversight of correctional facilities through visits and information dissemination. Garnar said legal materials, especially those on the topic of appeals, and educational materials are also popular in prison libraries. Fazal and Garnar said most prison library materials are old and out of date because the libraries are not well funded and rely on donations from the outside world or from inmates. They said the books tend to be old paperbacks because many prisons prohibit hard cover books. Based on her experience with Illinois jails and prisons, Fazal said some facilities prohibit the hard cover books because of fear that shanks or other weapons can be hidden in the bindings.

With the lack of funding and demand for books, many prisoner book programs have been created to meet the need. The Prison Book Program, based in Quincy, Mass., receives book requests from inmates and sends them donated books. The program serves all but five states.

Prison Book Program treasurer, Eric Goossens, said they receive 200 book requests a week and sent out 5,510 book packages in 2008. Dictionaries are their number one request, he said, and inmates also frequently ask for ethnic history books, GED books and self-help books. As a policy, the Prison Book Program will not send books on crime or books that promote discrimination.

Goossens said he isn’t aware of any specific titles that have been banned but some prisons won’t allow certain categories such as current events, politics, or books that teach a trade such as auto mechanics or carpentry. Sometimes a picture on a book cover will trigger a rejection.

“If it’s a Western with a guy carrying a shotgun, it can’t get in (some prisons),” he said.

Goossens said American Sign Language books have also been rejected, which they’ve speculated is so that gang members can’t communicate with each other in prison. He said one Kansas prison doesn’t allow books that teach a foreign language, which may also have to do with keeping inmates from communicating.

Book rejections are pretty rare, and usually occur because an inmate has been transferred or released, Goossens said. When books are sent back, he said the prisons normally don’t give their reasons aside from prohibiting certain categories. In the John Howard Association’s book club experience, Fazal said she only remembers one book that was rejected. Fazal said several years ago, a jail warden wouldn’t let them send a biography of Che Guevara to an inmate. Shapiro said some inmates have trouble receiving Prison Legal News, a magazine on prisoner’s rights and prison legal issues.

Last year, a federal super maximum security prison in Florence, Colo., denied an inmate’s two requests for President Barack Obama’s books, “Dreams from My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope.” The prisoner, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, is serving time for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush. Prison officials determined that passages in both books contained information that could damage national security, according to media reports. The Bureau of Prisons later granted Ali’s request.

Goossens said some states, such as Michigan, only allow materials sent directly from publishers. He said they’re also starting to see more prisons that will only accept new books. The poor condition of used books or dust in old books, which could cause allergies, have been cited as reasons for the policy. Goossens said it’s possible that the new books policy is a control issue, which may deter people from sending books. The mailroom staff at prisons has to process all of this mail, he said, and less books means less work for this staff. Shapiro said sometimes it comes down to who is in the mailroom and what one staff member feels “poses a security threat that somehow justifies censorship.”

Goossens said the Prison Book Program doesn’t help stock prison libraries and they often hear from prison librarians with little, or zero funding to buy new material for their libraries. He said it’s frustrating because prison library funding should be an important part of the facility’s budget. Access to good libraries means that prisoners can educate themselves to become more productive members of society upon their release, Goossens said, and hopefully not return to the prison system.

Garnar echoed Goossens, and said with restricted access to the phone, Internet and other forms of communication, prison libraries are one of the few ways that prisoners can connect with the outside world. One of the challenges is that because prisoners lose many of their rights as incarcerated individuals, Garnar said it’s not always clear what their reading rights are. He said the ALA is in the process of working on a more comprehensive statement that addresses the issues prison libraries face.

“We know there are challenges and we want to support prison librarians, and inmates to have access to information that they’re legally allowed to have,” Garnar said.

