Daniel Freilich's Blog
Archive for the ‘Announcements’ Category
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
Is ethical consistency too much to ask for from Vermont’s U.S. Senate candidates?
Senator Leahy is living two lives.
In one, he preaches campaign finance reform, laments the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, and critiques Afghan government corruption. Regarding Citizens United, he (correctly) stated, the decision “Creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street” (01/28/10). Regarding Afghanistan, he (correctly) stated “The corruption level in Afghanistan is extraordinary” (8/24/10).
But in the other hand, he has accepted more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs), mostly from corporations? The full truth is that Citizens United, Afghan corruption, and acceptance of Special Interests money by American politicians (e.g., Leahy), all lead to impaired objectivity and conflicts of interest by elected representatives. As the Senator plays the game, who is he to criticize?
Senator Leahy should acknowledge he has joined the ‘dark side’ and stop complaining about corruption; after all, he has joined the American game of legal corruption. Or he should come back from the ‘dark side’ and stop taking Special Interests money whether required by law or not. He can’t have it both ways. It is called honor and personal responsibility. I implore the Senator to utilize his power and prestige to lead, combat apathy and cynicism, and strengthen American representative democracy.
I commend the initial efforts by the Republican candidate, Len Britton. He decried the taking of Special Interests money in the months prior to the Primary. But pressure to do everything he can to win apparently caught up with him. According to the Burlington Free Press (8/24/10), “He (Britton) said rejecting PAC donations was ‘a political outsider’s mistake’.” Len, please return from the ‘dark side’ before it is too late and you are tainted and become a political insider.
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of Vermont’s major Party U.S. Senate candidates are typical of politicians nowadays so I’m not surprised. They think they NEED Special Interests money to win but it’s a WANT not a NEED. We have to stop giving them a pass and take back Congress. America’s middle class, democracy, economy, and future can’t wait. Nor can the planet frankly.
I remain committed to ethical values of a Vermont Political Revolution: term limits, no Special Interests money, and always putting Country ahead of Party.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
So, Wall Street is again thriving. Stock prices are bullish. Finance managers are cashing in on great salaries. Executive bonuses are flourishing. Sushi, imported wines, designer fashion, and BMWs are being bought. All in all, things are looking good again for the elite in our society.
But most Americans are not thriving. They don’t have expendable income to have invested in stocks in the first place or they already sold whatever they had at a loss just to pay the bills. Many are unemployed with no realistic prospect of a real job. Many of them have no health insurance. Most are having wages eroded, with lower wages per se, fewer hours, and/or lesser benefits. Those who have health insurance are finding higher deductibles and copayments. Their employers claim to ‘provide coverage’, but less and less is covered, in effect, lowering their wages.
Monthly bills for basic services pile up on the kitchen table. Each month, families decide which one not to pay that month. Even if they pay their bills, they do not save, precluding meaningful prospect of improving their lot. College education expenses are soaring such that many young adults simply give up and use their high school diploma for unskilled service jobs.
Our leaders could solve structural issues to help middle class Americans ‘pick themselves up by the boot straps’. So their pain is needless.
But no. Our leaders are not in any hurry. Why should they be? They are paid off by corporations and part of the quid pro quo of the campaign contributions is an expectation that they will turn a blind eye.
Senator Leahy is the second most senior member of the U.S. Senate. He could use his power to fight for the middle class. But no. He is content to throw a few crumbs to appease the masses even without meaningful reform. Currently, he has an opportunity to fight for middle class tax cuts. But to do that, he would have to fight to pay for them by removing tax loopholes for the rich. That would require angering the rich and powerful who fund his campaigns. So no. Won’t happen.
He had an opportunity to fight for national health insurance last year and earlier this year, a reform that would have significantly improved the economic plight of the middle class and provided them the career flexibility enjoyed by the rich. The stimulus to the economy of a national health care system would have enabled millions of jobs by increasing our businesses’ competitiveness. It would have been the best ‘jobs bill’ possible. That would have required angering the health-related companies that fund his campaign. So no. Didn’t happen. Incremental reform over a decade will have to suffice.
