On Judges
If. as I believe, law is an essential foundation of democratic government, then the appointment of impartial and non-partisan judges is also essential. When we adopted the Constitution in 1789 we incorporated the British tradition of an impartial judiciary and the common law, importantly expanded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that courts had the last word in determining constitutional issues as well. That decision unavoidably involved the courts in resolving political issues and put a premium on a non-partisan approach. Deciding a dispute as to the meaning of a law or invoking a constitutional provision to invalidate an act of congress or the president is not a license to substitute one’s own views as to policy, but simply authority to determine what the words permit or require in a limited factual situation. A political problem does not require a partisan resolution although it may have a partisan result. The process is intended to yield an impartial and objective decision. The judicial function is simply to apply pre-exising legal rules to facts, not to dispense justice by any other standard.
The problem, of course, is that judges are human. Total objectivity is not possible. The best we can do is to create a process designed to limit what it is permissible to consider, require a reasoned decision disclosing its basis,, test that reasoning through appeals, and instill in judges a professional ethic which requires them to be as objective and impartial as possible. The actual or potential participation of several judges in the decision plus the constant pressure of peer review tends to flatten out partisan viewpoints, and judges are urther enjoined to avoid participation in matters where a present or past relationship could reasonably be thought to influence their view.
That system has worked pretty well over the years in giving the public confidence that disputes will be resolved in a fair and impartial manner. Public policy is for the public to determine through its elected represntatives, subject to the limits on political power set forth in the Constitution. If there are problems due to judges overstepping the bounds of their limited authority and “legislating” in a partisan manner, one would think the solution would be, to the extent possible, to make it even more objective and less partisan. I believe both parties are doing the opposite and their thoughtless rhetoric is weakening the courts and the rule of law.
Words such as “law” and “facts” convey an illusion of certainty to a process of decision that has uncertainties., One must accept – not exploit—the unavoidable fact that there are some disputes where how the langiage of a legal rule applies to a set of facts is not clear. In these cases different judges may see the facts differently as a result of their own life experience, or for similar reasons differ as to how the words of the legal rule apply to the perceived facts. Rules designed to fit typical recurring fact situations may be difficult to apply to new and unanticipated ones The broader the language of the rule, the more the potential uncertainty. We can and do employ techniques to narrow the area of uncertainty, but I see no way of eliminating it.
The public perceives the process as one in which there is a single “correct” decision in all, not just many or most, decisions. At the same time, they, like the judges but without the discipline of the legal process, may differ as what is the one single correct result. The perception of the single correct decision suggests that those who differ from the critic do so for improper reasons; bias, partiality, partisan views. To some extent the language employed by lawyers reinforces this perception: a decision is “reversed” because of “error”. Where the decision involves an issue on which there are strongly felt views of what is “right” or “just” or “fair”, the unhappy part of a divided public can easily be persuaded that the decision is the result of improper partisan views. In such cases judges, however conscientious they attempt to be and whichever result they support, are bound to be accused of impropriety. The Supreme Court, which gets the most difficult cases from which there is no appeal, is an obvious favorite target.
Attacks upon courts are particularly dangerous to our democratic government because they weaken public confidence in the rule of law, the integrity of judicial decision making. Suggesting that courts improperly legislate strikes at the heart of a government of laws. Of course courts make law incrementally; they cannot avoid doing so. Every decision whatever its result adds to the body of precedent which other judges will invoke in the future. In that sense law is always what the courts say it is.
If there are problems with the process then politicians should be trying to correct them. In my view the quite ridiculous rhetoric they employ serves only to destroy judicial credibility. Further, their efforts to improve the process only serve to make it worse, not better. By and large they see improvement as attempting to appoint judges who will decide cases which support their policy preferences – a process which, if successful, would serve to politicize the courts and increase the problems of which they complain. They do this under the guise of examining the competence of the judge. If he or she appears to support the political views of one party they are seen as competent by it and demonized as incompetent or biased by the other.
