Thoughts on disasters, the 24-hour news cycle, and unrealistic expectations…

In light of the tragic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there is once again an expectation amongst many Americans that a disaster of this magnitude can be fixed on demand within the framework of media talking points. The media is increasingly guilty of dramatizing events which will garner ratings, many times at the expense of the true story on the ground. Some anchors continually look for out of context sound bites and headlines that invoke our worst fears and divisive partisan opinion. To feed a hungry 24 hour news cycle, the press today has no choice but to dig for every angle, whether factual or prophetic, in order to satisfy the needy “hear what we want to, not what we need to” segment of our population.

Take for example the reporting by the major news networks over the past weeks of the oil spill: despite the common knowledge that BP was not truthful as it relates to the nature of the leak, the media is acting as if they knew the extent of the disaster when it first occurred. Next, these news anchors, talk show hosts, and partisan politicians who are swayed heavily by media reports and not researched facts, begin to spread blame along various chains of command and agencies that, while they obviously care deeply about fixing the disaster at hand, were unable to properly respond because of BP’s initial, lobbyist and public relations ridden attempts to cover up the true enormity of the pipe breach.

Unlike Hurricane Katrina, where the scope of the disaster was evident upon the breach of the levees, this disaster occurred nearly a mile below the shore, with technology to monitor the leak provided by the very people responsible. Until the oil became clearly visible from Satellite imagery, and estimates as to the scope of the leak where attained, it was virtually impossible for the US Government to put a plan into action that was based on the tangible, truthful, calculation of the extent of the spill. In addition, President Obama has expressed a sense of urgency and engagement that was absent in President Bush’s response to the flooding as a result of the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly construct the levee system above the city of New Orleans.

With light speed internet sites like Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, and major news sites facilitating rumors and opinion at the expense of realistic, fact based schools of thought; it has become increasingly difficult to translate the pace of responsible decision making to the 24 hour news cycle. A thought out decision must include good information that facilitates a proper response. Until BP accepted the ramifications of its transgressions, there was no good way to know what kind of disaster to expect. The fact that it was not until today that the estimate of the size of the spill was revealed, it should not surprise people that there were mistakes and oversights in the Federal Government’s handling of the situation. The prevalent media talking point, that this disaster could have been handled well with such a broken system at the MMS and lack of candor from BP, is clearly a product of the unrealistic expectations.

Thoughts on the state of air travel in 2010…

As I sit here in my seventh hour on standby at the world’s busiest airport, Atlanta-Hartsfield International, there could not be a better time to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of modern air travel. Though many new amenities have been added to both the airplanes and airports, we have seen many of the older, comforting conveniences of the travel experience become compromised by our fight against terrorism and a struggling economy. That being said, the option to travel by air is also one that my generation, and especially the younger folks, take for granted for its overall expediency and savings on gas, room, and rest stop hotels. The travel experience that has arisen as a result of our modern day compromises can work well as long as there is no bad weather or lack of work ethic exhibited by airline and airport employees. Therein lies the problem.

In my experiences, I have encountered virtually every airport scenario; from trips that went off without a hitch, to instances of pure human error and complications with simple itineraries. But let’s take a look at today’s situation, one that is out of the control of the airline I am traveling, but still a scenario that occurs more and more due to a significant reduction in the number of flights airlines are taking in today’s economy. Due to bad weather in Atlanta, a ground stop was put on planes headed to AHI, therefore my flight sat idle for an hour on the tarmac in my departure city of San Antonio, Texas. With an hour between flights, my day was doomed even before takeoff, and when I arrived in Atlanta the plane to my destination, San Juan, Puerto Rico, was already pushing away from the gate. Upon seeking help from the airline, I was placed on standby for a flight eight hours later with no guarantee of reaching the destination I paid good money to reach.

This situation occurs every day across the world, as the reduction in flights has led to more and more standby instead of guaranteed seats. Despite having booked months in advance, a one hour ground stop was capable of ruining mine and the at least 60 or more other people who missed their connections and were not given a real ticket to continue their paired journey. In addition, should I not be given a ticket for the flight to the island, I will be forced to stay overnight and leave in the morning, costing not only a day of my trip, but also causing me to secure reservations on a weekend in Atlanta. I have nothing but love for the city, but for many travelers the lack of backup flights to ensure the arrival of paid customers is cause for much disdain for the airlines and for the respectability of air travel in general.

Add to this the fact that we have no choice but to go through the maze of security checks and long lines at customs because of the awful actions of others, and the traveler who goes through my experience has reason to complain about the nature of the current system. To their credit, the employees of the airline I am traveling on have done everything in their power to rectify the situation, but the bottom lines is that air travel is not the experience that it could and can be. In no other industry can you have a consumer not receive the service they paid a pretty penny for and get by with an “I’m sorry” and a rebooking to an inconvenient time or rerouted through an obscure destination as I was today. To be frank, there doesn’t seem to be a good solution to the problem at the present time. The fact that we depend so heavily on oil to power up our planes has put a stranglehold on tight budgets that could better go towards improving the experience, not cutting down on it at the expense of the consumer.

On the plane is no different. Airlines have moved towards an a la carte system for amenities, leaving much to be desired when compared to the steep cost of flying today. Instead of compensating for a lack of ready planes and pilots to ensure the soundness of itineraries, the airlines, for the most part, have decided that they can easily nickel and dime passengers at 35,000 feet. These growing practices, and the vastly unpopular checked baggage fees, have left the air travel consumer in the precarious position of having no choice but to deal with a shareholder first system of travel.

Though there is no doubt in my mind that the airlines will recover under a greener fueling system and an improving economic outlook, in the meantime the airline consumer is getting an increasingly raw deal. Sure, there have been times where my trips have been run to perfection, but the trend has been towards frustration and delay. More than half the time I have flown in the past two years, I have either faced a long weather related delay, or some other form of inconvenience for which the airlines have no good solution. It’s always something different, and it usually stems from human error in scheduling and delivering upon that itinerary. In our capitalist society, we expect those at the top to represent the best and brightest of their industry. In this department, airline travel has suffered greatly in a post 9/11 world. It should be interesting to see where the quality of air travel goes from here, but there is no doubt that it must improve to an acceptable level of dependability and bang for buck..