Hey there establishment. We’re coming after you. We are not going to take it anymore.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Monday, August 9th, 2010
Vermont had its so-called ‘debate’ between the two Democratic Primary candidates for the U.S. Senate. This is likely to be the only pre-primary ‘debate’ because the incumbent has refused to publicly debate. It was not a real ‘debate’ but it was a spirited ‘discussion’, highlighting key policy and political ethical principles differences between the incumbent and me. I was present in VPR’s Colchester studio; the Senator called in from Washington. In any case, VPR should be commended for its efforts.
What struck me most during the debate was how out of touch the Senator was. My criticisms of the Senator’s political ethics and voting record were not ‘negative’ as he stated but real. My critiques were substantive, not personal, and backed by the same passionate feeling the electorate feels – anger. The Senator probably doesn’t understand the depth of anger amongst Vermonters at the establishment, and its acceptance of hypocritical, conflicted, and incremental approaches to solving our problems. And Congress is in the crosshair. He said ‘that’s not how we do things in Vermont’ (paraphrased) but what he meant is ‘that’s not how establishment in Vermont likes to do things’… the elite doesn’t like challenge to the status quo or political power structure. But Vermonters know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes, recognize double speak, know when they are getting screwed, and clearly are fed up with the political establishment’s ‘sweeping under the rug’ of its legally corrupt ways of doing business.
I asked the Senator three issue-related questions but he evaded meaningful responses to any of them.
I asked why he won’t publicly debate before the primary. His response was that he will debate all of his challengers prior to the general election. But that was not the question although the tactic of diluting your primary challenger amongst a sea of challengers is obvious. The Primary election is just that, an election, not a reappointment. I understand that the election is a ‘pain in the neck’ for the Senator but he should suck it up, do the right thing, and support representative democracy whether he likes it or not. He clearly doesn’t like it and didn’t want to be there. It was a lost opportunity for him to lead by showing grandfatherly statesmanship for young voters.
I asked Senator Leahy why he didn’t support Senator Sanders’ single-payer amendment to the health care reform bill. He responded that Senator Sanders knows he supports him. But the reality is that Senator Leahy declined to co-sponsor Sanders’ bill. One can’t have it both ways. A forthright answer would have been that he doesn’t support single-payer reform, he believed it was unrealistic, or he was not willing to fight for it.
I asked Senator Leahy to explain why he thinks it is ok to accept special interests funding of his campaign and explain how he can objectively represent Vermonters when he partakes in that Washington game. He responded that such funding never affected his choices, and that contrary to the case for my campaign, he has lots of individual supporters in Vermont. Not to belabor the details but the Senator is smarter than that. As a lawyer, he knows that the true issue is deeper and more philosophical – whether elected officials should prioritize minimizing conflict of interest to the best of their ability or not. Period.
Tags: campaign finance reform, Daniel Freilich, Debate, Democratic Primary, Medicare for All, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, Special Interests, Universal health care insurance, US Senate candidate Daniel Freilich, Vermont, Vermont Democratic Party, Vermont Political Revolution
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Sunday, August 8th, 2010
We had our one and only so-called debate with Senator Leahy on Vermont Public Radio (VPR) on August 04, 2010. I was at the VPR studio in Colchester, VT, and the Senator called in from Washington. There was a spirited discussion but the Senator dodged answering any of the questions posed by me about: (1) special interests funds; (2) lack of support for single-payer health insurance; and (3) and refusal to publicly debate.
Links are below:
VPR debate: http://vpr.net/episode/49171/.
Public Access TV journalists review of VPR debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOpZ1mOzhmc.
WPTZ (NBC) summary: http://www.wptz.com/politics/24517378/detail.html.
VPR summary: http://vpr.net/news_detail/88592/.
Thanks for all, Dan F
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Saturday, April 17th, 2010
Vermont news outlets reported yesterday on funds raised to date by VT Senate candidates but they provided no information on the origins of the funds nor the political principles used to raise them.