There is no reason why potential candidates for appointment to a court should be interviewed by lawyers in the Department of Justice or, even worse, by persons in the White House. There is nothing that can be determined in an interview about competency that cannot be better determined by other means. The message to the candidate and the public is that they are seeking his or her views as to potential decisions on difficult contemporary issues and that the appointment will depend on answers consistent with their political preferences. Put differently, the interviews are designed to assure the interviewers that the candidate, if appointed, will act in accordance with their policy preferences, not in an uncommitted and objective manner. Even If the candidate is not asked, or refuses to answer, questions about future decisions, the purpose remains the same and seeks to determine indirectly what cannot properly be asked directly. The process tells the public judging is political so let’s make sure it is our political views which prevail.
The process of interviewing and nominating candidates in this fashion encourages opposition in the subsequent public hearings where the other party tries to bring out political bias and asks questions which again tend to underline the political potential, particularly in Court of Appeals and Supreme Court nominations. The hearings thus suggest distrust for the fairness and objectivity of the judicial process. Further, rather than encourage impartiality and political neutrality in the cases which will come before the judges, it tends to license those qualities which politicians decry publicly and seek to enhance privately.
There has always been a political aspect to the nominating process because federal judgeships have been coveted by many lawyers. That is still true, although perhaps less so than in the past because the gap between judicial salaries and what prominent lawyers can earn has substantially increased. Nevertheless, there is no lack of qualified candidates. Suggestions as to whom the president should nominate come from elected officials of the President’s party, perhaps a questionable source for honest evaluation of their potential judicial credentials. For that reason, Eisenhower’s Attorney General, Herbert Brownell made arrangements with the American Bar Association to evaluate in strict confidence the judicial credentials of a candidate whose name was sublmitted to a special committee of the Association with a member in each judicial circuit. Because the appraisal was confidential the committee could get the candid views of both outstanding lawyers and judges of different political persuasions – persons who had a professional interest in the legal competence and character of the candidate. I use the word “character” to cover such factors as dedication to the process, personal courtesy to colleagues and lack of arrogance, and reputation for honesty and personal integrity. The system depended on the quality and dedication of the Committee members who were not permitted to suggest candidates themselves . It may not have been perfect; for example it had difficulty in the south prior to the civil rights revolution determining racial bias since most of the lawyers and judges in the reason shared it. But, on balance, it worked quite well.
This use of the ABA was abandoned by the Bush Administration on the ground that the ABA was too “liberal”, presumably because it found qualified judges whose politics were to the left of the Administration. Substituting he Administration’s judgment for that of the non-political ABA again suggested a desire to politicize the courts. I find it difficult to imagine a group more interested in appointing judges who are legally qualified, unbiased and committed to the legal process than lawyers. After all, lawyers are on both sides of litigated cases.
I do not mean to suggest that those lawyers who have liberal or conservative views on political issues may not see the legal rule or the relevant facts somewhat differently and this may affect their judicial decisions. I do believe that the legal process, as well as respect for their limited policy function and the views of their colleagues tends to mute those views. Further, judges are appointed for life and their views on the issues of the day tell us little about the issues of a decade hence or how a nominee would view rules or facts unknown today. Our best insurance against bad judging is the appointment of highly competent lawyers with personal and intellectual who are committed to the process and the limited policy function of judges.
Of course there are a few judges who, on occasion, fail to exercise the restraint which is essential to the judicial function. I happen to think there are more in recent years and I attribute this to efforts to seek candidates less for their competence and more for their political ideology. Ideologues make terrible judges, and the whole of the judicial process is designed to curb such personal convictions whatever their political merits in he public forum may be thought to be. Nor have Supreme Court Justices always been as constrained as their function requires or as unconstrained as some critics would have it. It is fruitless to attempt to predict how a judge may evolve over time as Presidents have sometimes discovered. Eisenhower was unhappy over his naming of Chief Justice Warren. Truman was surprised at Justice Jackson’s about face on the President’s seizure of the rail roads. Those who vigorously opposed Felix Frankfurter as too liberal must have been surprised at the conservative appoach he so often expressed as a Justice. Republicans must be somewhat surprised and politically embarrassed by the fact that the Court dominated by Republican appointees was the Court which decided Roe v. Wade in an opinion written by Justice Powell, a Republican appointee and former President of the ABA.
Sometimes the failure of Congress to act on an urgent public problem leads the Court to go further thanit would otherwise choose. Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are examples. Om the other hand decisions such as Miranda, which spelled out more rules than the case called for, or Bush v. Gore, which was unnecessary and stretched Equal Protection in new directions, appeared unfortunately political. Judicial restraint is particularly subject to question when it creates new constitutional rights rather than policing excesses of congressional or executive decision making. The practice is, and should be, to avoid constitutional questions whenever possible and to use judicial power to keep government open to the democratic process of decision making.