Thoughts on the plausibility of a Rand Paul/Sarah Palin Tea Party Presidential Ticket in 2012…

Though we are nearly two and a half years from the 2012 Presidential Election, it’s never too early to speculate upon which prospective candidates will represent the respective political parties on the national stage in two years. Despite their best efforts to reign in and unite with the Tea Party, the establishment of the Republican Party may have to deal with a difficult scenario in 2012. One that is eerily similar to 1992, where Ross Perot ate up the moderate conservative vote which helped the election to swing Bill Clinton’s way. The rightward shift of the conservative political spectrum has helped to legitimize the Tea Party, and with the primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky this past Tuesday, the Republican Party now has in its midst the first true Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate for office.

Now, the Republican Party leadership must choose either to embrace Paul and his followers, who beat their establishment candidate handedly, or they must stay Luke warm towards the more controversial elements of the Tea Party, and the radical rhetoric that could drive away moderate voters this fall and going forward. The quagmire for Republicans is that over the next two years there are likely to be more and more social conservative candidates emerging under the Tea Party label. The Tea Party will likely continue to eat away at the Republican Party’s socially conservative base. Therefore, as national trends continue to show increased interest in alternatives to the status quo, the Tea Party could be set to run third party candidates at the national level.

Should this game changing, third party presidential run occur, the two politicians who have been the most vocal advocates of the Tea Party message, and by far the most popular figures associated with the larger anti-big government movement, are the before mentioned Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, and the keynote speaker of the first national Tea Party Convention, former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This potential star pairing would most likely garner the support of a significant portion of the socially conservative electorate, dealing a critical blow to the chances of the Republican Party ticket.

The electoral impact on the other side of the aisle would be negligible, as few moderate to die hard liberals would be inclined to support the social policies of a Tea Party ticket that is to the right of the Republicans in almost every way. Therefore, if a scenario such as Obama/Biden v Paul/Palin v Romney/Brown were to arise, it’s conceivable that the Republican ticket could lose as much as 20% of its voting base in the process. Much like in 1992, this division amongst conservatives would deliver an easy general election victory to Barack Obama and the Democrats, and thus leave the Republican Party no choice but to crawl home and start over again. Only this time, the challenge for Republicans is coming from the right, and not the center of the political spectrum.

Thoughts on the updated status of KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents of 2010…

Recent primary results have stamped home the message that KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents are in imminent trouble politically. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, our #1 Senator to watch, lost badly to Representative Joe Sestak by a margin of 8 percentage points. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas barely held a plurality in her 2 point victory and now faces a hotly contested runoff with Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. And finally, just over a week ago, now former Senator Bob Bennett of Utah failed to make the top two at the Utah GOP Nomination Convention, falling to Tim Bridgewater Mike Lee, and stamping a fail sign on 3 out of the top 5 most vulnerable incumbents in 2010. Nonetheless, May has been a challenge for all politicians facing challenges from their left and right respectively.

The other two incumbents on our list, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Michael Bennet of Colorado, must focus intently on the looming November election. Despite Burr’s big primary win, and Bennet’s likely nomination in August, as freshman Senator’s they will face the growing challenge of a strong anti-incumbent sentiment amongst the American electorate. The bottom line is that change message of 2008 lives on in varying forms, and those who have positioned themselves to deliver that message in the face of establishment candidates are primed to win big come November. Both the Tea Party on the right, and MoveOn.org on the left, have already impacted the primary season, and the pressure has quickly shifted towards the few remaining moderates in Congress, a disappearing breed, to remain attractive to voters in an election season clearly defined by historic pressure from the fringes of both ends of the left-right political spectrum.

America’s social political dynamic has skewed so far to the right over the past thirty years that the liberal left is now positioned in the old center, and the socially conservative right is nearly radical in nature when compared to the conservatives of the 1980’s and prior. Therefore, this election cycle, where many moderate incumbents are vulnerable to defeat by their more liberal or conservative counterparts, should prove to be one that sees all five of KTI’s listed incumbents lose their respective seats in the Senate. These formerly popular individuals have seen the political tide shift to the fringes at their expense. Though the trends always seem to be corrected over time, the fact is that 2010 will go down as yet another change election. Americans are clearly done with the stalemate that has come to define the US Senate, and as victims of poor timing and a hostile political climate, those who are considered insiders, such as Specter and Bennet, are likely to find themselves sitting on the sidelines come 2011.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/

Thoughts on individuals who fake their military service and the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act…

Today, prospective Senator, and current Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal became the latest example of shameful military misrepresentation. As the New York Times first reported, on more than one occasion, Blumenthal has claimed to have served in Vietnam while enlisted in the Marine Corps. While speaking to the families of veterans, he falsely referred to occasions and interactions while at war that he claimed helped to shape his identity. The problem is that he was actually in the Marine Corps Reserves, and never actually set foot in Vietnam. He used his false story for political gain, and in turn disrespected the veterans and families of the brave Marines who fought during the Vietnam War, and other wars throughout our nation’s history. The incredible sacrifice undertaken by the Marine Corps makes the story of another fake soldier one that brings great embarrassment on the guilty party and those associated with the lie. Despite his truthful enlistment in the Marine Corps Reserves, in taking his story to a level where he gained monetarily and politically from his misrepresentation, Blumenthal has added yet another vital piece of evidence to the case in favor of a federal law against public military misrepresentation. In fact, Blumenthal took five different deferments to avoid serving in the very war he states in his false stories of service. Therefore, especially in cases where congressionally administered awards are falsified, there needs to be a federal law on the books that makes illegal such a disregard for the honorable service and sacrifice of others.