According to OpenSecrets.Org, Senator Leahy has taken about $1.4 million in PAC funds during his career—64% from business, 17% from labor, and 19% from ideological/single issue PACs (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009918&type=I).
Just in this 2010 election cycle, Senator Leahy has taken more than $600,000 in PAC funds, including about $27,000 from Pharmaceuticals/Health Products companies with the following names: Amylin Pharm, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim Corp, Cephalon Inc, Generic Pharm Assn, GlaxoSmithKline, Life Techn Corp, Mylan Inc, Pharm Research and Manufacturers of America (PhaRMA), Teva Pharm USA, and Watson Pharm. The FEC website (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+S4VT00017) has Senator Leahy’s 2010 PAC funds at about $579,000. In addition to contributions by the Pharm/Health products companies listed above, Pfizer Inc is also listed. Many of the health care-related contributions were likely received during the course of deliberations about health care reform, potentially affecting his ability to objectively represent Vermonters without conflict of interest.
I am uncertain if the summaries are up to date and include the last quarter’s filing but one gets the idea.
In a recent Vermont Public Radio interview, Mr. Leahy appropriately lamented about the adverse effects on our democracy of the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision. The Court reversed years of precedent that disallowed companies and unions from funding advertisements in the last weeks prior to elections. The decision has opened flood gates for limitless corporate funding favoring or opposing any public policy during elections. However, Mr. Leahy’s stated vs. practiced campaign finance political principles are inconsistent. As he has been a player in the Washington game of corporate PAC financing of his campaigns for years, in principle, he clearly believes in corporate campaign financing. One cannot cherry pick political ethics; either one plays the game or one does not.
I advocate for a Vermont Political Revolution, whereby we Vermonters insist on optimal ethics from our elected officials (http://www.danielfreilich.com/political_revolution.php). What we really need is comprehensive campaign finance reform, but in the interim, we should insist on ‘personal responsibility’, whether required by law or not. If we want more personal responsibility in the general population, our leaders must set an example. Ethical standards for elected officials should be the same as those for non-elected officials.
As such, I believe in and will abide by the following political principles:
All significant potential conflicts of interest should be avoided. Vermont candidates and elected officials should NOT accept PAC and/or other Special Interest campaign funding. Where they have accepted such funding, they should recuse themselves from voting on relevant issues.
Congressional representatives should self-impose term limits to minimize patronage and potential for financial and other potential personal conflicts that go along with a life-long political career in Washington.
Finally, they should affirm to Vermonters that they will not automatically ‘caucus’ with their party and will always endeavor to understand what is best for America and Vermont and vote accordingly. They should not misplace their loyalty in favor of Party over Country and State.
Back to the point: I have not and will not accept any PAC or Special Interest funding; my campaign relies entirely on individual contributions.
I hope all VT candidates will commit to the same governance principles.
Posted in Announcements | 1 Comment »
Friday, April 9th, 2010
Hi everybody from Franklin County,
Grassroots campaigning in Franklin and Orleans Counties today. Lots of anger on both sides of the political spectrum about the recently passed health care bill, ‘pay raises’ for Congress, and special exclusions in the health care bill. As an aside, during recent campaigning at the Vermont Law School in South Royalton, a number of people commented that the Democratic leadership’s maintenance of the middleman (insurance companies) in the health care bill but deletion of the middleman in the ‘associated’ student loan bill (banks) appears ‘inconsistent’ (at best).
Also, lots of anger about ‘politicians being politicians’. The concept of ‘personal responsibility’ invoked in our campaign’s Vermont Political Revolution resonates with people from both parties…
A positive anecdote in politics for a change: Paul Beaudry had me on True North radio yesterday (a conservative talk show). He is apparently considering running for Congress. He and I expressed our respect for each other and our sides of the story despite policy differences of opinion and signed each other’s petition to get on the ballot. A caller called in amazed at the professional, cordial, and positive interaction between a Democratic candidate for the US Senate and a prospective conservative Republican candidate for Congress. We REALLY could use more of that. Respectful and honest discussion breeds more of just that.