It is time politicians in both the executive and legislative branches stopped playing politics with judicial appoinments and concentrated on appointing judges who are competent and respectful of the judicial function in our society. Phony arguments about “judicial legislation” even in the rare case where the Court may overreach are destroying public confidence in a critical aspect of our democracy and an institution which, by and large, has worked well. The judicial function may not operate perfectly but that is scarcely a reason to make it worse.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Money and Politics
I chose the title with some care. “Reflections” is about all a person of my age has left, apart from the hope that they may cast some light on the future. The phrase “law-government” I have borrowed from a former law school colleague, Karl Llewellyn – one of the country’s great law school professors. It is intended to convey a government under law, where the governed through law have fashioned a voice in governing – what President Lincoln referred to as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. That requires not just free elections but law which binds both the governors and the governed.. Our freedom and our prosperity rest on our acceptance of law and our willingness to abide by rules which we may or may not like but which we know we the people have the power both to enact and to change.
We often refer to this acceptance as the “rule of law”. We load government and private organizations with lawyers whose job is to ensure compliance with the law by those who govern and those who are governed alike. When lawyers advise clients, whether government officials or private entities, of ways in which the legal rules can be twisted or evaded, they are not doing their job and are harming our political system. That does happen and it is worth discussion. Lawyers are important actors in our political system just as doctors are in our health system.
Fixing problems in our political system is fundamental to finding solutions to on-going problems such as employment, education, global warming, immigration, fiscal responsibility, and so forth. Today there are some warning signals of problems in our political system which we ignore at our peril. The politicization of law is one. The increasing influence of money is another. The changed role of political parties is a third. Then there is the inability of our elected representatives to adopt meaningful solutions to long term problems rather than simply advocating ineffective, quick, painless measures which actually make the problems more difficult to resolve. I don’t think most American voters enjoy being treated like fools, but there are politicians and commentators who disagree with me Slogans make amusing bumper stickers but rarely if ever resolve real problems.
I hope to discuss many of these problems but my immediate interest is suggesting ways in which we might remove existing obstacles to rational argument and intelligent progress toward making government more effective but no less democratic,.. We need to fix the system so that it can deal responsibly with new technology, problems of waste of natural resources, and what on the surface appears to be changing values. Change is and always has been the reason for new laws but our values have remained pretty constant The pursuit of ideals and shared values is always a series of approximations, successes coupled with failures, in the on-going search for unachievable perfection. We depend on our political system to make possible those changes which move us in the right direction, not as fast as some desire but faster than others wish.
My focus on trying to fix the system gains urgency from polls which show an alarming lack of confidence in our political institutions, especially congress. When congress fails to deal with problems that failure causes distortions in our democratic system. The President in frustration claims increased executive powers to meet actual or imagined emergencies. Courts adjust their political neutrality in efforts to find at least partial solutions in the broad language of the Constitution. Those can be dangerous developments, distorting our democracy. The Founding Fathers did not want a powerful President replacing a powerful monarch. They did not want judges who decided cases based on results rather than process. They were right. But making such a political system work requires a political ethic we seem to have lost sight of too much of the time. Government is not a game where one party wins and the other loses. It is a process through which many seek to resolve common problems in ways which seem reasonable even to those who would prefer a somewhat different solution. Compromise is a dirty word only to those ideologues who believe they alone are in possession of eternal truth. The rest of us spend our energy seeking together the best solution collective reason can produce.
Fixing our political system does not require huge change or Constitutional amendment. I am convinced that we, as a people, are not nearly as divided as our political parties and political issue groups make it appear. Indeed, I think most of us share common values and differ only in how best to realize them. It is reprehensible for politicians to play on distrust, or fear, or anxiety to divide us further, ignoring our common interests, in efforts to promote a particular, often selfish, solution rather than searching for one which depends on reason rather than rhetoric, It is time to come together and ignore the shouts and threats of the political extremes of left and right. That may not be as hard as it appears.