SIDEBAR: Prison censorship

Prisoners face constitutional rights issues beyond the publications they can receive. David Shapiro, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, said they’re currently litigating a case in Virginia where a mother’s letter to her incarcerated son was heavily redacted because it contained Bible passages. Many ACLU chapters are also involved in pen pal service litigation, Shapiro said. He said pen pal service programs, which connect inmates with pen pals, are banned in some prisons.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a ban on face-to-face media interviews by death row inmates. Attorney General John Ashcroft created the policy after Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh did an interview with “60 Minutes” in 2000 because Ashcroft didn’t want to see criminals like McVeigh irresponsibly glamorized in the media. The court found that the equal protection guarantee in the constitution doesn’t entitle all federal prisoners to the same treatment. In the decision, Judge Frank H. Easterbrook cited U.S. Supreme Court precedents in two cases where the justices found that “the principal reason for limiting press contacts is the maintenance of security; this implies that the greater need for security at a given prison (or unit within a prison), the easier it is to justify limits on meetings between reporters and prisoners.”

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case from a Pennsylvania inmate whose prison discontinued a music program after it was highlighted in a VH-1 documentary series. Graterford State Prison had music program that allowed inmates to play in bands. After VH-1’s documentaries on prison bands aired in Oct. 2002, Pennsylvania Gov. Mark Schweitzer ordered the elimination of the program. Richard Glenn Young, an inmate who played in the prison band, took the case to court arguing that it was a violation of prisoners’ rights to free expression. Lower district courts found that the program was legitimately shut down because of safety and security concerns regarding inmate supervision.

--Report compiled with help from the Associated Press

Cap’n Kirk Reporting for Duty

2009-07-21T13:38:00.001-05:00

On Monday, Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) ended months of speculation over whether or not he would seek a promotion from the House seat he has held for five terms to the lofty confines of the stately Senate. Before entering the race, Kirk waited for the field to clear and yield a legitimate shot for a moderate Republican to steal the seat held previously by President Obama.

Kirk’s upsides are many. He won election and re-election in a Democratic-leaning north suburban district of Chicago that was carried by Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. Last November, he claimed victory with 53% of the vote while Obama drew 61% atop the ticket.

He is also a formidable fundraiser, generating $5 million in the last cycle (a rough one for his fellow Republicans) with little help from the national party, while facing a deluge of negative advertising from his opponent, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and 527 groups to the tune of $7 million. In the current cycle, he has raised $1.2 million for his House seat that is immediately transferable to the Senate race. This figure is only slightly behind the take of his probable Democratic opponent, Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias ($1.6). Kirk predicts that both sides will need to raise up to $20 million by Election Day next November.

The state and national Republican delegation has already coalesced behind Kirk. This includes former Illinois Governors Edgar and Thompson, current State Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, Illinois House Leader Tom Cross, National Committeeman Pat Brady, and U.S. Senators McConnell and McCain. He will face token opposition from retired downstate Judge Don Lowery and Matteson publisher Eric Wallace, among others, but the February primary promises to be little more than a coronation.

This gets to the crux of the story. Kirk is a moderate Republican with a socially-moderate-to-liberal voting record. Co-chair of the centrist Tuesday Group, he is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and even in favor of federal hate crime protections for homosexuals. While Kirk has consistently opposed Obama’s economic policies since January, he did stand as one of eight Republicans, and the only in the Midwest, to vote in favor of the House cap and trade legislation to regulate climate emissions.

His defense rests on the notion that the legislation will reduce domestic dependence on foreign oil, yet conservatives consider it anathema to their cause, claiming the legislation would unleash the largest across-the-board tax increase in history. Given that 60 Democrats defected in the 219-212 vote, the bill was doomed had Republicans held the fort. Kirk and seven others seeped through the cracks, and the legislation now stands before a weary Senate with President Obama eager to offer his signature.

Conservatives have since labeled him with the moniker “Cap’n Kirk,” a play off of his distinguished service as a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer as recent as 2008 in Afghanistan. The red meat portion of the Republican Party base is not known for its short memory, and Kirk must find a way to assuage their concerns in a primary season typically dominated by ideologues on each respective side of the aisle.

