Meet Mark Begich, Alaska's Next Senator

This is really good to see.

Alaska’s U.S. Senate race between Republican incumbent Ted Stevens and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has been a toss-up for several months now, but the Democratic challenger is now ahead 50% to 41%. When “leaners” are included, Begich leads 52% to 44%.

Begich began running his first television ads of the campaign on July 8 and the survey was conducted nine days later.

I've blogged about those ads previously, but this week I got to know Mark Begich as a person. He held an informal event with a bunch of us bloggers on Thursday at Netroots Nation, and because of the whirlwind of events I haven't gotten around to it until today. Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, which has 43% of the population of the state (and 70% of the media market), got into the campaign late for very calculated reasons. First of all, media is cheap, and an ad buy like he's started can have an immediate impact. Begich outraised Series of Toobz Ted Stevens in the second quarter, so he will have the needed resources. He had the same strategy in 2003, when he beat the sitting incumbent mayor of Anchorage in a close vote, and then went on to manage the city out of fiscal crisis and got them on better footing. The key, to him, is to be direct - to shoot straight with people and tell them what you believe. He calls in to any conservative talk show and even engages with random commenters on the Anchorage Daily News blog - so much so that his campaign staff has had to rein him in a bit!

Alaska is really a different kind of state, one that relies on help from the federal government because of its proximity and relies on the oil and gas industry for its wealth. Ted Stevens has cynically used this to steer contracts to his political friends and allies, but as Begich said "his clout is no longer working for Alaskan families," and there's a disconnect between the state's needs and the rhetoric in Washington. The one question I got to ask him was about oil exploration, because it's interesting that his first ad, in Alaska, was about his commitment to wind energy. "I couldn't have run that ad a couple years ago," he said, "but things are changing. Alaska is starting to view itself as an energy state, not an oil and gas state. He gave the example of salmon fishers off the coast (about 50% of our salmon come from this area) not being able to ice down their catches because it's now too expensive to pay for the energy to generate the ice. So their solution was an ice barge for all the ships and boats, powered by tidal energy. Alaskans are feeling these problems every day, and it's a common thread that unites them. And it can be the spur to real innovations and diversification of our energy future. That comes with a comprehensive energy policy, and while it's clear that Begich would vote for drilling in ANWR - although he said that a lot of the oil could be sucked up by nearby existing fields if they bent their pipes a little bit - he would use it as part of a comprehensive energy policy, which we currently don't have.

There are other issues in the campaign as well, including the SCOTUS (the reduction of the fine necessary for Exxon to pay in the Valdez aftermath weighs big with voters) and veteran's issues (11% of the state are vets, and yet there's NO VA HOSPITAL up there). The good numbers notwithstanding, this race isn't over - Begich described a 3-4 point "rubber band effect" where voters often come back to the GOP in the last week, and the local press is notoriously soft on the legendary Stevens. But there's a real opportunity here to send a pragmatic progressive to Washington who has the competence, the ability and the principles to lead Alaska in the Senate. I was pretty impressed.

Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis and CAF also interviewed Begich and has the video to prove it. That's below. See in particular his thoughts on protecting our fundamental constitutional rights from the politics of fear, and his beliefs about the netroots.

The Corporate Court

The Washington Post has an article today about the implications of a McCain victory on the federal judiciary. I don't think they needed to write it, they could have just used the same amount of column inches and printed this graphic:



(h/t CAF for the graphic.)

The federal bench has been overwhelmingly appointed by Republicans because they've held the White House for 20 of the last 28 years. And while there are exceptions, Republican Presidents have used the Federalist Society and conservative legal organizations as a judge factory. Everyone knows this and it's very clear. However, I don't think one truly appreciates the shift to the right of the judiciary on one of the signature issues they end up deciding in bulk - corporate issues. The lead editorial in today's LA Times is about the "return to consensus" on the Roberts Court, despite the high-profile 5-4 decisions. That's true, but it's a function of what cases the Court is selecting to decide. It has nothing to do with, as the LAT suggests, some sort of judicial comity or bipartisanship. It's because forty percent of the cases this term involved business interests, and the Republican - actually, all - appointees on the Court are of one mind on them.

Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting business interests. Of the 30 business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes. Conrad said she was especially pleased that several of the most important decisions were written by liberal justices, speaking for liberal and conservative colleagues alike. In opinions last term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing — a strategy championed by progressive groups like Public Citizen but routinely denounced by conservatives as “regulation by litigation.” Conrad reeled off some of her favorite moments: “Justice Ginsburg talked about how ‘private-securities fraud actions, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively.’ Justice Breyer had a wonderful quote about how Congress was trying to ‘weed out unmeritorious securities lawsuits.’ Justice Souter talked about how the threat of litigation ‘will push cost-conscious defendants to settle.’ ” [...]

Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. But these cases — which include shareholder suits, antitrust challenges to corporate mergers, patent disputes and efforts to reduce punitive-damage awards and prevent product-liability suits — are no less important. They involve billions of dollars, have huge consequences for the economy and can have a greater effect on people’s daily lives than the often symbolic battles of the culture wars. In the current Supreme Court term, the justices have already blocked a liability suit against Medtronic, the manufacturer of a heart catheter, and rejected a type of shareholder suit that includes a claim against Enron. In the coming months, the court will decide whether to reduce the largest punitive-damage award in American history, which resulted from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.

And they did reduce that punitive-damage award, as we know. David Souter, one of the court's "liberals," wrote the opinion.

The hot-button issues of gun rights and Roe get all the ink, but ex-corporate lawyer John Roberts has really revolutionized the nation's highest Court, and on issues with business interests at the forefront he have shown himself and his Court extremely willing to ignore precedent and to act in an activist fashion. This is the real agenda of any Republican nominee - you have to look past the so-called "litmus tests" to get to the meat.

As for Sen. Obama's opinion on these issues, he's (surprise, surprise) kept it pretty close to the vest. But we can look to why he opposed both Roberts and Alito:

Obama, like Clinton, voted against both Bush nominees to the Supreme Court, citing their tendencies to favor government and corporate interests—"bullies" in Obama's words—over the rights of individuals.

He wrote, "The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts's nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope … that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society."

Casting his vote against Alito, Obama noted similar concerns about the nominee's voting record, "The Judicial Branch of our government is a place where any American citizen can stand equal before the eyes of the law. Yet, in examining Judge Alito's many decisions, I have seen extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless, for the employer against the employee, for the President against the Congress and the Judiciary, and for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties."

In his votes against Roberts and Alito, Obama shared much of the same reasoning with Clinton, noting that the nominees' steadfast support for government and corporate powers—and disinterest in the rights of individuals—concerned him. One point he emphasizes more than Clinton, however, is Roberts's and Alito's tendency to favor the "unitary executive" theory, which supports fewer limitations on presidential authority.

We know that McCain would appoint a corporate whore. I think past precedent suggests otherwise for Obama - and certainly 4-8 more years of Federalist Society knockoffs throughout the judiciary is unacceptable. But the Supreme Court's ideology on corporate issues is pretty rigidly set for perhaps the next generation, and barring a massive change in personnel I don't see that changing. Building progressive power outside of government that will hit businesses in the wallet and hold them accountable to their customers - BuyBlue.org and the stock sell-off of Sinclair Broadcasting in 2004 being some recent examples - may be more effective than relying on John Roberts and his cadre.

God Save This Blessed Court

It's getting so I try not to read anything with "Supreme Court" in the headline on the last week of June, because that's when all the most controversial cases come down, and given the current makeup of the Court it means "pound progressives into the cement" week in America.

The Court did rule that the death penalty shouldn't apply to child rapists, which, while a horrible crime, is not proportional to state-sanctioned murder. Sen. Obama short-circuited the inevitable Kitty Dukakis question by saying he disagreed with the ruling, but the fact that he did so on state's rights grounds is alarming. I don't know if Justice Kennedy made a well-argued case here, but I don't believe in the death penalty as a deterrent (I don't think rapists and murderers are all that rational) or as a properly applied system of jurisprudence (look at all the problems with cases at the state level) so anything that blocks its expansion is generally fine with me. I wish we had a court that would throw the whole practice out as cruel and unusual punishment and recognize that life in prison without possibility of parole is a pretty stiff punishment.

The other decisions were varying degrees of horrible. The Court stepped into the Exxon Valdez civil case in an activist fashion and lowered the damages to citizens affected by the oil spill. It's outrageous that the shattered lives on the Alaskan coast are worth $15,000, according to the law. And moreover, it shows corporations that they can appeal and appeal and appeal and they will eventually get their way in the highest court, where fealty to corporations is really the order of the day.