******
A workable starting point is to deal effectively with the influence of money in government. There is overwhelming public sentiment that money should not influence the formulation of public policy. But we tolerate a system which comes very close to permitting bribery in the form of campaign contributions and expensive political support in elections. Spending money to influence public policy in favor of special interests can be dangerous, and spending it to secure government favors promotes corruption. Free speech is essential to a free government when it takes place on a level playing field and is free from personal gain. But we cannot make it the monopoly of the rich and powerful. Other voices must be heard as well. Merit and money do not always go together, although, in fairness, they sometimes do.
The Supreme Court has made legislation regulating campaign money difficult but not impossible. It has made it clear that speech cannot be regulated by limiting the money used to implement it, recently going so far as to give organizations , including corporations, a. First Amendment right to spend funds in support of political speech. It is clear that it will not tolerate indirect limits on speech any more than direct ones. In that sense money talks when associated with speech; any regulation of speech is off limits.
It is not clear how far the Court will go on the other side of the equation. A majority obviously does not care about a level playing field but the Court has not yet held that congress cannot create one so long as it does not do so by curtailing or otherwise regulating speech. Public funding has not yet been prohibited by the Court although lower court decisions in Arizona and Connecticut have done so in slightly different contexts and may soon be heard on appeal by the Supreme Court. It is difficult to conceive a respectable rationale for the Court to find public funding without conditions a limitation on speech. The Arizona court found that it inhibited free speech because it “chilled” private financing of speech when the private party financing the speech knew its cost would be matched by public funds. But to say this, even assuming it to be true, is fatuous and reveals a strange view of free speech. Speech may be less politically effective if others are enabled to rebut its contentions or suggest better alternatives but that has nothing to do with regulating its content or its merit. The political effectiveness of speech should not be determined by the wealth of the speaker; he has the right to spend his money in support of his speech, or to determine it is not worth the expense.. If congress wishes to create a level playing field to promote speech, free of government control, by others irrespective of their political persuasion, no one is prevented from expressing his/ or her views or seeking to persuade others of their merits whatever the funding source.
In drafting such legislation Congress would have to be very careful not to curtail private funding in any way (most public funding proposals prohibit raising private money) and to be clear that the rules pertaining to public funding are totally neutral and non-partisan. I suggest that candidates be permitted to raise funds without limitation, but that after a specified amount the government will match all additional funds to the other candidate or candidates. Independent or third-party candidates should be eligible if they raise the funds required as well as whatever support is necessary for a place on the ballot. In addition, matching funds should be provided for third party support for a candidate as though directly contributed to the campaign. Congress should spell out in simple terms when such support qualifies; for example when a candidate is named or otherwise identified by promoting an issue on which there is disagreement among the candidates. Delays in providing matching funds should be avoided by eliminating any discretion in deciding when payment should be made and substituting heavy civil and/or criminal penalties on the candidate for any misstatements on applications. Such details are simple to draft; what is important is to keep them clear, neutral and rigorously non-partisan, avoiding all political temptations to tip the balance.
I would make such a law applicable to general elections only at this time. There are obvious problems with single issue groups and low voter turnout in primaries, but political parties should be able to cope with such problems and should e given he opportunity to do so.
Such a law would go a long way toward restoring a responsible and responsive congress. It would free members not only from dependence on funders in determining their votes but it would lessen the power of political parties to control members. Lessening that power of the parties would tend to reestablish the bipartisanship needed to have government from the center rather than the fringes of left and right who now often determine party positions on many issues. It would weaken, not destroy, party influence since members would still find it necessary to have an ideological home which is, by and large, consistent with their own beliefs and those of their constituents. It would, too, weaken the power of committee chairs, whose influence with committee members often is related to their ability to give and steer political contributions to their juniors. Obviously it would weaken the political influence of the rich to promote policies favoring the wealthy. It would help reduce political corruption.
Almost certainly the general public would support such legislation but it would have very powerful opposition from all who profit from the present system. It would be opposed by both political parties; by most single issue groups; by senior members of both houses of congress whose very seniority gives them access to money and the power that accompanies it; and obviously by lobbyists and all the special interests who depend on their influence and finance their activities. I suspect these formidable opponents would argue the costs of public financing and the dangers of government involvement. While I suspect there are many members on both sides of the aisle who are sick and tired of the financial burdens of money raising and concerned by the political influence of the rich and powerful, I doubt many would risk support of party leaders.