Assuming that Kirk survives, he has a betting chance to wrestle away a Senate seat in a purple state that has trended blue since 1998. By positioning himself as a centrist in tune with state voters’ values and removed from the scandalous Blagojevich years, Kirk becomes the antidote to candidates either tied to the disgraced governor, the pay-to-play culture that cripples the state., and the increasingly unpopular economic policies of the current president.

Cokie Roberts: Mother, Daughter, Sister, Woman, Journalist

2009-07-17T08:00:00.002-05:00

At the Harold Washington Library in Chicago on Monday, July 13, Cokie Roberts, distinguished author and political pundit, was interviewed by PBS’s Elizabeth Brackett, a winner of both the Peabody and Emmy awards.  In celebration of the 10th anniversary of Ms. Roberts’ book, We Are Our Mothers’ Daughters, the interview centered on the groundbreaking roles of women in a variety of fields and their positive effects on many institutions in this country and across the world.

Starting off the discussion, Elizabeth Brackett asked Cokie Roberts about the place for women in America.  Ms. Roberts’ answer was that women are present “everywhere” in society and are a robust, effective group. Brackett then moved on to more personal questions, asking how Roberts was able to balance both career and family over the years. Roberts was very candid, pointing out that in the 1950s, she was supposed to “marry well”—meaning marry a “good guy”—and in the 1960s, she only though of herself as “wife” after getting married at the age of 23.

The discussion became more intimate as Cokie Roberts delved into her own past with her parents and sister. She mentioned that, although women were not considered politically equal to men when she was younger, her mother, Lindy Boggs, was able to run her father’s congressional campaign (Haley Boggs was a Democratic representative from Louisiana from 1941-1972) and actually took his Congressional seat from 1973-1991 after his untimely, tragic death in an airplane accident in 1972.   Roberts’ sister, also a very accomplished woman, succumbed to cancer at age 51, the second major loss in Roberts’ life.   Asked how she had endured both losses, Roberts became emotional, saying that her Catholic faith had helped her endure.   She also spoke about the nuns who had been responsible for much of her education while growing up in New Orleans and called them strong and inspiring women.

The discussion reached a climax when Roberts touched on the need for balance and the epiphany that helped her grow to be both “wife” and professional woman.   After graduating in 1964 from Wellesley College with a degree in Political Science, she said, “As a young woman, I had good job after college, [working] for a production company.”  At 21 she was anchoring a television show in which U.S. policymakers interacted with foreign journalists.  As she said, “At that age I was too young and naïve to be afraid.”  Interestingly, she never thought of keeping her production job at the time after she was married, nor was she encouraged to do so.   In fact, she was often told that one reason she should not be hired for some of the positions she might have wanted was that men were concerned that other men might have to work for her.  Later, while talking about her own experiences as a professional in those early years, she spoke of men’s “charming lines” while they rudely and aggressively put their “hands on women’s knees.”

After she became a mother, Cokie was no longer first of all a wife; she considered herself to be foremost a mother. She became subtly emotional as she spoke about being a mother for the first time: “From the time they were born, I saw myself as a mother.”  Interestingly, in her opinion, a dividing line exists between mothers and fathers on this issue: “Some fathers first see themselves as fathers, but not most.”

Moving on to U.S. politics, Brackett asked Roberts about her thoughts of soon-to-be ex-Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, and Democratic ex-Senator and now Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton—particularly the role of the media in Clinton’s historic presidential race for the Democratic nomination and Palin’s equally historic Republican vice-presidential candidacy in the 2008 election.

First, Roberts heartily condemned the media’s “sexist” treatment of the two lightning-rod women, specifically saying that there was “blatant sexism towards Clinton and abuse of Palin.” She called it “depressing” and scoffed at the media’s supposed interest in who would take care of Palin’s children.  She pointed out that President Obama never was asked that question while he was running for the Democratic nomination and presidential election. She noted that Charlie Gibson of ABC had asked Palin about who would take care of the kids—prompting Roberts to simply say that the “woman is the mother and it’s her own business.”  Although Roberts felt strongly that Palin had a real “problem” now because of her resignation from her current position, she pointed out that only in American can one constantly resurrect oneself.

