interviews
The Nationalization of U.S. Elections
by Dan Hopkins
December 31, 2020
This interview with Dan Hopkins, Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
What were the original assumptions in the Constitution about state-level loyalty versus national government loyalty?
It's a good question. The Constitution is now far enough back in our collective memories that I think it's really valuable to start by having some sense of what the U.S. was like at the time. There were some scholars who argued that the Constitution is well understood as a peace treaty between sovereign states about how they were going to govern their affairs.
In 1776 and even in 1787, when the Constitution was drafted, the U.S. was a collection of 13 quite different colonies. It took the Georgia delegation six weeks to travel to Philadelphia in order to participate in the Constitutional Convention. Different colonies had very different economies and different religious heritages. This was a quite diverse country and, thus, the Constitution was designed to protect substantial levels of state-level autonomy. I think it is really important to recognize that at the time, many of the people thought of themselves as Americans, but also to a certain extent, as New Yorkers or Virginians or Pennsylvanians.
When do you start to see a shift towards politics in the U.S. becoming more nationalized?
To some degree, it's an ongoing process that has unfolded in fits and starts over our 200-plus year history. I do think that the Civil War is a critical turning point. In the run-up to the Civil War, you see many more implications of state-level identities. I'm a Georgian, I'm a Virginian. And obviously, the Civil War pitted state against state.
It's generally been the case that the Republican party has been more likely to invoke federalism. Of course, the exemplary issue is the issue of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Even in more recent times, the Republican party has advocated for there being less of a role in the federal government asserting itself to protect the rights of African-Americans, especially, but not only in the South. I think it's fair to say that if you've heard a state rights argument in the last 50 years, it's more likely to be coming from the Republican party.
There's also an element in which as power shifts, we see changes. When the Republicans control the federal office, sometimes it's Democrats who say, "Hey, it's important to let California write its own laws with respect to clean energy or car emissions standards." At the same time, the extent to which we see Republican states moving to block sanctuary cities, for instance, is surprising.
If you're a principled federalist, then presumably cities shouldn't be punished for diverging.
In general, I see very few principled federalists in American politics. I think that all too often in contemporary American politics, federalism is just the clothing we use to dress up certain arguments instead of being a principled approach to a range of policy problems.
What factors contribute to a nationalized political landscape?
I actually think there's a relationship between the transformation of campaign finance, the transformation of voting, and the transformation of what's getting covered in our newspapers. There's a unifying element to all of this.
Let's look at campaign finance first. In many of the most competitive 2020 Senate races, large majorities of money came from out-of-state donations. What does that do to the candidates, and how does that affect the way constituents perceive elections?
I think that the nationalization of the campaign finance structure is an example of our nationalized set of divisions. What we're trying to do is refract these highly nationalized divisions through our federalist system. And the result often distorts representation in critical ways. One of the key facts about campaign finance has been that as late as 1992, two-thirds of all donations to federal candidates, to members of Congress, were coming from within the state that they represent. 20 years later in 2012, only one-third of all dollars were coming from the states that people represented.
The danger is that the representatives and senators increasingly have one constituency where they get their votes, but a separate constituency from where they get their money.
That is not how our system was designed to work. It was not designed for members of Congress to spend four hours a day raising money from people who are not their constituents.
And simultaneously, there has been a collapse of local media. I wonder how the decline of local news plays into this landscape?
When the internet first became a sizable presence, there was a hope that it might actually lead to a proliferation of local news. With the internet there are very, very low production costs, so, theoretically, I could put up a newsletter about my neighborhood. But in fact, as you said, the rise of the internet and the rise of cable television led to this dramatic concentration of our attention on a very, very small number of nationalized news sources. Partly that's because the news media would target us based on where we lived. The Philadelphia Inquirer targeted a set of people who wanted to know about life in and around Philadelphia.
But more recently we instead see that the business model for many media companies is to compete based on who voters are and who readers are and who consumers are, rather than where they live.
Rather than providing me with information specific to Philadelphia, they will identify me as someone who likes the National Football League or cares about politics.