BTW, please consider voting on Kevin Molduene’s (campaign manager) logo competition (see campaign website homepage).
Thanks, Dan F
PS Will try to blog more regularly.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
Senator Leahy visited FAHC today to publicize a $1.7 million earmark he secured for a new Simulator Training Program. However, despite the merits of this program, it would be preferable for Vermont’s congressional delegation to remember the bigger picture. Addressing easy pet projects at the expense of proactive leadership on the difficult elephants in the room is not leadership; it is management… bad management…and a classic rookie mistake.
Small projects like this one are all very nice but 15% of the population remains uninsured, millions more are under-insured, are at risk of losing their health insurance, or remain in nonproductive and thankless jobs simply to maintain their employer-based health insurance. As well, we spend twice as much on health care as almost all industrialized nations on the globe, amounting to 16-20% of our GDP. This cost is unsustainable, is bankrupting America, is causing a significant competitive disadvantage for our businesses and entrepreneurs, and is part of the root cause of our economic mess, budget deficit, and unemployment situation.
Lawmakers who are in touch, open-minded, objective, not conflicted by Special Interests contributions, and committed to figuring out the best way to address America’s health care, economy, and jobs maladies, would recognize that a national health insurance program (Medicare for All) would be the best medicine. This is the only type of reform that can concomitantly make America a better place (universal coverage, improved provider choice) and transformationally improve our economic competitiveness, national debt, and jobs situation (by saving HUNDREDS of BILLION dollars annually). Experts predict savings of $400 billion on administrative costs, $100 billion on drugs costs, and $45 billion on ‘uninsured’ costs. Tort reform could save an additional $50 billion annually. At the very least, lawmakers with these credentials would have co-sponsored Senator Sanders’ Single Payer Amendment last December to at least DISCUSS this promising solution publicly.
Being holed up in Washington for thirty five years would cause anyone to become out of touch and lose ability to feel the condition of most Americans. That would explain Senator Leahy’s prioritization of ‘competition’ as an important health care reform goal. ‘Competition’ should be construed a means to an end (a potential tool for improving health care), not an end onto itself. Its benefits not withstanding in other industries, competition has failed to achieve reasonable access and cost effectiveness for the public good, health care, in America. Thus, Senator Leahy would be wise to look outside the box, abandon ‘old school’ concepts, and be more evidence-based and courageous in his decisions. Almost all Vermonters I speak to are tired of policy decision making based on short-sighted political expectation and conflicts of interest rather than ‘best practice’ for America. Senator Leahy’s over staying of his welcome in Washington, may have nullified his biggest asset, experience.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Friday, February 26th, 2010
Yesterday’s bipartisan summit on health care reform was a breath of fresh air even if it didn’t accomplish much that is substantive. I didn’t see the whole meeting but I don’t think the Single-Payer option, the only form of reform likely to transformationally improve out health care system, received significant (or even any) discussion. Nevertheless, just the fact that Democrats and Republicans sat in a conference room and debated health care reform in a public and civil manner is a quite the accomplishment.
Talking about more substantive stuff, credit card reform went fully into effect this week too—a consequence of Congress having passed the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 — the Credit CARD Act.
The new act should provide some semblance of consumer protection:
The new law makes it more difficult for credit card companies to increase interest rates at will.
The new law makes credit card companies more clearly disclose real credit card costs.
The new law puts restrictions on credit card fees.
The new law requires grace periods so consumers can more easily pay their bills on time.
The new law requires cardholder permission for over-the-limit charging.
The new law requires a co-signer for those under 21 unless financially independent.
This is an accomplishment President Obama and Congressional leaders should be proud of!
Tags: Credit Card Act, Single payer health insurance, Single-payer health insurance system
Posted in Announcements, Health care reform | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
I had a challenging but fair WDEV radio interview today in Waterbury (by Traven Leshon). One caller asked whether Senator Leahy will agree to participate in Democratic Party debates. Others have asked this question during grassroots campaigning.