In reference to Clinton, she was equally appalled by Clinton’s treatment in the press, including some of the descriptions of her, which she considered forms of “sexism.” She pointed out the dilemma female politicians faced: “they couldn’t [criticize] it, since they’d be called cry-babies.”  She praised SNL for finally pointing out the blatant sexism leveled against Clinton and the difference between their treatment of her and that of Obama.

In reference to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s ongoing Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Roberts expressed strong support for her and extolled her controversial “wise Latina woman” quotation, eliciting both laughter and applause from the crowd. Roberts emphasized that diverse backgrounds are essential in America and that women “bring different sensibilities.”  She noted that public institutions should reflect the people they serve.

In her concluding remarks, Cokie Roberts exclaimed, “I want to see a female president before I die.” She believes that it will take the right woman at the right time, and that it will happen, though perhaps not in her lifetime.  She also expressed a fervent hope that one day, as with young African-Americans at this time, girls also will one day be told that they too can be the President of the United States and provided with an inspiring role model.

Judge denies class action status for disabled housing rights lawsuit

2009-07-16T15:30:00.006-05:00

First Amendment reporter

Housing rights for the developmentally disabled in Illinois won’t change for now, after a court ruling that dismisses the class action portion of the Ligas v. Maram lawsuit.

U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman, rejected an agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants, that would have required the state to create a service plan for all individuals with developmental disabilities before enrolling them in a private Intermediate Care Facility (ICF) or a waiver-funded community based program. In his ruling the judge wrote that the agreement was much “broader than was necessary to address the needs” of the class members. Holderman also dismissed the case’s class action status because the definition for class members was too broad and the plaintiffs in the case didn’t have “sufficient commonality.”

For some, the ruling is a step back in a case that could have expanded or created new programs for the developmentally disabled in housing placement. The plaintiffs argued that many developmentally disabled people who are eligible for Community Integrated Living Arrangements (CILA) are not being placed in these settings because the services they need are not available in current programs, or there aren’t enough spaces in current community programs to fill the need.

But for those associated with intermediate care facilities, the decision is a victory. With the state’s budget crisis, ICF supporters felt that a court order to funnel more money to community living arrangements could jeopardize services and funding at institutions. They feared this gradual shift could lead to some institutions closings, where many developmentally disabled residents have thrived while receiving the care they need.

Although the class action case cannot move forward, the nine plaintiffs can file individual lawsuits. Barry Taylor, counsel for the plaintiffs and the legal director for Equip for Equality, a non-profit advocacy group for the developmentally disabled, said the case hasn’t been dismissed and that the court still has to determine whether Illinois is in compliance with federal law. A status hearing will be held on July 30.

One of the plaintiffs’ arguments was that Illinois isn’t in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. The Supreme Court ruled that unnecessarily institutionalizing a person with developmental disabilities is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act if that person could live in the community with some support. The ruling required states to create comprehensive plans to evaluate those who are, or who are at risk of, being institutionalized unnecessarily.

Taylor said Illinois continues to rank last among the states in providing community based living options for the developmentally disabled. He said the developmentally disabled have a civil right to choose where they live and that the state must grant these rights, under the Olmstead ruling. Although the class decertification is disappointing, Taylor said, the groups involved in the case will keep pushing for change to make more housing options available to the developmentally disabled.

“This outdated system does not serve our friends, neighbors, family members and colleagues with developmental disabilities,” Taylor said. “The struggle to enforce their civil rights did not end with this ruling.”

William Choslovsky, an attorney who represented a group of developmentally disabled people on a waiting list for the Misericordia Heart of Mercy facility, said they are pleased that the judge listened to their arguments against the settlement. In addition to their dissenting comments from a hearing on July 1, Holderman received 2,500 written objections to the agreement. Choslovsky said the ruling recognizes that the needs of the disabled are too varied to be lumped together in a one size fits all solution. He said “expanding choice for some should not come at the expense of eliminating choice for others.”

