Mediaboss Marketing

Get Weekend Reads from Ideas

A weekly newsletter from the Boston Globe Ideas section, forged at the intersection of 'what if' and 'why not.'

Even putting aside the ethics of corporate giving to both parties, while legal, its obvious that bipartisan giving is becoming both financially and politically irrational. Bipartisan giving is no longer risk free and can even be actively detrimental to a corporations bottom line. And it is politically risky too.

The Jan. 6 committees public hearings have made it clear that we came frightfully close to losing our democracy. And while much of the focus is on one mans actions and that of his administration, members of Congress also played a critical role in advancing and spreading the Big Lie that has undermined our democracy. Today, those members of Congress who stand with truth barely outnumber those who chose to support the first serious attempt at a coup dtat since the Civil War. There are no longer two parties committed to ensuring our country remains a democracy. By giving to both sides, corporations are effectively saying that the possibility that this country ceases to be a democracy is a business risk theyre willing to take. They couldnt be more wrong.

Corporations have much incentive to preserve American democracy. Capitalism cannot exist without a democracy. As research has shown, democracy is good for business. American democracy has given corporations free rein to expand and innovate to develop new products and technologies that make everyones lives better and democratize access to information. There is a reason that Silicon Valley is located in California and not in Beijing.

If corporations want to continue to enjoy the ability to thrive and innovate, they need to commit to democracy not just in their words, but in their political giving. They must stop financing incumbents and challengers who support the Big Lie and are actively engaged in dismantling our democracy. Its time for them to choose. Either they support democracy and capitalism or they support autocracy.

This isnt just an abstract, moral requirement to do better for the sake of the world though it is that as well. And its not just a requirement that corporations defend the country that has allowed them to grow and prosper though this too is true. Corporations have a business incentive to fight for democracy.

With at least 20 million Americans tuning in to watch the Jan. 6 prime-time hearings, Americans are paying attention. Shareholders, asset managers, board members, employees, and customers are all interested in knowing which corporations are financing members of Congress who support the Big Lie. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, where I serve on the board of directors, has made it easy to follow the money. In the weeks following the Jan. 6 insurrection, hundreds of companies and industry groups committed to pause or stop giving to members of the so-called Sedition Caucus, the 147 members of Congress who voted not to certify the 2020 presidential election. Despite these initial commitments, over half of these companies have now gone back on their word and that number appears to be growing.

By continuing to support election objectors in Congress, corporations are taking another big risk because bipartisan political giving is becoming an issue of corporate governance. Directors and executives should think hard about whether donating their corporations funds to election objectors runs afoul of their legal obligations. Ethical corporate governance extends beyond the fact that the average CEO makes 351 percent as much as an average employee, or that corporate political spending doesnt align with their public messaging.

For corporations, there is no middle ground. They can continue their acquiescence to democratic decline by aligning themselves with those who support the Big Lie. Or they can choose to support truth, justice, the rule of law, and integrity with their campaign funding like the more than 70 companies, such as Nike and Microsoft, that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has found have kept their promises to not give to members of the Sedition Caucus.

Similarly, corporations can make a decision to not provide any corporate or PAC money to any candidate for public office. Either of these are principled decisions.

So yes, Home Depot, Toyota, AT&T, Walgreens, General Motors, and Comcast. Were talking about you and the other corporations that are financing the promoters of the Big Lie.

Shareholders, boards, regulators, employees, and consumers are all watching, because today, youre either part of the solution or youre part of the problem. Choose wisely.

Claudine Schneider, a former Republican US representative from Rhode Island who served for 10 years in Congress, is a member of the board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Visit link:
Corporations, youre either part of the effort to secure democracy or dismantle it. Choose. - The Boston Globe

Washington, D.C.Today, the States United Democracy Center, Protect Democracy, and Law Forward released an August update and trend analysis to the 2022 volume of their report A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Elections, which analyzes the nationwide trend of partisan state legislatures considering laws that increase the risk of election subversion. With most state legislative sessions closed for the year, the August update identifies at least 244 bills in 33 states that would interfere with nonpartisan election administration, with 24 of these bills becoming law or being adopted this year.

