2. READ: Lost Children Archive. A novel by by Valeria Luiselli.
4. READ: There Goes the Neighborhood: How Communities Overcome Prejudice and Meet the Challenge of American Immigration. A book by Ali Noorani.
5. READ: What the first 24 hours on U.S. soil looks like for detained immigrants.
6.LOOK: Our 2018 photo essay in the midst of a rally outside the gates of Tornillo, Texas.
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 Business of Campaign Contributions
by Wendell Potter
December 17, 2020
This interview with Wendell Potter, author and former health insurance industry communications director, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Wendell | I’m a former health insurance company executive. I spent almost 20 years working at a senior level position at two different health insurance companies, Humana and Cigna. At Cigna, I led the corporate communications function within the division of legal and public affairs. I was the company spokesman. I handled financial communications to the media. I was also involved with lobbying issues and public affairs specifically in regards to healthcare reform. I worked with my peers across the industry and with trade groups to develop strategic communications plans to defeat reform, whenever reform was being proposed, either at a state or local level.
I just came to understand that the role I was playing was perpetuating a very broken healthcare system. I ultimately became a very vocal critic of the insurance industry. I wrote a book that looked closely at the role of the insurance industry in our healthcare system, and how they and other special interests use money to shape public opinion. I knew very well that big corporations spend enormous sums of money to influence elections and public policy directly through campaign contributions and lobbying.
One of my team’s responsibilities at Cigna was to manage the Political Action Committee giving, so I was obviously very familiar with how the company used PAC money as a means to influence public policy. I've been known more as a healthcare reform advocate, but most healthcare reform advocates don't really appreciate how much their efforts are thwarted by money in politics. That was a major reason for teaming up with Nick Penniman to write Nation on the Take, to help people understand how money is used to protect a very profitable status quo – regardless of what the industry is.
When we talk about money in politics, it's all sort of vague. Can you walk us through the tactical decisions inside of a corporation? How do you make decisions about who to give money to and how to spend it?
We look at candidates. If they're incumbents, we look at what positions they have on committees, and how influential they are in leadership positions. A lot of the campaign contributions go to committee chairs, or ranking members of committees that would be of interest to the health insurance companies.
You look at both sides of the political aisle. In fact, sometimes you'll see that the giving is more generous to Democrats than Republicans, and some years it's just the opposite. You also take into consideration the way the political winds seem to be blowing, and which party is likely to be in leadership after the next election cycle.
You look at members voting records and try to determine which ones are most likely to be amenable to what you have to say, and to vote the way you want them to.
That’s happening at a state level as well, which doesn't get nearly as much attention or scrutiny. The political action committee at any big company with a significant presence in the States will also have a pretty big state government affairs operation as well. We work very closely with our lobbyists to get their feedback as to which candidates or members are likely to be more receptive to hearing us if they get a campaign contribution.
Would you say money spent is less about picking a candidate and helping them win than it is about garnering favor with those who are in power or who are likely to be in power?
It is exactly that. You want to try to help candidates who have a good chance of winning or being reelected. That's where your money goes. If you look at the campaign finance reports from political action committees, most of the money does go to incumbents or to races where there is not an incumbent running for reelection. It is not too often that you see money go to an opponent of an incumbent.
Interesting. What do those conversations look like?
The conversations tend to be pretty vague, to be honest with you. But, you can get a pretty good sense of what someone's ideology is and when someone is going to be receptive to what you have to say on matters of legislation.
For the most part, you veer away from candidates and elections who are perceived to be far left. But, generally, you can get a good sense of someone's ideology just from working with staff, and by being aware of what they say during committee hearings.
Corporate spending on campaigns is protected because it was argued that hindering corporate spending, would hinder free speech. Do you think that is true?
They do have the right to express their point of view, but the way it has grown, corporation's voices are inordinately more influential than an average constituent.
Were you working for the health insurance companies during the Citizens United case?
I was there as it was working its way through the courts. I left the industry before the Supreme Court upheld the law. We weren't paying a ton of attention to it, because we didn't really need it to be honest. The industry has so many different ways of spending money. An enormous amount of money is spent in ways that really are not reported or traced all that well.
And what are some of those ways?
It comes down to influencing public opinion. I worked with my peers, big PR firms, and trade associations to develop front groups. Front groups are where insurance companies, hospital chains, medical device manufacturers, come together to dump money into a group that can sway public opinion. These actors might not see eye to eye on every element of a piece of legislation, but they share just one thing in common: the concern that reforms might have some detrimental effect on profits. And they know that if they pool their resources, they have a greater chance of just making sure the legislation never passes in the first place. There is a lot of history that shows that that is exactly what happens.
My first effort to defeat reform was in the early 90s, when the Clintons were in the White House trying to push forward healthcare reform legislation, and we were successful. A huge part of that came from lobbying; enormous sums of money go into lobbying. Cigna alone has contracts with several different lobbying companies, not only in Washington, but around the country in state capitals. An untold amount of money also goes into PR firms to pay for propaganda operations that influence public opinion. And a lot of money goes to influence lawmakers through Washington based media; much of the advertising is never seen by regular voters, but seen by staffers, members of Congress, and those who are in the administration.
You mentioned earlier that you didn't really need Citizens United, exactly because of the two channels you just mentioned: lobbying and public opinion campaigns. It does seem, however, that Citizens United has become a linchpin for cries about money in politics. Do you think that is warranted? Or is there a different perspective we should be taking?
I think that's a very big thing. We have seen that corporations and corporate entities have and special interests have just unleashed torrent of funding. I think that it is absolutely right to focus on it.
But, before that decision, businesses have had a powerful voice for a long time. There is a lot that needs to change. I am no fan of Citizens United, and I believe it needs to go away. but I also think we need to look at other reforms. We need to have reforms that address the revolving door, or reforms like the matching system in New York that can increase the power and influence of individual donors.
The matching programs can add up to be a significant amount of money that goes into campaigns. Candidates are not as likely to need to spend time with big donors. Candidates, typically, spend a lot of their time calling up people they know who are able to write significant campaign checks. You are calling people who have influence, who already have power and money.
We've focused a lot on the health insurance industry, but I know that you went through a series of other issues of how money influences your book. Were there any other findings that were particularly striking to you?
We did look at a number of industries because we didn't want this to be just healthcare focused. But almost all of the industries, even if they aren't healthcare companies, in one way or another affect the health and wellbeing of Americans. We looked at the food and beverage industry, fossil fuel companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the chemical industry.
Do you think that there is an alternate reality or a different singular public will that would come about if these interests were no longer there?
I think absolutely that would be the case. They will try to use money in one way or another to get what they want, and what they want at the end of the day is to enhance shareholder value. They want to make money. They want to keep Wall Street happy, because most of who we are talking about are publicly traded companies. That's their number one objective.
Even if you were to increase the restrictions from what we have now, they would still find ways to try to shape policy and public opinion. We see that all the time. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have efforts to get us to a better system. Reforms are important and worthy. There needs to be more transparency, and more scrutiny.
But, I doubt that we would ever be able to place any restrictions on an insurance company or any other big company from hiring a big PR firm to influence public opinion. They will continue to have sway over public opinion, but people should have visibility into how that money is being spent. Americans should be able to see how much Cigna is spending to hire a big PR firm or to support a front group. We don't have that.
While we probably can't ever end big money spending, Americans should at least have more visibility into how their money is being spent.