H.R. 666, or the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act, which was introduced to the House Committee on Armed Services Representative by John Salazar back in January of 2009, seeks to set up a federal database of military award winners to act as a way of red flagging rogue individuals who seek to use fake military service for personal gain. By expanding the current system from a branch by branch approach to a national database approach, the argument can be made that it will be much easier to nail down individuals who are faking their service, regardless of the claim, and without regard for their location. Suspicious reporters and individuals could then look up the public database of real award winners on the internet, thus creating a deterrent for those who might consider lying about their military service. Families can then rest assured that their brave sons and daughters who have sacrificed it all for their country will not be taken advantage of by individuals such as Blumenthal and others. This long overdue bill can thank it’s origins to Doug Sterner, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and the man who has led the fight against the falsification of military service records and decorations. He has advocated for the families of veterans by helping them locate lost records and helping to bring down those who have stolen the valor of others. In 2005 he became notorious for his work on the Stolen Valor Act, which made a federal misdemeanor the unauthorized wearing, manufacture, sale or claim (either written or oral) of any military decorations and medals.

Now may be the perfect time for Congress to push this important legislation through, and in addition make the provisions of the Stolen Valor Act more specific in order to counter recent court challenges to its constitutionality on the grounds that the law is too broad. With elections coming up, and our soldiers returning home in the next few years, it is up to lawmakers to take the steps necessary to eliminating the practice of stolen valor and the prospering from false tales of glory. Politicians such as Blumenthal should be held to even a higher standard than ordinary citizens who use false stories for social gain. Given their public status, and their request for public and corporate funding for their campaigns, this kind of lying by politicians could easily qualify as a con artist. It is important to realize that these kinds of people, who are willing to pretend to be heroes despite the memories and families of the heroes themselves, must be held accountable by being banned from running for public office if found guilty of such an offense.

The Stolen Valor act, in addition to its current provisions, should address the sad yet preventable prospect of prospective and tenured politicians using false military service and heroism for their own selfish gain. As a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, the Attorney General of Connecticut, and a registered Democrat seeking a Senate seat this fall, Blumenthal should have known better than to think his lies about Vietnam would go unnoticed. His misrepresentations act as disturbing evidence that action must be taken to prevent this kind of trend from increasing in the coming years. Only by taking action preemptively to curb the faking of military service can we handle what should become an imminent problem upon return of hundreds of thousands of active duty and discharged troops to the US mainland. Though it seems unlikely, today’s story is sure to inspire those who feel passionately about protecting the memories, and honor of those who have served to take action and encourage Congress to proceed with the passing of the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h666/text
http://www.reportstolenvalor.org/

Thoughts on GRAHAM v. FLORIDA and the long term incarceration of juvenile offenders…

The latest round of Supreme Court decisions produced an interesting ruling which protects juveniles from life sentences for committing non-homicidal crimes. As a 16 year old, Terrance Graham was granted life in prison after he violated the terms of his parole from a previous armed robbery conviction by evading arrest in possible connection with yet another crime; thus resulting in a life sentence without parole except in the case of an executive clemency being granted. Graham then appealed his life sentence under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eight Amendment, claiming the punishment did not fit the crime, but his sentence was later upheld by the district appellate court.

The case was then sent to the High Court for a final verdict, and in using precedent and proper application of the Eight Amendment, the court determined that, as a minor, Graham’s life sentence represented a disproportionate punishment in relation to the crimes he had committed. In his majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy states “The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment” and “Because there was no intent to commit homicide, it was determined that by national standards the punishment was cruel and unusual in relation to the act itself”. In addition, despite the defendants’ minor status, he would be denied any chance at rehabilitation under the Florida court’s decision. On the matter Justice Kennedy states, “The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a non-homicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law.”

The High Court was also concerned with the potential over application, in varying forms, of the court’s precedent by the individual states in allowing a death or life sentence in this kind of case. Kennedy writes, “This case implicates a particular type of sentence as it applies to an entire class of offenders who have committed range of crimes.” In addition, Kennedy made it clear that the Eight Amendment trumped the need for states to enforce life sentences on minors who commit non-homicides. He states, “inadequacy of penological theory to justify life without parole sentences for juvenile non homicide offenders, the limited culpability of such offenders, and the severity of these sentences all lead the Court to conclude that the sentencing practice at issue is cruel and unusual.”

Ultimately, the lack of intent to commit murder seems to be the main factor in the 6-3 decision that has allowed Graham to potentially rejoin society. Despite his minor status, the Supreme Court would likely have held the district court’s decision had the act involved a homicide or the intent to kill. Therefore precedent has been set that should serve notice to juveniles who believe the system is designed to protect them from life sentences in all cases. The High Court also made it clear that the priority should be rehabilitation in cases such as this where the defendant has the potential to contribute to society.

This important ruling will give added clarity to the matter of what crimes are deemed atrocious enough to deem a minor responsible at an adult level. The fragile balance between overreaching punishment and commonsensical application of the criminal code has been appropriately defined in the majority opinion, and the Supreme Court’s decision is an example of well thought out application of the Eight Amendment. The end result, a logical new precedent to be applied in an ever evolving process of justice as it relates to the incarceration and the legal rights of minors.

Thoughts on the misguided use of phrases like “Take our country back” by politicians…

It’s been hailed as the official rallying cry for the Republican Party in 2010, most recently used by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, at this week’s Annual NRA convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, when he stated "We can't wait 'til 2012 to start taking our country back," as he addressed the crowd of gun owners and advocates for Second Amendment rights who have gathered for their yearly homage to gun rights. At the same event, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a common user of this kind of incendiary verbiage, pushed a similarly misguided message that would make it seem as if government agents were holding random gun search and seizure operations aimed at disarming common citizens. Claiming "all they do is take them away from law-abiding citizens and we use them responsibly," a statement which is simply overstated and false. These blatant, irresponsible attempts to rouse an audience that is both armed and angry at the government, are shameful actions taken by desperate politicians who only stand to gain from divisive, deceiving, and obvious fear tactics.

Both Palin and Barbour know that they can easily anger the mainly conservative NRA crowd by implying that the current administration is out to take away their Constitutional freedoms. They can play to the biggest fear of Second Amendment advocates, feeding their ears with falsehoods about the intentions of the parties in charge that most advocates will not verify for soundness. In addition, as they speak to mainly single race audiences, many conservative politicians are searching for ways to bring down the increasing minority population around them, including the President of The United States. Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in states such as Arizona has been brewed by politicians who seek to gain from further dividing Americans who live amongst immigrants. In ignoring their own immigrant backgrounds, and putting the troubles of our time on the backs of the most vulnerable populations, these kinds of politicians are part of the problem, not the solution to a better, more united America.