The issue is far too important to give up to the power of money. If President Obama were seek such a law it would have a chance of passage. He could neutralize his own political party and make it a popular issue in his campaign for reelection. It is consistent with views he has expressed and it could become an honest explanation for the failure of some important legislation. In addition, the huge amounts of private money which will be spent in this year’s congressional elections should provide a colorful background. By most contemporary standards the public costs of matching private funds are trivial. In any event, a simple tax would cover them; for example, a 1% tax on corporate revenues of more than 100 million dollars..
Getting the influence of money out of politics is not easy and would require real leadership. I think if the President took the issue on he would find he support he would need for legislation
We often refer to this acceptance as the “rule of law”. We load government and private organizations with lawyers whose job is to ensure compliance with the law by those who govern and those who are governed alike. When lawyers advise clients, whether government officials or private entities, of ways in which the legal rules can be twisted or evaded, they are not doing their job and are harming our political system. That does happen and it is worth discussion. Lawyers are important actors in our political system just as doctors are in our health system.
Fixing problems in our political system is fundamental to finding solutions to on-going problems such as employment, education, global warming, immigration, fiscal responsibility, and so forth. Today there are some warning signals of problems in our political system which we ignore at our peril. The politicization of law is one. The increasing influence of money is another. The changed role of political parties is a third. Then there is the inability of our elected representatives to adopt meaningful solutions to long term problems rather than simply advocating ineffective, quick, painless measures which actually make the problems more difficult to resolve. I don’t think most American voters enjoy being treated like fools, but there are politicians and commentators who disagree with me Slogans make amusing bumper stickers but rarely if ever resolve real problems.
I hope to discuss many of these problems but my immediate interest is suggesting ways in which we might remove existing obstacles to rational argument and intelligent progress toward making government more effective but no less democratic,.. We need to fix the system so that it can deal responsibly with new technology, problems of waste of natural resources, and what on the surface appears to be changing values. Change is and always has been the reason for new laws but our values have remained pretty constant The pursuit of ideals and shared values is always a series of approximations, successes coupled with failures, in the on-going search for unachievable perfection. We depend on our political system to make possible those changes which move us in the right direction, not as fast as some desire but faster than others wish.
My focus on trying to fix the system gains urgency from polls which show an alarming lack of confidence in our political institutions, especially congress. When congress fails to deal with problems that failure causes distortions in our democratic system. The President in frustration claims increased executive powers to meet actual or imagined emergencies. Courts adjust their political neutrality in efforts to find at least partial solutions in the broad language of the Constitution. Those can be dangerous developments, distorting our democracy. The Founding Fathers did not want a powerful President replacing a powerful monarch. They did not want judges who decided cases based on results rather than process. They were right. But making such a political system work requires a political ethic we seem to have lost sight of too much of the time. Government is not a game where one party wins and the other loses. It is a process through which many seek to resolve common problems in ways which seem reasonable even to those who would prefer a somewhat different solution. Compromise is a dirty word only to those ideologues who believe they alone are in possession of eternal truth. The rest of us spend our energy seeking together the best solution collective reason can produce.
Fixing our political system does not require huge change or Constitutional amendment. I am convinced that we, as a people, are not nearly as divided as our political parties and political issue groups make it appear. Indeed, I think most of us share common values and differ only in how best to realize them. It is reprehensible for politicians to play on distrust, or fear, or anxiety to divide us further, ignoring our common interests, in efforts to promote a particular, often selfish, solution rather than searching for one which depends on reason rather than rhetoric, It is time to come together and ignore the shouts and threats of the political extremes of left and right. That may not be as hard as it appears.
******
A workable starting point is to deal effectively with the influence of money in government. There is overwhelming public sentiment that money should not influence the formulation of public policy. But we tolerate a system which comes very close to permitting bribery in the form of campaign contributions and expensive political support in elections. Spending money to influence public policy in favor of special interests can be dangerous, and spending it to secure government favors promotes corruption. Free speech is essential to a free government when it takes place on a level playing field and is free from personal gain. But we cannot make it the monopoly of the rich and powerful. Other voices must be heard as well. Merit and money do not always go together, although, in fairness, they sometimes do.