“The judge’s decision demonstrates that what is lacking most in Illinois is not choice, but rather funding for all the existing choices, be they for small homes, large homes, or something in between,” Choslovsky said. “Illinois’ current budget crisis makes it painfully clear that everyone’s focus should be on making the disability pie bigger for all –not robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

To read coverage of the Ligas v. Maram fairness hearing and for more background on the case, click on the July 2009 archive link and go to the July 2, 2009 blog post, “Housing Rights Choice Rests with Judge.”

Lots of Smoke, Little Fire

2009-07-13T08:00:00.000-05:00

They’re at it again. In the midst of a devastating economic recession, and on the heels of a budget-busting stimulus package and annual spending plan, our elected officials in Washington have decided to put national health care and cap and trade legislation on hold to deal with more pressing matters, specifically their biannual attempt to diminish the 45 words of the First Amendment via a flag desecration amendment.

Twenty-five senators have joined Senator David Vitter (R-LA) as co-sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 15. Three of them are Democrats, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Evan Bayh of Indiana, nixing the characterization as a partisan ploy. If passed by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, and then ratified by three-quarters of all states, the 28th Amendment would read: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, demolished the case of those who argue that judicial activists have “twisted the original meaning of the First Amendment to protect such symbolic acts as flag burning.” Citing English common law, Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” James Madison’s original draft of the First Amendment, and early 20th Century case law, Volokh makes a compelling argument that symbolic expression was equated with speech from the outset.

This assumption taken as a given, we turn next to whether flag desecration constitutes symbolic expression protected by the First Amendment. The 1968 Supreme Court case U.S. v. O’Brien set forth a test by which we may judge whether flag desecration prohibitions abridge freedom of speech. It centered on a Vietnam era law that prohibited the destruction of draft cards. Congress defended its merits on grounds that they conveyed critical information between the government and its citizens during wartime mobilization.

The Court sustained the law, and held other instances of “speech plus,” which contain speech and non-speech elements, to the following parameters. One, the government regulation must be within its constitutional power. Two, it must further an important or substantive government interest. Three, the regulation is not related to the suppression of expression. Four, the incidental impact on expression is no greater than necessary to further that interest.

The O’Brien test was considered by the Supreme Court in the context of flag desecration in the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson. At issue was a Texas law that forbade defacement or damage to the American flag with knowledge that it will “seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action.” The 5-4 majority found insufficient the state’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity.

Specifically, it failed the third prong of the O’Brien test prohibiting the suppression of expression. Those who wished to burn flags during “respectful ceremonies” were free to do so at will, yet the same action as a form of protest was criminalized. Congress answered immediately with federal legislation to replace the fallen state statutes, but one year later the Court struck down this law too under the Johnson precedent in U.S. v. Eichman.

The Eichman decision was the final nail in the coffin for those who would prohibit flag desecration by statutory means, thus the regularly scheduled pony show of patriotism otherwise known as the flag desecration amendment. Critics were alarmed during their second-to-last attempt three years ago when 66 senators voted in favor of the amendment, but its likelihood of passage was always slim. Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid was able to pare off enough Democratic votes to protect those in his party in the midst if a tough re-election battle in a swing state cognizant of the fact that he would peel them away one-by-one should the required two-thirds majority materialize.

Given the now solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, this shell game installment will also come up empty, and it thus begs to question why our elected officials continue to waste their time and ours while they go about the “people’s business.”

President Lincoln: Contradictions on Race

2009-07-09T14:09:00.003-05:00

President Lincoln: Contradictions on Race

By: Andrew Miller

As part of the commemoration of the Lincoln Bicentennial, Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr., an African-American scholar from Harvard, specializing in Black History, and author of The Signifying Monkey, discussed Lincoln's views on race with Rick Kogan, a Chicago Tribune reporter, at the Pritzker Auditorium at the Harold Washington Library Center in Chicago. According to Dr. Gates, Lincoln had a surprisingly complex, even a contradictory, view on Black people--a view that might have culminated in his being "shocked by the first American black President, Barack Obama."

Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. introduced the evening’s program to a very diverse audience, filled with young and old as well as white and African-American. Dr. Gates began on a personal note by reminiscing about his dead grandfather's funeral where his father cried. He showed pictures of his ancestors, some of whom were partially white due to their mothers' sexual bonds with their white slave masters. He referred to an obituary of one of his black ancestors, which described her as "an estimable, colored woman."

Dr. Gates debunked several common myths, including "my grandmother was a native." He emphatically stated that an estimated 30% of black men have a white background, adding, almost wistfully, that black people have fantasized too much regarding supposed Native-American backgrounds: "Fewer than 5% of black people have Native -American backgrounds. “

In regards to the Emancipation Proclamation, Dr. Gates was equally strong, lamenting and lambasting its minuscule effect in helping black slaves. Specifically, the Federal government only freed 500,000 black slaves out of a staggering 3.9 million black slaves with this policy.

Turning his attention to black involvement in American wars, Dr. Gates extolled the heroism of black soldiers. According to Gates, 5,000 black men fought bravely in the American Revolution, including some of his own ancestors. He mused--and seemed amused--about his own participation in a patriotic organization, the Sons of the American Revolution, calling it the "whitest group."

In regards to his family history, Dr. Gates's mother had given him a pithy answer to his childhood question: "You are from people." He noted that one of his ancestors was the first black lawyer in West Virginia. To Gates, respect for one's own heritage is crucial and "satisfying" as one seeks answers.

Talking about the current state of black America, Dr. Gates emphasized that, in his opinion, education has sadly and pejoratively become "white." He believes that affirmative action has been beneficial for many black people, including him. Dr. Gates lamented the lack of black people at Yale, where he received his B.A. in history. He praised the rise of the black middle class since 1968, but noted that 37% ofchildren in 1968 were at poverty level, and that percentage has not improved significantly.

Later, while taking questions from the audience, a Rick Kogan reminisced about one African-American girl in an inner-city Chicago school who simply drew a tree when she and her classmates were asked to write what they dreamed of for their futures. At first the audience was perplexed, but then they realized the touching simplicity of the story when the man spoke about leaving the school and not seeing a single tree outside.

Regarding President Lincoln, Dr. Gates painted a complex, nuanced, even contradictory relationship between the President who "freed" the slaves and the black slaves themselves--the same kind of relationship that has often characterized race in America. Dr. Gates said that the president's supposed support for equality for black people was actually false, or, at best, misleading. Yes, he opposed slavery, but, ironically, he also wanted to colonize the newly freed slaves and send them back to Africa.

Although Lincoln slowly began to respect the intellectual level of a select few black people, including Frederick Douglas, he dismissed most of them. And while he was impressed with black soldiers' involvement in the American Revolution, he ironically opposed black people from fighting for the Union; however, he reluctantly gave his approval only after the Union was desperate for more manpower. Much to his surprise, the 200,000 black soldiers, or "black warriors" as he called them, did not just do a satisfactory job; according to Dr. Gates, they helped turn the tide in favor of the Union.

Towards the end of President Lincoln's life, as Dr. Gates pointed out, Lincoln actually seemed to shift his beliefs, making a speech in which he endorsed the idea of his "200,000 black warriors and very intelligent Negroes [being able] to vote." Interestingly, one man, horrified when he heard his speech, would later play another crucial role in history: John Wilkes Booth.

Dr. Gates was critical of black people's compliance in the Lincoln myth, saying that, besides Jesus Christ, Lincoln is the only white man on black people's walls. Even Booker T. Washington had called President Lincoln a "pure white man." In 1876, Frederick Douglas, the first black person to meet with President Lincoln, controversially said that Lincoln was "the white man's president," for he wanted to save the Union first, not the slaves.

Overall, Dr. Gates' position is that perpetuating the Lincoln myth does more harm than good and that the truth is more valuable than long-held fiction, no matter how dear to the hearts of the American people.