I don’t know the answer but the incumbent Senator is urged to commit to participating in Democratic Party debates prior to the Primary in September (or August).
The campaign will post more information as available.
Dan F
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
I will get right to the point.
I believe the public discussion about the merits of civilian trials vs. military tribunals is misplaced—depending on the case, both can meet tests for fairness and reasonableness.
Terrorists apprehended overseas in military operations are clearly ‘enemy combatants’. They should be afforded all the rights, and lack thereof, provided in the Geneva Convention. As such, they do not have a right to a trial and can be held until military hostilities have ended. That they belong to a non-government entity is a technicality that does not preclude treating them as per the Geneva Convention (Article 5).
On the other hand, terrorists apprehended during the course of terrorism events against civilians on American soil, as well as accused American citizens, might reasonably be regarded as ‘enemy combatants’ or criminals. As ‘enemy combatants’, I don’t believe they have a right to a trial according to the Geneva Convention. But in part because of the murkiness of their legal classification, the Supreme Court has afforded some a right to a trial. Thus, many will have to be tried. No worries. It may be to the American government’s advantage to try many of them because life and other severe punishments may ensue.
So, the question of the day is where to try them.
I believe that entities within both sides of the political spectrum have elevated this issue to a political level that can only be rationalized by acknowledging that their motive is service to their special interest rather than the country. The Left (e.g., ACLU) has advocated for personal rights for these terrorists commensurate with those afforded to everyday Americans who may have gone astray briefly in a singular criminal event. Their argument is almost without regard to national security concerns. The Right has argued that national security interests require that the trials be held by military commissions, almost without regard to objective data about the efficacy of the two legal systems for terrorist cases.
Thus, neither of these arguments is reasonable. Terrorists are not common criminals and their trials must be handled differently (e.g., Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980). And civilian courts can successfully try and convict terrorists, supporting national security interests. In fact, of the 200 or so terrorists brought to trial in civilian federal courts, over 90% have been convicted. In contrast, of the three military tribunals, only one has resulted in a conviction—likely to due to lack of clarity about the terrorists’ legal status and consequent trial procedures.
The Left and Right should at least agree that from a moral point of view, both civilian trials and military commissions may be reasonable. There is just so much political oxygen available and both sides are using it up at the expense of addressing other more important issues affecting Americans (e.g., health care reform, comprehensive energy legislation).
There are practicalities that must be considered. A practical advantage of having civilian trials is that the international community will regard these as more legitimate (whether this conclusion is evidence-based or not). Another potential advantage is that predicted conviction rates may actually be higher in the civilian legal system. However, the economic and other disruptive consequences of civilian trials must be taken into account. The currently planned trials have been purported to cost $200 million to $1 billion, depending on where they are held.
A moral imperative argued on behalf of holding the trials in civilian courts must be compared with other moral imperatives, such as fighting poverty, providing health care, and addressing environmental threats. For example, such expenditures could otherwise be used to provide health insurance for one year to 14,286 to 71,429 uninsured American families (assuming an average annual family premium of $14,000). These numbers are staggering and should not be ignored in deciding on where to hold the trials.
So, let us transfer the decision about how and where to hold the trials to professionals (the Attorney General, Mr. Holder) who can weigh case-by-case objective factors, including likelihood of a successful prosecution, cost, and security and other disruptive effects. For example, an extraordinarily expensive and disruptive trial held in Manhattan seems unreasonable. On the other hand, if the Attorney General determines that secure and reasonably cost-effective civilian trials can be held for some of the terrorists at the Stewart Air National Guard Base (Newburgh, NY) in NY’s Southern District (which has successfully prosecuted terrorist cases), this is reasonable. If this cannot be accomplished for some of the terrorists, holding military commissions for these is also reasonable.
Tags: Daniel Freilich, military commissions., terrorism, terrorism trials, U.S. Senate
Posted in Announcements | 2 Comments »
| 