Unfortunately, even those conservatives who sense the wrong in the anti-minority rhetoric are unwilling to speak up because of fears of being alienated by their party or social group. The phrase “take our country back,” in particular, is one of the most divisive statements a politician can make. It implies that those who are in power are un-American, inferior, or unworthy of the respect of the office they have been democratically elected to. This phrase, and others like it, can also be used to imply that someone who doesn’t belong is infringing on our rights or space. In reaction, those who are inclined to promote such thought are most inclined to do so at the expense of the masses that they alienate by doing so. The indisputable facts are that no one has taken this country, constitutional freedoms, or opportunity away from anybody living in America. It’s an illusion funded by the RNC and others to win big in November.

President Obama, Congressional Democrats and Republican, and Supreme Court Justices are not going to take guns away from law abiding citizens any time soon. Immigrants are not trying to take over the state of Arizona, or any other part of the United States. Still, even in 2010, listening to the speeches at the NRA Convention would make it seem like an invasion of our rights is under way. Politicians nationwide should take note of these mistaken tactics. We are a nation that needs momentum in the direction of unification, and our better days can be ahead of us if we put this divisive behavior on hold. This idealistic view can only become a reality when we as citizens stop supporting such intolerant nonsense. We are a nation of immigrants and laws, and NRA members, Tea Party Members, and others must understand that the two can surely coexist without having to take back something that was never taken away; our granted freedoms and our great country.

Thoughts on Arizona banning ethnic studies in public schools…

Following the signing of yet another controversial law in the state of Arizona, this time banning the teaching of courses in public schools that advocate ethnic solidarity, are designed primarily for students of a particular race, or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group, there are some concerns about the greater message that such a law sends to both the students of Arizona and minorities who take pride in their unique heritages. Though the laws proponents point to these kinds of classes as divisive in consequence, students are given the option, not a mandate, and can choose to learn about other cultures if they so choose. It could be argued that a better understanding of each other is what is needed for all races to ultimately cooperate and get along with one another. The fact that the class demographics may skew in favor of the race that is being studied is no reason to ban the inclusion of such elective classes from the elective palette of inquiring young minds. Proponents of this law come off as fearful of the inevitable mix of cultures that comes with immigration from Mexico and elsewhere. This law sends that exact message, and has already had a significant economic and societal impact in the lives of minorities and businesses in Arizona.

In a melting pot society like ours, where we deem each other equals no matter what race, sex or religion we are born into or choose to follow or not follow. These kinds of laws send a message to our next generation that it is ok to pick and choose what races and religions are acceptable to Americans. This thought process goes against our constitutional ideals, and goes against the realities of the nation we live in and strive to become. We should be encouraging students of all backgrounds to learn as much about each other as they possibly can, in order to make our society a more inclusive and cooperative one. Some Arizona lawmakers have scared themselves and their constituents into thinking that they are being taken over by illegal immigrants and that they are the source of the tensions and discontent of the non-minority population in the state. This is simply not the case. Crime was higher when the illegal immigration population was far less of a factor in the state, and much of the discontent has been fueled by outside groups and Tea Party advocates, who see Arizona as a prime target to launch fear campaigns against minorities and immigrants.

Nonetheless, Arizona is once again under the microscope, and the constitutionality of yet another questionable law is sure to come into question. Going forward, it will be of great interest to see if these recently passed laws will hold up over time. The debates are already heated, and the tensions that have been heightened because of these measures are partly to blame for the increased violence seen towards law enforcement and border officials. The perception from the outside is one of disbelief that in 2010 there is so much resentment towards immigrants, legal and illegal, when there is no proof that they are the root of the fiscal or social problems facing Arizona. This law is also further proof that the conservative legislators who drafted these laws in have lost touch with mainstream American thought as it relates to race relations. Bottom line, the removal of ethnic studies from public schools is a preventable step back in time, not a way to move Arizona into the 21st century.

Thoughts on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act…

Upon the introduction of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, or S.1733, by Democratic Senator John Kerry and Independent Joe Lieberman, it has become apparent that Senate Republicans, such as Lindsey Graham, who are in favor of the proposed legislation, are not willing to take a vote on what should be a nonpartisan bill before the November election comes to pass. In addition, for political cover, these same politicians are using the BP oil spill as the excuse to delay debate on the issue, which is ironic because the bill should be amended to contain provisions to address the prevention of future spills through investment in alternative energy resources and better standards for protecting our oceans and fishing communities. Therefore, let’s take a closer look at the details and the prospects of the bill becoming law this year.

The bill contains numerous provisions aimed at reducing US greenhouse gas (GHS) emissions by 20% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, while also setting up a cap and trade system to set standards for GHS emission allowances. In addition, the bill sets up several new offices to develop new technologies and methods to harness power safely and to advocate on behalf of consumer’s energy needs. These include the creation of the Carbon Storage Research Corporation, an Office of Consumer Advocacy within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment, a Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel, and a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center within the United States Geological Survey. These new offices and panels will work with the guidance and framework of new target programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Incentives Program, to create the foundation necessary to implement a complex set of new environmental policies.

Despite the grim prospects of Republican cooperation in the passing of the bill this year, the formal introduction of the bill by two Senate power players will undoubtedly put the spotlight on the environment precisely at a time where oil is spilling uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation, despite desperate calls for comprehensive immigration reform, may end up taking precedent in light of the disaster at hand. Americans have received a wakeup call; we are not doing enough to regulate potential hazards to our natural food sources, specifically our oceans and forests, and the greater environment we depend on for survival. Though the debate may be delayed until the full nature of the BP oil spill is determined, the fact that this bill has been proposed at this particular time is itself significant. Republicans have a tough pill to swallow if they want to be seen as caring about the impact of our human activities. It will take real cooperation with a President and Democratic Congress who they refuse to give a legislative victory to, no matter how much or how little they may agree on the pressing matter at hand.