This August update focuses on three key evolving issues that put the future of free and fair elections at risk:

Legislative proposals and enactments that increase the risk of election subversion

The Independent State Legislature theory: Moore v. Harper and the democracy crisis

Insider threats, the trend of misconduct by officials in trusted election administration roles and other concerns for the future on nonpartisan election administration

To view a PDF of the report, click here.

The trends we are seeing in the anti-democracy space, especially in state legislatures, have a unifying theme: they would make it far easier for hyperpartisan actors to stir up the doubt, chaos, and confusion that could be used as a pretext for election subversion, said Victoria Bassetti, Senior Counsel for the States United Democracy Center. They set the stage for a rerun of the democracy subversion playbook of 2020and its crucial we understand how it all works together. One of the best ways to protect our free and fair elections from those seeking to undermine them is to understand how they are attempting to change the rules in their favor.

State legislatures and their anti-democracy allies are waging a multifront campaign to politicize, criminalize, and interfere with the way elections are run in this country, said Rachel Homer, Counsel with Protect Democracy. This is happening at the same time we see election deniers running and winning primary elections across the country, rising distrust among the electorate in our democracy, and rising acceptance of political violence. Its all connected, and together, its a recipe for a democracy crisis.

As we have tracked over time, the risk of election subversion is evolving, tooand its not limited to state legislatures, said Elizabeth Pierson of Law Forward. Here in Wisconsin, we are watching the U.S. Supreme Court as well as our own Supreme Court issue opinions that could undermine free elections, we have people pushing election lies to fuel campaigns for public office or using their current offices to destabilize our democracy, and we have seen election administrators leaving their posts. This latest update puts it all together to sound the alarm that our democracy is in trouble.

Read the original post:
States United Democracy Center, Protect Democracy and Law Forward: Report update details acceleration of state legislative election subversion trend;...

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson called abortion the issue that could "save democracy" while appearing on MSNBCs "The ReidOut."

Host Joy Reid asked Johnson on Tuesday about plans to combat "anti-abortion candidates" following the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. While Johnson was dismayed at the restrictions set by Republican legislatures, she remarked how it can be a good chance to mobilize voters.

"Its about mobilization. Look, what we have seen in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade is that we saw these anti-abortion candidates continue to double down and pursue a deeply radical, extreme unpopular agenda around continuing to constrain access to [abortion]. I think what we have done is basically show people what the choices are. You can vote for the people who are really extreme on these issues, or you can actually vote to govern your own body with people who actually support your access to choice," Johnson said.

Planned Parenthood promised to spend over $50 million during the 2022 midterm elections. (REUTERS/Gaelen Morse)

She pointed to Kansas where voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have allowed lawmakers to regulate abortion as an example.

HOW RELIGION, ABORTION WILL AFFECT THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS IN FLORIDA AMONG CRUCIAL HISPANIC VOTERS

"Just look at Kansas. Abortion rights were literally on the ballot and we saw Kansas come out in droves to support the right to choose. And so, I think thats incredibly important. The majority of Americans do support access to abortion in every single state. When they really look at whats happening, when they look at the number of states that have done these restrictions, its also actually helping us understand how gerrymandered the states to become, how it is possible that you can have a state where there is a majority support but you actually cant have the laws that you want because you have these politicians who have been safely put into these states," she added.

Johnson then quoted a colleague from NARAL and agreed that "abortion is actually going to save democracy."

Abortion became a larger election issue after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

PRO-LIFE ACTIVISTS BLIND TO HUMAN TRAGEDY CAUSED BY ABORTION RESTRICTIONS: WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD

A report on Wednesday showed that Planned Parenthood is planning on spending over $50 million in the 2022 midterm elections. This number will beat the companys previous record spending amount of $45 million in 2020.

Johnson has frequently appeared on Reids show and denounced the pro-life movement in May, suggesting they are in line with racist and segregationist attitudes.

"This is a super minority position which is being imposed essentially by Christian nationalists, five Christian nationalists on the court," Reid said. "Does it hit you differently to know that this has grown out of this essentially segregation movement?"

Alexis McGill Johnson denounced Planned Parenthood's original founder Margaret Sanger in 2021 and promised to "examine" her influence on the company. (Photo by Getty Images/Getty Images for Supermajority)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I think its completely consistent with the segregationist movement," Johnson answered.

