interviews
The Compton Pledge
by Nika Soon-Shiong
November 18, 2020
This interview with Nika Soon-Shiong, Co-director of the Compton Pledge, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Nika | My name is Nika Soon-Shiong. I'm the Executive Director of The Fund for Guaranteed Income, as well as Co-director of the Compton Pledge.
frank | And what are both of those things?
The Fund for Guaranteed Income is an organization that I have been working towards for the past five years. My initial plan was to launch it after I finished my PhD on cash transfer implementation systems, but it really feels like now is an unprecedented time for more radical political visions and policies to take root.
The Compton Pledge is the fastest-launched and most robust city-led guaranteed income initiative in the United States. It is implemented by the Compton Community Development Corporation and The Fund for Guaranteed Income, in partnership with the Jain Family Institute. A Community Advisory Board is guiding the design and implementation
In what ways is the city of Compton involved?
Mayor Brown is a founding member of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income led by Stockton’s Mayor Tubbs. Mayor Brown’s leadership and commitment to healing justice is incredibly important to the Compton Pledge.
Aja Brown (Los Angeles News Group)
Our goal is to make the case for new government policies at a municipal, state, and federal level, so the city's involvement is crucial. The Pledge itself, however, is not financed by the city. It is funded philanthropically.
How do you decide who is qualified to be a recipient? How many people are you looking to include and what are you budgeting per person?
We are using a combination of public government and community-based organizations data to select 800 low-income residents to receive the cash transfers. The exact amount received by each participant will vary based on household size. Each participant will receive at least several hundred dollars, and parents with children will receive greater amounts. The frequency of distribution will also vary, but participants will be informed at the outset about the timing of their expected payments so that they can plan accordingly.
And how long does this go on for?
It's a two-year program.
800 people is a large number for a pilot program, but obviously a fraction of the city of Compton itself. How are you choosing who gets to participate?
We have an independent research team that is selecting the participants in order to have an inclusive subset of the city of Compton. So, for example, if there are x percent of formerly incarcerated people in Compton, then there would also be x percentage of the 800 that are formerly incarcerated. The reason for choosing 800 people as the sample number has to do with statistical power. We want to ensure that this is really representative of what a future city policy could and should look like.
Why Compton?
It is a city that is 30% black, and 68% Latinx. In many ways, it's the cultural capital of the world. At the same time, white flight, intentional divestment, and the looming threat of gentrification pose acute financial challenges. Unemployment rates have risen to 22% this year. There is an increasing number of Compton families relying on food pantries regularly for food. More than 23% of its 95,000 residents live below the federal poverty line. Compton is a city where racial and economic injustices intersect.
Other parts of the country or world face these systemic issues, but a motivating factor for The Fund for Guaranteed Income's first initiative being the Compton Pledge is the leadership of Mayor Brown, who has boldly linked the COVID public health crisis to the pervasive PTSD following decades of police brutality and mass incarceration of communities of color. She is standing with movements in the national rallying cry to defund the police and reinvest in communities. We are unapologetically trying new approaches to that second part of the equation: investing in communities.
What is the long-term political vision for The Fund for Guaranteed Income as it relates to the future of cash transfers in America? And do you think you ensure its success?
The long-term vision is to re-imagine social policy through a people-led process that crosses class, industry, and race. The aim is to redistribute wealth at scale and realize individuals’ inherent right to share in the nation's socially produced and inherited wealth.
We need to set a standard that organizers and people with the lived experience of harm from today's existing systems are the experts in the policymaking arena.
What will make or break this ambitious vision for society and its institutions is an ability to coordinate with national movements and organizers, academics, policymakers, and politicians. A coalition of organizations like Black Lives Matter, One Fair Wage, National Council Essie Justice Group, A New Way of Life, Brotherhood Crusade have taken the pledge.
I was talking to Andrea James, the founder of the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, and she said this incredible phrase that I can't get out of my mind. She said, "Whether we win, lose, or draw, it’s a win for us. It's going to change things."
The conversation of what the government owes people has really shifted. In the 60’s Nixon was talking about wealth transfers. Clinton initiated welfare reform. Now, bills to provide families with relief during the largest pandemic we have ever seen are stuck in the Senate. How do we move forward? How do you sell this idea in such a politicized climate?
What has persisted throughout welfare reforms is the power dynamics that rationalize and perpetuate a system of rugged capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.
75% of Black Americans were excluded from Social Security when it began. There has been this continuous legal exclusion of Black people from the wealth-building apparatuses whether under the New Deal tax laws that relegate fewer resources to communities of color, or white flight and suburbanization under the name of urban renewal.
Pres. Clinton signing Social Security Independent Agency Act
We have this obsession with individualism and the myth of meritocracy. Universal access to education and health was once seen as an unsustainable dream, perhaps, and in America healthcare still might fall into that category. But now, largely, these things are seen as a right. And I think it's time to invest in guaranteed income as a right of all people. It's an investment in humanity.
How do you think politicians should be advocating for UBI? And do you think the CARES Act has made the idea more palatable?