As the oil disaster makes it way ashore in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Texas, and elsewhere, pressure is sure to mount in favor of passing legislation, aimed at curbing, and eventually ending our dependency on international oil sources. Obviously, it is not in the interest of big oil, or its investors and workers, to be left out of the future energy markets that will inevitably transpire as time passes. The inclusion of provisions aimed to help direct these companies into a more efficient, cleaner, and greener future, will be of the utmost importance with regards to the cooperation of all players in moving forward our national environmental policy. The provisions in this moderate bill go beyond any one spill or the implementation of cap and trade laws. This legislation will once again put America on track to become a worldwide leader in the developing industries of tomorrow, and the energy solutions we must develop, test, and begin to implement today.

Thoughts on the effectiveness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the US approach to his visit…

Upon the arrival of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the United States today, it is obvious that the State Department and The White House are taking a decidedly more tolerant approach to working with the controversial, narrowly reelected leader of Afghanistan. Following months of critical verbiage from the United States and its NATO allies in the region, Karzai has stayed firm in his own, time tested, ways. He continues to reject the existence of Iranian influence in his country, despite the fact that a plethora of Iranian weapon caches have been seized within the Afghan borders, and the continued condemnation by Iran’s regime of the US mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He is guilty of openly accusing the United States of wanting to make a “puppet” out of him, and most recently claimed that western influence had led to fraud in the latest election, which he won when his opponent dropped out (ironically on claims of fraud and corruption by Karzai himself). Then there is the added tension created by Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, and his alleged connection to drug trafficking and poppy production, which further complicates the efforts of US and Afghan forces to root out the money lines used in large part to fund outside terror organizations and the Taliban. Our criticism has ultimately led to a situation where we must re-attempt to reach common ground on critical areas going forward in order to bring a meaningful end to nine years of war in Afghanistan.

We have learned that in criticizing, and essentially backing the opposition to Karzai in the 2009 Afghan Presidential Election, we have proceeded to further alienate ourselves from our most crucial partner in a war we have invested so much life and treasure into. Though his intentions have often been questioned, Karzai has proven time and time again that he is a capable politician in his own right, and frankly he worries more about pleasing his potential voters in Kabul than in conceding positions to the United States or any other country for that matter. Therefore, as he visits the United States at this crucial moment, we must acknowledge that although we may not agree on some of the fine details of how Afghanistan does its business, we all share a common goal of disarming the Taliban, and rooting out the Al Qaeda presence in the region and worldwide. Karzai understands this, and he has known since 2001 that truthful cooperation with the United States and NATO is essential to his hold on power, and essential to his ability to avoid his fragile government from being overrun by the Taliban and Al Qaeda influence in the region.

As the meetings in Washington DC unfold, it should come as no surprise to see all of the parties involved projecting a much more positive, united tone with regards to the nature of the discussions which took place. With the withdraw of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq looming in the coming months and years, we can be certain that the fixes we make to this timid relationship will be pivotal in the execution of the lofty foreign policy goals and wartime objectives of all parties involved.

Thoughts on the Pros and Cons of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan…

Before the much anticipated confirmation hearings take place, it is useful to consider the pros and cons of President Obama’s second appointment to the Supreme Court, current Solicitor General, and former Dean of Harvard Law School. Elena Kagan. In replacing the iconic Justice Stevens, the appointment of Kagan would set the balance of the court at six men and three women, along with a religious distribution of three Jewish and six Catholic justices. There would no longer be a protestant on the Supreme Court, and the court would arguably no longer have a justice who is firmly liberal in ideology. Given these conditions, here are some of the main arguments that are sure to arise in Elena Kagan’s upcoming questioning.

The Pros…

1.) Solicitor General of the United States
As the “tenth justice,” as the position is often referred to, and the first female Solicitor General in United States history, Kagan’s main office is located in the Supreme Court building, and she has the immense responsibility of arguing the Government’s position on constitutional matters and her office oversees the governments appeals process. This key position assures her vivid understanding of the inner workings of the High Court, and should make one of the primary opposition arguments, that she has never been a judge at any level, weaker in light of her firsthand experience within the institution.

2.) Dean of Harvard Law School/Work as Professor/Education
While at Harvard as a visiting professor, Kagan was an award winning contributor to the Harvard Law Review, writing extensively on the President’s role in administrative and regulatory matters, and in 2003 was selected as the first female Dean of the Harvard Law School. She has served as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and she also worked alongside Barack Obama at University of Chicago Law School, where she became a tenured professor in 1995. She attained her J.D. from Harvard in 1986, and holds an undergraduate degree in History from Princeton and Masters in Philosophy from Oxford University. Nonetheless, her record as a student and an educator is widely viewed as exceptional.

3.) Nomination to the Court of Appeals
In 1999, President Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee under Republican Orrin Hatch failed to schedule her hearing, and her nomination was withdrawn. Then, President Bush appointed soon to be Justice Roberts to the seat. To her supporters, this fact should serve as evidence that she had the confidence by the President to become a judge nearly a decade ago, and the subsequent years and her experience should make her an even better candidate at this point.

4.) White House Counsel
As the Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Kagan was directly involved in the day to day legal activities of the Clinton White House. She served from 1995 to 1999, and her tenure ended gracefully with the previously mentioned nomination to the US Court of Appeals.

The toss up…

5.) Independent Thinker
In his announcement this morning, President Obama referred to Kagan as “one of our nation’s foremost legal minds, an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law.” She is known to be an independent thinker and a consensus builder (code word for centrist). For this reason, many in the center and the Right feel she will be strong intellectual addition to the High Court. This, however, marks the point where we begin to look at potential cons that could hinder her nomination. Some, especially to the left of center, believe that her independence makes her undependable as a liberal vote on the court; therefore, it is likely that her opposition will highlight her unclear record (she supported the Bush Administration’s policy on interrogating terrorists on foreign soil) on matters of executive power and the trial of foreign born terror suspects. She also tried to ban the attendance of military recruiters at the Harvard Law School in a protest of the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The Cons…

1.) Never a Judge
The first glaring weakness in the minds of some is Kagan’s lack of judicial experience. Though she has worked in the courts, she lacks the paper trail that judges accumulate during their tenures. Therefore, her opponents point to the lack of clarity in her stances on critical positions that most judges would have written on at this point. This point of contention will clearly be raised during her confirmation hearing.