The Supreme Court has made legislation regulating campaign money difficult but not impossible. It has made it clear that speech cannot be regulated by limiting the money used to implement it, recently going so far as to give organizations , including corporations, a. First Amendment right to spend funds in support of political speech. It is clear that it will not tolerate indirect limits on speech any more than direct ones. In that sense money talks when associated with speech; any regulation of speech is off limits.
It is not clear how far the Court will go on the other side of the equation. A majority obviously does not care about a level playing field but the Court has not yet held that congress cannot create one so long as it does not do so by curtailing or otherwise regulating speech. Public funding has not yet been prohibited by the Court although lower court decisions in Arizona and Connecticut have done so in slightly different contexts and may soon be heard on appeal by the Supreme Court. It is difficult to conceive a respectable rationale for the Court to find public funding without conditions a limitation on speech. The Arizona court found that it inhibited free speech because it “chilled” private financing of speech when the private party financing the speech knew its cost would be matched by public funds. But to say this, even assuming it to be true, is fatuous and reveals a strange view of free speech. Speech may be less politically effective if others are enabled to rebut its contentions or suggest better alternatives but that has nothing to do with regulating its content or its merit. The political effectiveness of speech should not be determined by the wealth of the speaker; he has the right to spend his money in support of his speech, or to determine it is not worth the expense.. If congress wishes to create a level playing field to promote speech, free of government control, by others irrespective of their political persuasion, no one is prevented from expressing his/ or her views or seeking to persuade others of their merits whatever the funding source.
In drafting such legislation Congress would have to be very careful not to curtail private funding in any way (most public funding proposals prohibit raising private money) and to be clear that the rules pertaining to public funding are totally neutral and non-partisan. I suggest that candidates be permitted to raise funds without limitation, but that after a specified amount the government will match all additional funds to the other candidate or candidates. Independent or third-party candidates should be eligible if they raise the funds required as well as whatever support is necessary for a place on the ballot. In addition, matching funds should be provided for third party support for a candidate as though directly contributed to the campaign. Congress should spell out in simple terms when such support qualifies; for example when a candidate is named or otherwise identified by promoting an issue on which there is disagreement among the candidates. Delays in providing matching funds should be avoided by eliminating any discretion in deciding when payment should be made and substituting heavy civil and/or criminal penalties on the candidate for any misstatements on applications. Such details are simple to draft; what is important is to keep them clear, neutral and rigorously non-partisan, avoiding all political temptations to tip the balance.
I would make such a law applicable to general elections only at this time. There are obvious problems with single issue groups and low voter turnout in primaries, but political parties should be able to cope with such problems and should e given he opportunity to do so.
Such a law would go a long way toward restoring a responsible and responsive congress. It would free members not only from dependence on funders in determining their votes but it would lessen the power of political parties to control members. Lessening that power of the parties would tend to reestablish the bipartisanship needed to have government from the center rather than the fringes of left and right who now often determine party positions on many issues. It would weaken, not destroy, party influence since members would still find it necessary to have an ideological home which is, by and large, consistent with their own beliefs and those of their constituents. It would, too, weaken the power of committee chairs, whose influence with committee members often is related to their ability to give and steer political contributions to their juniors. Obviously it would weaken the political influence of the rich to promote policies favoring the wealthy. It would help reduce political corruption.
Almost certainly the general public would support such legislation but it would have very powerful opposition from all who profit from the present system. It would be opposed by both political parties; by most single issue groups; by senior members of both houses of congress whose very seniority gives them access to money and the power that accompanies it; and obviously by lobbyists and all the special interests who depend on their influence and finance their activities. I suspect these formidable opponents would argue the costs of public financing and the dangers of government involvement. While I suspect there are many members on both sides of the aisle who are sick and tired of the financial burdens of money raising and concerned by the political influence of the rich and powerful, I doubt many would risk support of party leaders.
The issue is far too important to give up to the power of money. If President Obama were seek such a law it would have a chance of passage. He could neutralize his own political party and make it a popular issue in his campaign for reelection. It is consistent with views he has expressed and it could become an honest explanation for the failure of some important legislation. In addition, the huge amounts of private money which will be spent in this year’s congressional elections should provide a colorful background. By most contemporary standards the public costs of matching private funds are trivial. In any event, a simple tax would cover them; for example, a 1% tax on corporate revenues of more than 100 million dollars..
Getting the influence of money out of politics is not easy and would require real leadership. I think if the President took the issue on he would find he support he would need for legislation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)