The CARES Act has proved that when politicians believe we need to fund something, we find the money to fund it. On one hand, the CARES Act has strengthened the case for direct cash transfers. Still, it was a one-time transfer of $1,200 for adults and $500 for a child that left out millions of undocumented and formerly incarcerated people.
It exposed the frailty of the social safety net and the racial fault lines along which it cracks. I think that politicians should frame guaranteed income as a universal income floor for all residents of America, regardless of legal citizenship status, regardless of whether or not an individual has been formerly incarcerated.
As an organization, do you have any investment or interest in what people do with the capital they are given?
So much of this space has been focused on how people are spending the money. There have been lots of studies to empirically prove that people don't spend it on temptation goods and drugs and alcohol, and they don’t quit their jobs. And I think that question reifies the welfare stereotypes and racist tropes that have persisted throughout American perspectives on who is and is not deserving. For me, the real question is not how people spend the money, but how a system could justify denying people the breathing room that a guaranteed income would afford. Especially as massive amounts of public dollars fund a criminal legal system that drains government budgets and perpetuates the criminalization of poverty.
We're starting from the basis that the real question isn't: how do people spend the money, or: is this the right policy to pursue?
Our question is not if we should implement guaranteed income, but how.
How can citizens in Los Angeles and the surrounding areas participate?
How can you pledge Compton? There are a number of ways. We have a donation page on our website, since we are raising for the cash disbursements, which will go directly to the individuals. You can show us love or share your story on Instagram and Twitter. But, really, you can reach out to your elected officials and pay attention to our policy agenda. The Compton Pledge plans to be passed as a local resolution of the BREATHE Act.
Right now the model is philanthropically funded. Are you hoping to move away from the philanthropy model as this broadens?
Yes. We have a team of people looking into the long-term financing of guaranteed income for the city of Compton, and they are coming out with a report on our plans to do so. It is a cross-institutional working group and there's a bigger conversation to be had about how it can be financed at the state level at the federal level.
It's interesting. The whole idea of philanthropy as a solution — it’s a starting point but feels like that model is also inherently part of the problem you are trying to address. The idea that redistribution is left up to the interest and will of people or institutions that have a lot of capital.
I completely take your point. I think the Fund for Guaranteed Income is challenging the assumptions of philanthropy itself. Like the notion that wealthy individuals are the natural experts when it comes to designing a more equitable future. It is certainly time for more sore winners in today’s economic system. If an individual decides that they want to redistribute all of their wealth to every single low-income individual in a city, well, we want to build a platform for them to do that and a coalition that will stand behind them.
interviews
Disputed Elections
by Lawrence Douglas
October 26, 2020
This interview with Lawrence Douglas, professor at Amherst and author of Will He Go, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
You wrote a book recently called, Will He Go, about what may happen in a contested election. What are you most concerned about this election cycle?
We have never had a sitting president or even a candidate for higher office who is telling the American people that our electoral system lacks integrity. This is unprecedented in American history and has been a pretty constant message emerging from Trump. He has consistently said that the only way for our electoral system to demonstrate its integrity is for him to win and if he loses it is proof that the election was rigged.
We can look back to his claims about the popular vote being stolen from him in the 2016 election. We can look back to when he refused to say that he would accept the outcome of the election in 2016 during a debate with Hilary Clinton. We can look back to when he was a candidate for the Republican nomination, and lost the Iowa caucus to Ted Cruz. The very next day he was out there tweeting saying, "I didn't lose the Iowa caucus, Ted Cruz stole it. The results should be tossed out." He has consistently spewed an unprecedented, toxic message.
Can he, or any other president in power, refuse a transfer of power?
My primary concern is that he might do something to muddy the waters as to who has won the election if it hinges on tight margins in a handful of swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.
It is not unlikely that he might have a lead on November 3rd, given the fact that his supporters are more likely to vote in person than Biden supporters. Trump supporters are more than twice as likely as Biden supporters. Trump could try to leverage that lead and claim that he's been reelected and that any coming mail-in ballots have been irretrievably corrupted by fraud.
At one point does this “muddying of the waters” turn into a power grab? When does the rhetoric shift into political gain?
In key swing states, there are going to be millions of mail-in ballots. There's no doubt that there'll be instances of mistakes in counting those ballots. Any mistake will create an opportunity for Trump to spin that into a conspiracy theory. We've already seen him do that in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. A part-time election official who had been on the job three days accidentally threw out nine mail-in-ballots, seven of which apparently had Trump's name on it, and in the first presidential debate, Trump used that instance of harmless error as evidence of a grand conspiracy. And it's not just that Trump was making those claims. We saw that the Department of Justice under Barr launched a formal inquiry into those nine discarded ballots, which gave a sense of legitimacy to the claim that there was some kind of larger malfeasance behind this action.
What role do you see the courts playing in scenarios like that?
It is certainly going to be the case that the courts will play an important role. There is already a lot of litigation coming through the courts, and there is no doubt that there is going to be more in the wake of the election. Again, a lot of the litigation will be focused on these key swing states.