2.) Application of Battlefield Law
As mentioned earlier, Kagan’s opposition from the left is likely to highlight her support of President Bush’ s policy for indefinite detention without a trial for terror suspects caught on foreign soil. This position is viewed as a Right leaning ideology on matters of battlefield law. Those who are weary of Kagan’s reliability as a liberal vote will point to her statements on this matter as proof that she will not replace Justice Steven’s as a voice for the left.

3.) Lack of a Protestant on the Court
Some will argue that the court needs more religious balance, and that the addition of a third Jewish judge skews the court in this department by marking the end of a protestant prescence on the bench. This argument, while factual, is weak in relation to the reasoning behind picking a judge in a country where church and state are separated. Kagan can point to her record as an independent thinker to counter arguments that her religion will seriously impact her decision making.

4.) The Unknown Factor
Because Kagan was not previously a judge, and because her current job calls for her to act in accordance to the requests of the Obama Administration, it is largely unknown exactly where she stands on the political spectrum. If previous nominees are used as a model of comparison, the issue becomes even more complicated due to the fact that many Justices, such as John Roberts, appeared to be centrists but changed their tones once they reached the bench. Will a Justice Kagan stick to the centrist Democratic ideology which she has represented under President Obama, or will she make a move to the left or the right upon reaching the Supreme Court?

Conclusion…

In the end, the unknown factor could make for the most fireworks at Kagan’s confirmation hearing. The fact that she has no paper trail other than cases she has argued on behalf of the government makes it difficult to put a finger on a exactly what kind of Justice she would ultimately become. In my opinion she will most likely become a center left Justice, much in the mold of her predecessor Justice Stevens and the Democratic President she works for. Her calls for more transparency in the Supreme Court confirmation process should place her in a position where she will have to answer the most pressing questions on her ideology in adherence to her own stated standards. Based on the nature of the process, initial reaction, and the large Democratic majority, it is KTT’s feeling that Elena Kagan will become the 112th Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most vulnerable Senate incumbents of the 2010 election cycle…

Last week, we took a look at the most intriguing House races of this election year. Today’s look at most vulnerable Senate incumbents highlights candidates who face unique challenges in retaining their seat, or their party’s nomination. So without delay, KTI presents the reasoning behind the worries of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2010.

#5 - Bob Bennett of Utah (Rep)
In a move that angered Utah conservatives, and especially the boisterous Tea Party, three term Senator Bennett's vote for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 has placed this incumbent in a defensive position relative to his supporters. Despite the broadcasted support of Bennett by Mitt Romney, many Republicans, and conservative independents, are weary of Bennett’s true colors. Democrats have used the anti-incumbent sentiment, and the infighting amongst Republicans to launch a fight for this traditionally red seat. Since Utah’s party nominations are done by conventions, which often hinge on important single issues like the Recovery Act, our number five most vulnerable, Senator Bob Bennett, has set himself up for a difficult fight in 2010.

#4 - Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (Dem)
At number four, Lincolns views on environmental and healthcare reforms have her head deep in hot water with liberal voters in Arkansas. In addition, she has a laundry list of competitors for her seat, highlighted by her Democratic Primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who has the all-important monetary backing of the labor unions and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. In defending her seat, Lincoln faces a fierce battle as her vulnerabilities continue to be exploited by her primary opponent. Should she make it out of the first round, she is sure to face a difficult November election challenge.

#3 - Michael Bennet of Colorado (Dem)
As a freshman Senator appointed to the position by Colorado’s Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Bennet faces the difficult task of holding his seat in an anti-incumbent election cycle. He faces a tough primary opponent in former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff, and is defending his vulnerable post, which formerly belonged to now Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Though Barack Obama won Colorado with 54% of the vote in 2008, the current political climate will make the November election a difficult one for our number three, Bennet, should he survive the May Democratic primary.

#2 - Richard Burr of North Carolina (Rep)
Freshman Senator Richard Burr defends his seat, which has been unkind to incumbents since 1968, in a state where Barack Obama narrowly won with 50% of the vote. As a largely unknown and somewhat unpopular figure, he faces the name identity dilemma, and the bleak history of his seat in an uphill climb to return to the Senate. His Republican primary opponent is Asheboro businessman and City Council Member Eddie Burks. Look for an upset in North Carolina in 2010, as Burr’s precarious position puts him second on our list.

#1 - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (Dem)
Our number one, former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Spector, is one of the biggest GOP targets of the 2010 election cycle. After a change to his party identification, Spector immediately stamped his name into Republican ire by voting in favor of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. His primary opponent, U.S. Representative Joe Sestak, is planting a formidable campaign to steal the Democratic nomination from Spector. Should the Senator survive to face the heat in November, he is likely to encounter former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey, who came within 1.7% of defeating Specter in the 2004 GOP primary. Therefore, despite his tenure, Spector appears to be the most vulnerable incumbent senator in 2010.

Thoughts on American ingenuity, the current economic environment, and leading by example…

Today’s brief statement revolves around the thought that we are at an important crossroads when it comes to returning to our prior role as the world’s leader in both innovation and inspiration. Many Americans seem poised to join the ranks of their progressive European peers, creating 21st Century models in areas such as transportation, energy, and the environment. Our decade long focus on fighting terrorism at home and abroad, while necessary, has drained both our coffers and our economic leverage. The economic leverage we had coming out of the Clinton Administration, with a balanced budget aimed at paying down the national debt, was intended for use in areas such as science and math, college grants for research, and improved everyday services. However, as a result of 9/11, the Iraq War, and our continued response to terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, the majority of our national energy has been spent on fending off threats at the expense of the well-being of the homeland.

As we near the official trillion dollar point with regards to our 21st Century war spending, the impending transition to a more focused counter terrorism effort will open previously tied off money lines for national priorities which can positively empower all Americans going forward. We need to begin catching up with nations like China when it comes to developing and implementing green technology, and we need to invest in high speed transit systems to assist in our transition from oil to other legitimate sources of energy. In addition, increased investment in our colleges and universities to promote research and development, and a commitment to making higher education the norm in America, will be of the utmost importance if we are to emerge as the leader in future technologies going forward. Our private sector requires increasingly skilled workers, which with the proper levels of funding and motivation can become once again populated with American graduates of institutions of higher learning.