That has led to the fragmentation of our media environment. One of the real losers in this has been people's attention to state and local politics. State and local politics have never been on the top of people's priority lists. It used to be that if I were reading the Philadelphia Inquirer, as a by-product of learning what the Eagle's score was, I also learn a little bit about who my mayor was or who my governor was. And nowadays, since I can go right to ESPN or I can go right to Fox News, I can skip over all that state and local information.
In a world where state and local politicians want to be well-known, they're much more likely to attach themselves to a lightning rod federal issue than they are to actually dive into the challenging, complex issues that face their local community.
Which really allows issues to be manipulated. When we focused on immigration, something I found interesting was how much immigration was used as a campaign tool in Ohio or Maine. It’s easy to make a border terrifying when you don’t live near one. Do you feel like campaigning has changed based on the ability to take issues that don't have anything to do with your constituents, but are made to look like they have everything to do with constituents?
Yeah, absolutely. One of the real challenges with a nationalized political environment is that it encourages attention to issues that are evocative and emotionally charged and often have to do with specific groups of people, but ultimately do not have clear policy effects. I think one prominent example of this is not long after President Trump was elected he attacked football players who refused to stand for the National Anthem. I think it's a very instructive case because he wasn't proposing any policy. This was purely about symbols.
I worry that in the nationalized political environment, it's very hard to put together a political coalition that speaks to auto workers and nurses in the suburbs of Detroit, and retirees in Maricopa County. This is a very diverse country. One of the easier ways to knit together a political coalition is to reach for these divisive, identity-oriented issues, even if that's not actually what's going to motivate the policies that you're proposing.
I do think that there's been a real connection between the way in which our politics has nationalized and the way in which our politics has become more identity oriented.
It's these kinds of identity charged issues that can have an intuitive meaning to people in places from Montana to North Carolina.
Has your work clarified your opinion about how national politics should work? What do you advocate for moving forward in terms of policy and campaigning?
I certainly think that voters do better when they have the information that they need, and I think that we are missing an opportunity to really use our federalist system, because there are so many different kinds of issues that face the different communities in our country.
If we are trying to force all of those issues onto a single divide between Democrats and Republicans, we're going to miss a lot of critical issues.
I think some of the disaffection with contemporary politics stems from the fact that many of us deal with problems in our day-to-day lives that are not represented by the Republican-Democrat divide.
I do want to be wary of nostalgia — or suggesting that some earlier period of history was markedly better. Yes. I worry a lot that today's voters just don't know much about state and local politics, but state and local politics wasn't always vibrant and democratic in previous generations, right? As a social scientist, I think part of my job is to lay out trends. I do think that nationalization is something that we should forecast as being a major part of our politics moving forward.
I also think that there are some policy changes on the edges that I would advocate for that I think would help reinforce the connections between places and voters, and to make better use of our current federalist system. For instance, I think campaign finance matching, so that every dollar you get locally is amplified, is a great idea. I think that could encourage politicians to lay down roots in the specific communities they represent and to spend less time trying to raise money from Manhattan or Dallas.
I think we should also do everything in our regulatory capacity to help promote, protect, and foster high-quality, non-partisan coverage of states and localities.
As a country that is hemorrhaging reporters who cover states and localities I do think that given how many important decisions are made at the state and local level, as a society, we have a real stake in the quality of local news media. There are fewer statehouse reporters, there are fewer city hall reporters, and there are fewer people who are tracking state and local politics to hold our politicians accountable. I think that has been underappreciated, and one of the real dangers in contemporary American democracy.
interviews
The Collectors
by Craig Antico
September 20, 2020
This interview with Craig Antico, founder of RIP Medical Debt, an organization that has abolished over $1 billion in medical debt, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Craig | I've been in the debt collection business for over 30 years. I started in a family business. In the early 2000s, I built a company with Jerry Ashton. We eventually parted ways, but then in 2012 he called me and told me about a nonprofit that had an idea about buying medical debt and abolishing it. We both thought it was the dumbest thing that we had ever heard. Like if we are collecting medical debt, why would you ever forgive it now? After two years of working with the nonprofit, we decided to do that sort of work full time, so we started RIP Medical Debt in 2014.
frank | What was your mindset when you were collecting on medical debt?