Both sides will bring various court challenges regarding the qualification or disqualification of mail-in-ballots. There are technical reasons for disqualifying mail-in-ballots, including things like if the ballots were submitted in an untimely fashion or if the signature on the envelope doesn't match a signature on state records. And regardless of the actual outcome, these cases will slow the final count. I think any kind of delay works to Trump's favor — in that it permits him to continue to perpetuate a narrative that he has been reelected and that the mail-in-ballots are fraudulent.
At what point does litigation reach the Supreme Court? Do you anticipate that happening and does that concern you?
It is not entirely clear if or when the Supreme Court would step in to resolve these sorts of disputes.
But, they are already involved to an extent. The Supreme Court just ruled that ballots in Pennsylvania will be counted if they are received within three days of Election Day even if they do not have a legible postmark. One possibility is that Amy Coney Barrett could be a deciding vote, and it remains to be seen whether she would recuse herself or not. That is concerning to me.
Right. Are there mechanisms the Constitution puts in place to prevent a refusal to transfer power? In ways you think might be outside the scope of what is contested in this election, in what ways does the Constitution ensure a peaceful transfer of power and the preservation of democracy?
Neither the Constitution nor federal law does a whole lot.
The president can't delay an election, only Congress can. January 20th, inauguration day, is a hard stop, set in the Constitution. If Trump loses, he becomes a civilian at noon on January 20th. If there is no decision either amongst the electoral college or between Congress by the inauguration, we go by the terms of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and Nancy Pelosi would be sworn in as the acting president. But beyond that, the Constitution and federal law don't do a lot to secure the peaceful transfer of power; they presuppose it, as opposed to securing it.
A number of people, particularly those from other countries have asked, when do you get a re-vote? In a parliamentary system, you can call for new elections, but we don't have anything like that. There is no plan B.
Are there other times in our nation’s history, where the electoral system has been stretched and tested?
The two elections that came the closest to genuine electoral meltdowns are the race between Hayes and Tilden in 1876, and the race between Bush and Gore in 2000.
In 2000, the swing state was Florida. The entire election was going to turn on what happened in Florida, where the count was mired in litigation and confusion for 35 days after the election. Finally, the Supreme Court stepped in and basically stopped the Florida recount that had Bush with a 537 vote lead.
It's impossible to imagine Trump acting in that fashion.
The election of 1876 was even more complicated. Three states couldn't decide who had carried their state and submitted conflicting electrical certificates. That particular electoral dispute was resolved by a one-off electoral commission, and it wasn't resolved until two days before the inauguration. I should say that the actual compromise was a disaster, particularly for the Black citizens of the United States. Democrats agreed to recognize the Republican winner, Hayes, in return for the removal of federal troops from the South, paving the way for the creation of the Jim Crow era.
You can imagine a similar situation in 2020. If you get conflicting electoral certificates in swing states, the key swing states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina, all have Republican legislatures and Democratic governors. And you can imagine a hold up in Congress, especially if Congress remains divided as it is now. It is important to note that it is not the present Congress that will be deciding things, it will be the newly elected Congress.
Which puts a new emphasis on down-ballot races.
Absolutely. These down-ballot elections could be hugely important, particularly in respect to the composition of the Senate. But, to make things even more complicated, these senate races could also be mired in counts and recounts involving mail-in-ballots. It's not necessarily clear that we will even know what the composition of the Senate is, come January.
Clearly, this election is unlike anything we have ever seen before. There is distrust on both sides. Do you think we can recover from this?
It's true that it's not only the Republicans who have lost trust in the electoral process, Democrats have lost faith as well. However, there is a real asymmetry in the reasons for that loss of trust. We know that there's no reason to doubt the integrity of mail-in-ballots. Trump's attack is baseless. His own FBI director has said there's no evidence whatsoever of any kind of a concerted effort to rig the election with mail-in ballots. On the other hand, the Democrat's concern over voter suppression is legitimate. There is a long history of Republican lawmakers trying to suppress votes, particularly of black voters, poor voters, and other ethnic minorities who tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
It's absolutely essential that, regardless of the result of this election, we try and restore that faith. There are things that we can do to restore that faith. We can work really aggressively to protect the right to vote, we can try to invest in election infrastructure to ensure it is not vulnerable to hacking, and we can get rid of the stupid electoral college — which is an archaic, anti-democratic, dysfunctional, and dangerous mechanism by which we elect the president.
Speaking to the asymmetry — do you think that says something about the cultural and political propensity of Republican voters, or a larger shifting American penchant towards authoritarianism?
I am not sure I could necessarily say that there is a willingness amongst a certain number of Republicans to support authoritarianism, but one thing I do think is fair to say is that there is this incredibly siloed media environment.
If you're being fed disinformation, you're incapable of making an informed choice and that's an incredibly dangerous thing for democracy. I think we can stay with that observation — that the American public is not getting accurate information, and they are making their political conclusions and decisions based on misinformation campaigns.