Our next generation will be in a better place if we are mindful of our priorities upon the conclusion of the large scale wars we are waging. We must pay down our debts while ensuring that our economic system is playing by rules which are set up to help all American’s succeed, not just those with enough money to gamble on the livelihoods of their fellow citizens. Wall Street must make the best of the flood of money which will head its way during the next American economic boom. Our willpower has been tested over the past decade, and the overwhelming sense is that America is due for a great comeback. With an emerging collection of new deal style policies in place that are aimed at making the rules of the game fair for American citizens of all economic backgrounds, it is my hope that we will take the initiative and reinvest in our intelligence and harness our traditional ability to bounce back from the most difficult of times. In doing so, I believe that we can become an extraordinary example of perseverance, functionality, and ingenuity for all emerging and existing democracies, in the 21st Century and beyond.

Thoughts on the difficult balancing act between our security concerns and the protection of civil liberties…

In a follow up to yesterday’s article on US v Shahzad, today’s discussion revolves around what civil liberties should and shouldn’t be off limits when it comes to protecting America and our allies from future terror attacks. Each of us cherishes our inherent right to privacy, but because of the heightened concern for attempts by terrorists to destroy American targets, many of these rights are being bent to the breaking point in the name of national security. For instance, in order for our intelligence agencies to thwart future terror threats, cyber units need to have access to any computer they deem to possibly contain evidence of a threat to America. They must also have access to a certain degree of private web traffic, including e-mail and instant messages, in order to determine whether a cell is developing, or if a group or individual is showing signs of acting upon a radical thought. In 2010, the fact is that we are an interconnected world with new kinds of threats appearing on a more frequent basis. The US Government must be able to determine whether there has been a hack attempt into their secured networks and without a certain level of access to previously private information it is nearly impossible to do so without alerting the suspect.

Having learned our lesson from tragic past events, most Americans are willing to give up a certain degree of their personal privacy in order to ensure the safety of their communities. The passing of the USA Patriot Act in 2004, 05’, and 06’ was an example of Congress putting the security of the nation ahead of the basic constitutional rights granted to us in the First and Fourth Amendment’s. The act essentially allows law enforcement agencies to spy on their citizenry in order to detect potential terrorist suspects. However, as hard as it may be to accept that authorities can monitor our behavior on the internet, along with our financial transactions, there is no other feasible way to assure the absolute security of a populace as large as ours. Eyes and ears on the ground can only get us so far. As we saw in Times Square, and with the Christmas Day bomber, we usually find out about these kinds of attempts after the fact. Sure, we caught the guy before he left the country, and sure, a brave street vendor did lead law enforcement to the scene, but the fact is that we missed the vital signs that this man was going to act out such a potentially deadly attack.

Post 9/11, as the national priority quickly changed to preventing future attacks on our soil at all costs, those costs essentially meant that our private internet activity and financial transactions would be monitored minute to the minute by the fed’s. The resources necessary to effectively spy on ourselves are financed by our very own taxpayer dollars. It’s in nobody’s best interest to have homeland security agents spying on the day to day, non-criminal activities of American citizens. Thus, the good intentions of our intelligence agencies must be balanced out with the possible ability of rogue agents to access private information on the American citizenry. These agencies must be stringent in their commitment to verify the backgrounds of all who are allowed access to the secure information of ordinary citizens. These privacy concerns, if correctly addressed, can make the accelerating transition into an age of transparency easier for all Americans.

The balancing act between prioritizing privacy rights and security concerns will be an ongoing point of contention in the affairs of the US and other countries worldwide. Our constitution must continue to guide us in the 21st Century, and the rights of American citizens must never be in jeopardy. However, we know that if we hinder the ability of our intelligence agencies to detect our biggest threats, we do more harm to ourselves than good. In finding this difficult balance, our leaders must be mindful of the privacy concerns of all Americans, of all races and all religions. Our privacy is something we hold dear, and in no way should we let our basic rights slip away because of outside or homegrown threats. We must also adjust our idea of what constitutes true privacy to match the realities of the world we live in. As citizens, we must do a better job of assisting the government when it comes to policing the internet and the streets. It is my opinion, that if we can reach a decent balance that is both effective and preserves our civil liberties with regards to our right to privacy, we can secure the sanctity of the constitutional rights which we are so fortunate to have as Americans. If we approach our networked activity with an open eye for suspicious behavior, we can prevent our privacy rights from being pressed to the brink in the future.

Thoughts on United States v Faisal Shahzad and the keen eyes of New Yorkers…

As a disclaimer, I am not stating in this article that the vast majority of citizens in other US cities are not capable of deciphering terror attempts and smelling imminent danger; but in a Post 9/11 world, there is a noticeable level of heightened awareness that many long time New York City residents share when it comes to situations like this weekend’s failed car bombing by Connecticut resident Faisal Shahzad. The heroic actions taken by Time Square vendors to alert police of the danger at hand cannot go understated and reinforce this thought. In a culture that largely chooses to look the other way, or run for the hills in times of crisis or danger, these keen eyed individuals saw a suspicious vehicle, saw smoke, and reacted without hesitation to protect the people around them, and not just themselves. Whether it would have mattered had the bomb detonated quicker is of no matter. For police, this kind of petty terrorism is almost undetectable until it’s too late. Therefore, the critical cooperation between ordinary citizens in the streets, and the officers of the NYPD, is a prime example of the kind of open eyed approach to counterterrorism that ultimately saves lives.