Lindsay Kornick is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to lindsay.kornick@fox.com and on Twitter: @lmkornick.

Excerpt from:
Abortion is actually going to save democracy by mobilizing voters, Planned Parenthood president tells MSNBC - Fox News

(Editors note: Joe Kirby of Sioux Falls has recently joined the South Dakota bogosphere with his blog SIOUXFALLSJOE.COM. Were sharing one of his posts here along with our wishes for success in his venture.)

As a lifelong Republican and casual observer of South Dakota politics, I have had a nagging feeling for several years that something just wasnt working right. The I heard reports from this years Republican convention and it started to sink in.

Our 20th century election system has enabled a small right-wing faction to have outsized influence on political dialogue in our state. Recognizing this, I think we would be wise to modernize our election system to include more South Dakotans in the process.

The Republican convention was reportedly a fiasco

The reports from the Republican State Convention this summer are concerning. A small, but effective right-wing element in the party got out their vote and nearly disrupted the plans of the complacent majority.

The incumbent secretary of state was surprisingly dumped for spurious reasons. The incumbent lieutenant governor almost suffered the same fate, but for some last-minute political maneuvering. And Marty Jackleys bid to return to the office of attorney general was also nearly sidetracked.

I imagine some conservative Republican office holders (Noem and Thune) are scratching their heads wondering how they suddenly became liberals.

Our election system was established in a different time, with different realities

Decades ago, the Republican and Democratic parties were all that mattered in South Dakota politics. Both could field electable candidates. While the Republicans were mostly dominant, the Democrats were certainly relevant with leaders like Daschle, Johnson, Herseth Sandlin and McGovern. Independents and third parties were not so important.

Over time, the two parties put themselves in charge of the states election system, to the exclusion of all others. That may have made sense at the time since they could keep an eye on each other and balance things out.

Eventually, the Democratic Partys influence in the state waned when national Democrats moved left. As the partys voter numbers in the state decreased, the number of independent voters increased.

Independent voter numbers on the rise

Today 49% of registered voters in South Dakota have chosen to be labeled as Republicans. That number is probably inflated by the fact that non-Republicans are motivated to register as Republican if they want their vote to make a difference. The sagest political advice you can get in South Dakota these days is regardless of your political philosophy, you might as well register as a Republican so you can have a meaningful voice in elections. Some are willing to do that, while others understandably refuse to compromise themselves.

Twenty-six percent of South Dakota voters have bravely registered as Democrats, knowing that means they can make little difference in selecting our elected representatives. And 24% have chosen to affiliate with neither party. That number appears to be low based on national trends.

According to recent Gallup polling, 43% of voters in the US now consider themselves independent. Young people especially are opting out of the choice between the two political parties they find objectionable.

Independent voters are second-class citizens in South Dakota

While the political landscape shifted in South Dakota, the mechanics of our elections did not. But no one seems to be challenging that. Most South Dakotans accept the legacy election system as is. It is familiar. We know how it works. And we know that we end up with Republican winners either way. But we should at least understand its shortcomings and what they might be costing us.

The two parties control South Dakotas election processes. The State Board of Elections runs the states elections. Six of the seven board members are appointed by elected officials from the two parties. None are appointed by other parties or by independent voters in the state.

On a more local level, county precinct superintendents and their assistants play a big role in South Dakotas elections. County auditors appoint them from lists submitted by the two parties. The states independent voters are left out of the process.

Independents are even discriminated against if they want to run for office. The signature requirements for their nominating petitions for some offices are much greater than for party candidates. This is not fair. (I wonder if it would survive a court challenge.)

Independent voters are excluded from the primaries

Political parties have decided that they should be able to exclude non-party members from participating in taxpayer-funded primary elections. As a result, 142,000 independent voters in South Dakota are often left without a meaningful role in the primary elections they help pay for.

As South Dakota Democrats became less relevant, they invited independent voters to participate in their primary. But that doesnt accomplish much when the most important election is usually the Republican primary.

A minority of registered voters has absolute control

In recent years we have become a one-party state. With less than half of the states registered voters, Republicans enjoy a monopoly on statewide races. They occupy all three federal offices, plus the office of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state and more.

Republicans also win 90%+ of legislative races. Most legislative races in the state are uncontested or minimally contested, which leads to the observation that if you didnt get to participate in the Republican primary, you had no voice in choosing your state representatives.