Today, in a 5-4 decision the Court overturned the Millionaire's Amendment which ruled as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that candidates facing a rich, self-funded challenger can raise above the contribution limits if their opponent pumps millions into the race. The ruling also waives several disclosure requirements on the part of the self-funder. What is key here, a signal that this Court will rule against any and all public financing laws, is that Congress cannot seek to "level the playing field."

The argument that a candidate’s speech may be restricted in order to "level electoral opportunities" has ominous implications because it would permit Congress to arrogate the voters’ authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office. See Bellotti, supra, at 791–792 ("[T]he people in our democracy are entrusted with the responsibility for judging and evaluating the relative merits of conflicting arguments" and "may consider, in making their judgment, the source and credibility of the advocate"). Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives, Art. I, §2, and it is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.

This sounds reasonable enough, but it could be the wormhole to end public financing and eliminate contribution limits. Considering that we're in the age of the Internet where the low-dollar revolution has taught that there need not be a reliance on big corporate money, that could be OK. But not if limits start getting removed. McCain-Feingold was reinforced by a 2003 ruling, so hopefully it'll remain robust. I'm worried that this will challenge "fair fight" funds in use in public money states like Arizona and Maine, where the publicly financed candidate gets extra money if a privately funded challenger spends above certain thresholds.

Finally, there's the Second Amendment case of the DC handgun ban, and in another 5-4 ruling the Court asserted an individual right to gun ownership and struck down the DC law. This is really the end of the gun issue as a political football; the 2nd Amendment has been defined. I don't know if it was defined correctly, but even such Constitutional scholars as Russ Feingold assert an individual right to bear arms. Here's Sen. Obama on the issue:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Actually, that kind of strikes the right balance to me. What I do find striking is that not long ago, Justice Scalia assured us that the Court's ruling in Boumediene would "surely cause more Americans to be killed," yet he doesn't see the same consequence of allowing firearms in everyone's hands. Overall, we have a Court that bounces back between activism and restraint when it suits their ideological needs. It reinforces the need for a Democratic President to retain our core values and not continue on this path of a hard-right agenda in the highest Court in the land.

UPDATE: According to Phillip Carter, the ruling in Heller is pretty restrained, and most current forms of gun control wouldn't fall under it, outside of total bans.

OR-Sen, AK-Sen: Glimmers of Hope

I mentioned Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley in the last post, and I have a very good feeling about him. Not just from the standpoint of him being possibly one of the few reliable progressives we can elect to the Senate (Tom Allen and Tom Udall and maybe Mark Begich being the others, IMO) - but Gordon Smith, the fake moderate Republican who every election year tries to wipe away the memory of his past far-right votes, is clearly frightened enough about his chances that he's running ads tying himself to Barack Obama.



It's pretty clear how popular Obama is in Oregon once you see that ad - no wonder they're not really competing up there for now. Obama, for his part, responded in this fashion.

"Barack Obama has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment and we appreciate that it is respected by his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. But in this race, Oregonians should know that Barack Obama supports Jeff Merkley for Senate. Merkley will help Obama bring about the fundamental change we need in Washington," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

I am not particularly happy with Obama for his FISA el foldo, but he is paying attention to electing Democrats across the country, which gives us an opportunity to try and change the balance between reactionaries, conservatives and actual progressives in the Congress.

As for the aforementioned Mark Begich, I thought this was a strong statement in the wake of the Supreme Court stepping in (activist judges!) to limit the damage awards to Exxon in the Valdez spill:

“The thousands of Alaskans whose lives were devastated by this disaster are hurt, once again, by this ruling," Begich said. "What we’re seeing today is another example of how Washington is out of touch with real people. The justices have sided with corporate America rather than with Alaska families who have suffered for nearly 20 years.”

Begich added that while the livelihoods of thousands of Alaska fishermen and others were destroyed by the spill, Sen. Ted Stevens has continued to work to serve the interests of big business, rather than put pressure on Exxon to settle the lawsuit or drop its appeals.

“Sen. Stevens continues to show he works hard for special interests, but where has he been when it comes to doing what’s right for Alaskans?” Begich said.

This is yet another shitty day for the country, but there are a few candidates with integrity and a commitment to serve the people. You just have to search for them.