We know, as of the release of the Federal Charges against Shahzad, that the newly naturalized United States citizen was a former resident of Pakistan. He had returned in early February from his latest trip to Karachi where he visited his family, but also made his way to Waziristan to train himself in bomb making. His claims to be working alone are under investigation, but his tracks are slowly leading him to a connection with the Pakistani Taliban and possibly Al Qaeda. In addition to his quickly unraveling story line, it seems that Shahzad was a rookie when it came to his attempted car bombing. Though his materials could have combined for a huge explosion, it has been revealed that his wiring job was amateurish, and his subsequent attempts to leave the country with a ticket to Dubai bought with cash lead me to believe he was chosen as an actor with little hierarchical importance to any major terror network. He parked his SUV in a location where cameras could catch his every move. He apparently bought the SUV off Craig’s List with cash, even inquiring to the previous owner about the cargo space at the expense of a faulty engine. Basically, this man has all of the signs of a wannabe who went too far.

As the details of United States v Faisal Shahzad continue to emerge, it should not surprise anyone if it is found that the Pakistani Taliban hired this green individual to carry out its dirty business. Why sacrifice an important individual to carry out an act which is likely to result in a bust or failed launch? The Taliban and Al Qaeda are growing increasingly desperate, and they are resorting to petty acts of terror in order to stay in the game. The Obama Administration has embraced the recent cooperation of the Pakistani government and military, and by doing so, the two sides have teamed together to slowly root out the radical influences in the region. It’s a struggle between divergent ways of life which is likely to last as long as humans are on the planet earth, and in order to leave the region in better shape than it was before we arrived in 2001, we must find a way to prevent US citizens such as Shahzad from reaching terrorist camps around the world.

Unless we and our allies can produce a full proof, globally intertwined system to detect the movement of high risk individuals into hotbeds of terror around the globe, it will be the keen eye of our citizenry, along with our collective willingness to work with law enforcement, that will ultimately determine our success in stopping future plots on our own soil. Our intelligence communities can help us to narrow down the major players of the various terror networks around the globe. They can help the TSA and other transportation safety agencies to flag individuals who are deemed a threat to their intended destination or are fleeing the scene of a crime. But, without our timely cooperation, and a New York City type awareness of the world we live in, the hard work of our homeland security officials can only get us so far in the fight to end terrorism. We, like those heroic Times Square vendors, need to alert the authorities to suspicious activities, especially when we are in crowded areas such as airports, tourist attractions, mass transit systems, and other high profile venues. In 2010, we have the ability to use our technology to capture videos and still images of suspicious behavior as it happens. We can then quickly forward that information to law enforcement. If we do this, we can rest assured that what is preventable is prevented, and the parties responsible, like Shahzad and his accomplices, are apprehended and brought to justice in a timely manner.

Thoughts on the DISCLOSE Act and the numbing down of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision…

Last week, U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Al Franken (D-MN) introduced legislation which is aimed at numbing down the potential effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision with regards to corporate personhood and campaign ads. In an earlier KTI article, we discussed how the Supreme Court’s controversial decision is believed by many to be the end for the small guy in the electoral process. Thus giving the largest corporations, foreign interests included, overwhelming influence over election spending in the United States. Also, in allowing corporations to act as individual citizens with regards to their participation in the political process, the Citizens United decision left the door wide open for opponents in Congress to take action in balancing out its effects. The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act) is the first proposed, post-Citizens United legislation, which address’s this matter directly. The provisions, endorsed by President Obama in an address last week, are expected to pass through both Houses, with or without bipartisan support.

The DISCLOSE Act, as written, addresses four key areas:

1.) THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF POLITICAL SPENDING
a.) Banning pay to play practices by preventing government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections.
b.) Preventing foreign influence on elections by closing a loophole for spending by domestic corporations controlled by foreign nationals. Companies with the following four situations will be prevented from contributing to candidates, Pac’s, and parties:
b1. A foreign national owns 20% or more of voting shares in the corporation
b2. A majority of the board of directors are foreign national’s
b3. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the decision-making of the U.S. subsidiary
b4. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the activities with respect to federal, state or local elections
c.) Preventing organizations from coordinating their activities with candidates and parties. More specifically, for House and Senate races, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate in the time period starting 90 days before the primary and continuing through the general election. For presidential campaigns, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in the time period starting 120 days before the first presidential primary and continuing through the general election.
d.) Regulates Party Communications, stating that any payment by a political party committee for the direct costs of an ad or other communication made on behalf of a candidate affiliated with the party will be treated as a contribution to the candidate only if the communication is directed or controlled by the candidate and party-paid communications that are not directed or controlled by the candidate are not subject to limits on the party’s contributions or expenditures.

2.) PROMOTING EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN RELATED ACTIVITY
The legislation ensures that the public will have full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures (both electioneering communications and public independent expenditures) made by covered organizations (corporations, unions, section 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations and section 527 organizations). The legislation imposes disclosure requirements that will mitigate the ability of spenders to mask their campaign-related activities through the use of intermediaries. It also requires disclosure of both disbursements made by the covered organization and also the source of funds used for those disbursements.

3.) DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION ON CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY
Requires periodic disclosures to shareholders, members, and donors of information on disbursements for campaign-related activity. The covered organization shall post the information described in subparagraph not later than 24 hours after the organization files the information with the Commission under the applicable provision of this Act, and shall ensure that the information remains on the website until the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the election with respect to which the public independent expenditures or electioneering communications are made.

4.) TELEVISION MEDIA RATES
Requires media outlets to charge the lowest possible rate for air time and to afford the same rate to all parties seeking advertising spots. This ensures an evening of the electioneering playing field by forcing media outlets to diversify and open their airwaves to less financed candidates. These rates, regulated by the FCC, would apply 45 days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the 60 days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate.

These anticipated, and widely supported adjustments, are a best case reaction to the unpopular Citizen’s United decision that will ultimately serve to improve on the legislative goals of McCain-Feingold. The increased focuses on monetary transparency, and the impending removal of shadowy contributors from the process through CEO and donor testimonials, are widely viewed as positive moves that should be politically popular with most Americans. With regards to protecting the voice of the individual voter, the influence of big money on elections has served to alienate the lower and middle class from the electoral process. Therefore, if implemented correctly, the DISCLOSE Act may be the appropriate legislation to counter to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Senators who drafted this legislation have the important benefit of an electorate that feels trumped by the power of special interests and corporate lobbyists. Coupled with the vociferous support of President Obama, and many progressives in Congress, the lost voices of the individual voter may soon get a much needed boost in volume and importance.