Our legislature wastes time on less important issues

You might think I, as a Republican, should like all this power for my party. But as I mentioned earlier, odd things are happening in our Legislature because of it. I think we are all better off if all South Dakotans get to participate equally.

Now that Republicans are in control in our state, the most interesting debates are between Republicans. Lately, conservative Republicans have been challenged from a small, vocal group that is further right politically.

That has led to lots of fussing about seemingly irrelevant stuff like who gets to use which bathrooms. Wed be better off if our legislators would focus on issues effecting more of us, like economic development, healthcare, prisons and housing.

Democracy is a fiction in South Dakota

Our representative democracy does not appear to be working well in South Dakota. Significant groups of South Dakotans have little or no representation or even involvement in the election process. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is showing signs of dysfunction.

At the same time, disenfranchised groups of voters sometimes resort to petition drives to try to enact laws like expanding Medicaid and legalizing marijuana. Issues like that seem well suited for a more balanced legislature.

All South Dakota voters should participate equally

All of us would benefit if more South Dakotans had a meaningful role in our elections. I would like to see the Legislature update the election administration system to allow independents to have an appropriate role. I would also like to see the Republican Party open its primary to independents to broaden the partys base of supporters and reduce the influence of the vocal right-wing minority.

Joe Kirby is a fourth generation South Dakotan and lifetime Republican. He is a retired businessman who has taken an active role in election reform since helping modernize Sioux Falls city government in the 1990s.

Read the original post:
Sioux Falls blogger and lifelong Republican Joe Kirby writes that democracy is a fiction in South Dakota The South Dakota Standard - The South Dakota...

Editor's Note

A version of this editorial first appeared in the Aug. 18 edition of The Inquirer and Mirror, of Nantucket. It is republished with permission and modified for our local readership.

In the summer of 1943, as World War II raged, E.B. White wrote a small piece in the Notes and Comment section of the New Yorker magazine on the meaning of democracy. One item on his list of things that described democracy was a letter to the editor.

We could not agree more. It is as true today as it was back in 1943 that the letters to the editor section of the opinion pages is the marketplace of ideas. The very act of putting your thoughts in logical and readable order, keeping civil while you disagree and signing your name to it somehow pushes letter-writers above the social media fray of angry opinions.

Recent letters to the editor are like a cross-section of Berkshire concerns: a police chief flagging the need to invest in our youth; comments on the new contours of the annual Josh Billings RunAground; reader reactions to Eagle columnists commentaries; impassioned discussion of a residential tax exemption proposal in Stockbridge; praise for a Shakespeare in the Park production at The Common in Pittsfield.

The coming days opinion pages could very well have a series of letters arguing the opposite sides of all these issues. That is the whole point. Everyone gets their say. Nobody has to agree with us. Everybody, however, has to make their argument in a civil manner and sign their name to it.

And officials might be well served if they read the letters as the voice of the people. The controversial North Street redesign, the debate over where to house Berkshire women inmates, the localized effects of economic and political uncertainty all have been addressed thoroughly this summer in letters to the editor. Meanwhile, a massive influx of letters pertaining to a heated election season show a healthy share of Berkshire voters are engaged with these pivotal races that will shape the countys future. It also demonstrates a citizenry ready and willing to take up that great democratic tradition of civilly convincing their neighbors in the public square. Our leaders ought to be listening to those voices especially those seeking election or reelection to public office.

One type of letter is a reminder that life in a small community can often be different than life in other places: the letter of thanks. These simple thank-you notes for somebody who has helped the writer out in one way or another, often in some small way that did not seem small to the writer, are a reminder of how one should act and that life is not always about rabid political arguments.

E.B. White wrote his essay almost eight decades ago. It is easy enough to say it was a different time, but it is a helpful reminder of how we might still see ourselves reflected in the idea of democracy.

Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time, he wrote. It is the feeling of privacy in the voting booths, the feeling of communion in the libraries, the feeling of vitality everywhere. Democracy is a letter to the editor. Democracy is the score at the beginning of the ninth. It is an idea which hasnt been disproved yet, a song the words of which have not gone bad.

Follow this link:
Our Opinion: Letters to the editor are democracy in action - Berkshire Eagle