We thought that because we were a little bit different than the rest of the collectors -- because we had compassion, because we cared, because we wouldn't collect on debt we didn’t believe was right -- there was nothing wrong with the practice.
When we started to abolish debt, we realized that it really didn't matter how ethical our approach was if half of the people could not afford to pay the debt without significant hardship.
So if I understand correctly, you still operate as a debt buyer. You just discharge the debt instead of collecting it.
Correct. We are a debt buyer -- but a nonprofit debt buyer. We specifically buy the debt that is considered charitable and pay it off. A person qualifies as a charitable class of person, generally, if they are living at two times the poverty level or below. We also take into consideration what we call “hardship.” If the debt of a person equals five percent or more of their income, that qualifies as “hardship.”
What does the debt buying industry look like? Who are the profiteers?
There are hundreds of for-profit debt buyers. They are investors who buy the debt with the expectation of being able to collect two to three times the amount that they paid. And these debt collectors are backed by specialty finance companies.
To buy debt, you go to a creditor who is owed money from consumers, a hospital, or a credit card agency, for example, and bid on a portfolio. As the debt buyer, you value the portfolio and forecast what you might be able to collect.
You do that by asking how hard it is going to be to collect this debt. How hard is it going to be to contact these people? Did they have insurance? You look at their addresses. You look at their bankruptcies. You look at how old these bills are. From there, you get a number. For example, out of this million-dollar portfolio of some number of people, we think we're going to collect $15 million. Then you offer the hospital $5 million.
We operate in the same way because we have to go against other for-profit debt buyers in bidding for the debt.
How are investors able to make more money on the debt than what they pay the hospital for it?
In general, the creditor, the hospital, is selling the debts because it has come up short in collecting and doesn't have the bandwidth to collect. So it's willing to sell for a fraction of the debt's face value and then the new owner, the collection agency, will pursue the full amount to make a profit.
Debt collectors can make high returns on buying medical debt due to their accuracy to forecast collections, and being disciplined in not paying more than the portfolio is worth. They have experience using data to segment accounts to better choose the accounts and individuals to collect from -- those with the ability and willingness to pay.
Do you view debt collection as a necessity or are there other solutions?
I think that too many poor people are placed for collection. I think too many people experiencing hardship are placed for collection. There are things that can be done to stop that from happening, but it would take a seismic shift in the willingness of a hospital to build out their own department to handle that.
Getting these people coverage upfront is really the solution. There's research to show that about a third of all the accounts that are sold to debt collectors qualified for a hospital's charity care policy. So if these people had applied, they would have gotten charity care and they would not have this debt. I have always believed that this policy should be an opt-out policy. People should be placed in charity care automatically, instead of having to fill out an application to opt-in.
Why is it not the other way around?
It's a good question. I don't know why.
I know in some places, the state does not allow them to do what they call presumptive charity care. Presumptive means you didn't have someone apply to it, but you have data that can determine if someone fits a hospital's charity care policy.
At RIP Medical Debt we act as a second safety net. We give hospitals the ability to give us the cases that qualify for charity care so that we can donate them.
So it really comes down to the hospitals, both public and private?
Yes, it does come down to the hospitals. Some of the private hospitals have some of the best charity care policies, but, again, they don't do presumptive charity care.
One telltale sign that the system is out of whack is charity care as a percentage of costs of hospitals is about 1.6% when we know that over 33% of the people qualify for charity care. We can see that they're missing people. If they were right on target, 10% of their expenses would go towards charity care.
What sort of changes do you press for as an organization?
As a charitable organization, we don’t advocate for a specific policy. I do think that the opt-in versus opt-out question might be one of the biggest problems.
There are 12 states that have not adopted Medicaid to cover people who make 138% of the federal poverty level. That's something that should be made uniform across the country. For example, at one and a half times the poverty level, everybody gets Medicaid. Then we would be taking a swath of the poorest people and children and making sure that they're always covered. Medicaid is the best insurance out there, and it comes at no cost to the people.